뉴스레터

Editor's Note: Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's recent remark claiming that the definition of aggression could differ from country to country is an attempt to downplay or whitewash the history of Japan's aggression in the neighboring countries. It is also an example that Japan's conservative swing is becoming increasingly blatant. In this special report, Abe's remark will be analyzed and criticized with focus on the definition of what constitutes 'aggression' under international law.

The Background of Shinzo Abe's Remark on the Definition of Aggression

On April 24, 2013, the Deputy Prime Minister and 168 Diet members of Japan visited Yasukuni Shrine, the symbol of the revival of Japanese militarism. This visit was extremely exceptionable for both its timing and what it signified; it showed that Japan was not genuinely contrite for its past of aggression, and undermined the efforts of South Korea and Japan to forge a forward-looking relationship by resolving historical issues between the two nations. It prompted South Korea and China to postpone official dialogue with Japan, and drew fire from the South Korean government and parliament. The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, among other major U.S. press, also condemned Abe's remark for denying Japan's history of aggression and Japan's politicians for their extreme shifts to the right. One of these newspapers wrote in the opinion on April 27th, "Who launched the World War II? We believe that the answer to this question has long been clear, as no doubt just as the Earth moves around the sun" and "only Abe presents a new interpretation." In other words, Japan's recent move is not only facing backlash from the neighboring nations but also failing to win support from the international community.

Nevertheless, Shinzo Abe has made it clear that he is determined to "revise the Murayama Statement in which Japan made an official apology for Japan's colonial rule and war of aggression." His controversial remarks made at the upper house budget committee on April 23, such as "The definition of what constitutes aggression has yet to be established in academia or in the international community" and "Things that happened between nations will look differently depending on which side you view them from," distorted Japan's history even further. Moreover, the Japanese government celebrated the 'Restoration of Sovereignty Day' on April 28th, and in the ceremony Abe shouted "Hail to the Emperor" three times. When the South Korean parliament adopted a resolution critical of this move, the Japanese government spokesman Suga Yoshihide responded by saying: "There is nothing wrong with showing respect and honor to those who laid down their lives for their country. We will go on explaining our real intention through diplomatic channels from a larger point of view."

The Definition of Aggression under International Law

Abe said that the "definition of aggression" has yet to be established, and asserted that the definition may vary depending on scholar, without presenting any legal evidence to support his assertion. But his remark is a distortion of the truths about the definition of aggression under international law. The UN General Assembly "Special Committee on the Definition of Aggression" drafted the definition of aggression over a 7-year period from 1967, and it was adopted by unanimous consensus on April 12, 1974. And then the same committee prepared the resolution of the 'Definition of aggression,' and it was adopted by unanimous consensus at the 29th UN General Assembly (General Assembly No. 3314, XXIX) on December 14, 1974. The Japanese government was also among those participants in favor of this resolution. The 1974 'Definition of Aggression' resolution consists of the preamble and eight articles. The definition is divided into general definition and enumerative definition. According to the 'general definition,' "Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition." (Article 1)." And the enumerative definition includes "the invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;" and seven other acts that qualify as an act of aggression. These acts are not exhaustive and the Security Council may determine that other acts constitute aggression under the provisions of the Charter (Article 4).

Abe's Distortion of the "Definition of Aggression" and its Implications

Abe's remark distorting the "definition of aggression" raises concerns for a number of reasons. First, it denies the illicit nature of the colonial rule and the war of aggression committed by Japan in the past. The military court of Tokyo found all the 25 Japanese guilty of the war crime committed during the World War II. And the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution to support this decision. Therefore, denying the war of aggression, as did Abe's remark, is equivalent to denying the UN system whose primary goal is to maintain peace and security in the world. Japan and Germany are still labeled as enemy states under Articles 53 and 146 of the Charter of the United Nations. Second, Abe's distortion of "the definition of aggression" indicates that he has no intention of acknowledging the official apologies of former Prime Ministers, including the one made in 1995 by Murayama Tomiichi, for the war of aggression and colonial rule. This is a retrogression of history and the declaration of a serious war of history in East Asia. Third, Abe's distortion of "the definition of aggression" ultimately has a political motive: it seems to be the first step toward amending Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan in order to enable Japan to exercise the right of collective self-defense. In other words, he is determined to revive militarism and shift to the right to make Japan become like the colonial ruler that it once was.

The Constitution of Japan provides under Article 96 that "amending the constitution requires consensus from no less than two-thirds of both house members, and a majority vote in a referendum." Having already won two-thirds of lower-house seats, the ruling party of Japan would need to win two-thirds of upper-house seats in the upcoming elections in July. Then they could revise the provision governing constitutional amendments so that consensus from a majority instead of two-thirds of both house members would be required. This would make it easier to amend the constitution. Abe is enjoying a soaring approval rating at 80 percent thanks to the rising Nikkei index and other Abenomics effects, but he should remember that a majority of the Japanese people are very wary of the amendment of Article 9 of their county's constitution.

Our Response

The 'definition of aggression' established by unanimous consensus at the UN General Assembly in 1974 has been long accepted by the international law and the international community. And this definition was used at the International Criminal Court (ICC) Review Conference in June 2010 as the basis of adopting the definition of the crime of aggression and the act of aggression. Therefore, Abe's remark on the 'definition of aggression' ignores the international rules and the UN system. Apparently, it is a testament to Japan's accelerating shift to the right. In the past, the Japanese politicians' controversial remarks that disregarded international rules were sporadic and disorganized, and so was our response. But Abe's recent remark appears to be part of a very calculated plan. This calls for an organized plan for our response. In the best scenario, Japan's political leaders would face their country's history, accept its legal responsibility for the war of aggression and colonial rule, and do what they could as a nation to pay for it. Unfortunately, however, this is an extremely unlikely scenario. Japan wouldn't do it on their own. We need to pressure the Japanese government, primarily through concerted efforts by the governments and peoples of the victim countries, and secondarily by appealing to the international community including the United States. In other words, it is necessary to help the United Nations and the international community press the Japanese government by letting them know exactly about Japan's denial of history and other deeds that threaten peace. It would be more effective if it led to a boycott against products of Japan. Finally, the peace NGOs of East Asia need to forge a systematic alliance with the conscientious force for peace in Japan to help such force take root in Japanese society as a peace force that criticizes and keeps in check the Japanese government's anachronistic policy that attempts to reverse history.