During his year-long stint as prime minister in 2006-2007, Abe was known for his nationalist rhetoric and advocacy for more muscular positions on defense and security matters. Some of Abe’s positions—such as changing the interpretation of Japan’s pacifist constitution to allow for Japanese participation in collective self-defense—were largely welcomed by U.S. officials eager to advance military cooperation. Other statements, however, suggest that Abe embraces a revisionist view of Japanese history that rejects the narrative of imperial Japanese aggression and victimization of other Asians. He has been associated with groups arguing that Japan has been unjustly criticized for its behavior as a colonial and wartime power. Among the positions advocated by these groups, such as Nippon Kaigi Kyokai, are that Japan should be applauded for liberating much of East Asia from Western colonial powers, that the 1946-1948 Tokyo War Crimes tribunals were illegitimate, and that the killings by Imperial Japanese troops during the 1937 “Nanjing massacre” were exaggerated or fabricated.
Japan-U.S. Relations: Issues for Congress
by Emma Chanlett-Avery, William H. Cooper, Mark E. Manyin and Ian E. Rinehart
(2014)
Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report
http://mansfieldfdn.org/mfdn2011/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/USJ.Feb14.RL33436.pdf
Abe’s December 2013 visit to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine despite quiet discouragement from American officials demonstrates qualities of the leader that complicate bilateral relations. China and South Korea, in particular, were offended by the visit because the shrine houses the spirits of several Class A war criminals from World War II along with those of Japanese who died in war. The Prime Minister’s visit further damaged already poor relations with Seoul and Beijing. In addition to exacerbating regional tensions, the fact that Abe chose to ignore U.S. advice with the surprise visit may have breached a degree of trust between the capitals. There is also the danger that Abe’s views on history could clash with Americans’ conception of the U.S. role in World War II and the subsequent occupation of Japan. To many U.S. observers, Abe brings both positive and negative qualities to the alliance, at once bolstering it but also renewing historical animosities that could disturb the regional security environment.
During his year-long stint as prime minister in 2006-2007, Abe was known for his nationalist rhetoric and advocacy for more muscular positions on defense and security matters. Some of Abe’s positions—such as changing the interpretation of Japan’s pacifist constitution to allow for Japanese participation in collective self-defense—were largely welcomed by U.S. officials eager to advance military cooperation. Other statements, however, suggest that Abe embraces a revisionist view of Japanese history that rejects the narrative of imperial Japanese aggression and victimization of other Asians. He has been associated with groups arguing that Japan has been unjustly criticized for its behavior as a colonial and wartime power. Among the positions advocated by these groups, such as Nippon Kaigi Kyokai, are that Japan should be applauded for liberating much of East Asia from Western colonial powers, that the 1946-1948 Tokyo War Crimes tribunals were illegitimate, and that the killings by Imperial Japanese troops during the 1937 “Nanjing massacre” were exaggerated or fabricated.
Historical issues have long colored Japan’s relationships with its neighbors, particularly China and South Korea, which argue that the Japanese government has neither sufficiently atoned for nor adequately compensated them for Japan’s occupation and belligerence in the early 20th Century. Abe’s selections for his Cabinet include a number of politicians well-known for advocating nationalist, and in some cases ultra-nationalist views that many argue appear to glorify Imperial Japan’s actions. Many analysts say that Abe’s strengthened political position could lead him and/or his Cabinet Members to take steps or make statements about history that inflame regional relations, actions which could disrupt regional trade integration, threaten security cooperation among U.S. allies, and further disturb already tense relations with China.