Official Japanese Government Statement – Asia Policy Point
What Constitutes An “Official” Governmental Statement In Japan
With Special Reference to Apologies for Comfort Women
Asia Policy Point
April 2007
A definitive, official government statement must fit one of four conditions:
1) a bill passed by the Diet. The Prime Minister, representing the Cabinet, submits a bill to the Diet (art 72), which becomes a law upon passage by both Lower and Upper Houses (art 59) and the signature of the competent Minister of State and the countersignature by the Prime Minister (art 49);
2) a statement by a cabinet minister in a full session of the Diet;
3) a statement by a prime minister in an official communiqué while on an overseas visit;
4) a statement ratified by the Cabinet, known as a cabinet decision, kakugi kettei.
In reality none of the first three examples of official statements are possible without a cabinet decision. A cabinet decision is the definitive expression of official government policy in Japan.
Thus far, in regard to the Comfort Women, none of these conditions have been met.
The Prime Minister & the Cabinet
An apology by a Japanese prime minister (or any cabinet minister) is an individual's opinion. An apology is not official whether the prime minister says it in a form letter (such as in the few letters to individual Comfort Women who accepted monies from the private Asian Women’s Fund) or in answer to a question during a committee meeting (as what provoked an apology to the Comfort Women by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on March 26th).
Article 65 of the Japanese Constitution states: “Executive power shall be vested in the Cabinet.” Neither the prime minister nor any individual cabinet minister is the chief executive of Japan. Although the powers of the prime minister are increasing, a prime minister can rarely act on an important matter of State such as the extension a State apology, without the authority of the Cabinet. That the few apology letters by the prime ministers to Comfort Women are written in the first person further indicates that the letters are personal and not regarded as official government statements of apology. Moreover, these letters say “in cooperation with the Government of Japan” as opposed to the more official “on behalf of.”
A Statement by a Cabinet minister in a Diet session is subject to an important procedural qualification. Such a Statement is considered an official policy only if it is unchallenged. If the government did not have this default option the Cabinet would get bogged down in handing down kakugi kettei for every response to every question in every committee meeting. For an issue as important as an apology, however, a Diet member likely would immediately challenge the minister’s response, triggering the process toward either a kakugi kettei or a vote in the Diet.
Kono Statement
The “Kono Statement” is not an official apology. On August 4, 1993, then Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono (a minister in the Cabinet, part press spokesman, part chief of staff) issued a Statement (danwa) reporting on the results of an investigation of the veracity of the Comfort Women’s claims. It resembled in nearly every word a Statement with the same purpose issued barely a year before (7/6/92) by then-Chief Cabinet Secretary Koichi Kato.
The Kono Statement was not approved by the Cabinet and can be interpreted as open ended. It concludes with a hint that the Government will continue to study the issue (“continue to pay full attention to this matter, including private research related thereto”). Even Kono, working with a relatively sympathetic, departing cabinet could not issue a definitive Statement. Thus, the Statement is subject to revision and interpretation.
The current Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s Cabinet is fully aware of importance of this point. On March 16,it took the special step of issuing CabinetDecision (kakugi kettei) acknowledging that the Kono Statement was itself never subject to a Cabinet Decision. Moreover, the March 16 Decision revises the Kono Statement by stating no direct evidence had been discovered of Japan's military authorities or government officials being involved in forcing women into sex slavery.This most recent government action that could have risen to the level of an official apology is one that essentially rejects an apology and asserts – contrary to fact – that there is no evidence of women forced into prostitution for the Japanese military. It qualifies, not strengthens the Kono Danwa.
To be sure, Chief Cabinet Secretary (CCS) statements (danwa) can be interpreted as being “official” in the sense that the CCS is the Cabinet’s spokesman, the member of the Cabinet charged with explaining to the public the positions of the government. However, the March 16, 2007 Cabinet Decision overruled any argument that a CCS Statement is “official” in the sense of having the force of law. The Murayama Statement (discussed below) has more authority than the Kono Statement not only because it was a Prime Minister’s Statement (a Prime Minister can verbally overrule a statement by the CCS) but because the Murayama Statement was first approved by the whole cabinet as a kakugi kettei.
War Commenoration Statements
The 1995 and 2005 Diet Statements (it is technically incorrect to refer to them as “apologies,” as explained below) makenomention of Comfort Women. It is inappropriate to associate these Diet Statements with any apologies directed toward the Comfort Women or other specific historical issues. Furthermore, the 1995 and 2005 Diet Statements were and are very controversial Statements, expressing overall regret for the Greater East Asian War on the 50th and 60th anniversaries of war’s end.
The 1995 Diet Statement does not use the word apology (owabi). It only expresses hansei (self-reflection, remorse). It does, however, contain the admission for the first time that the war was one of aggression.
The House of Councillors (the Upper House) rejected the 1995 Statement. The House of Representatives (Lower House) passed the Statement but with the approval of fewer than half of the House’s members.
The 2005 Diet Statement commemorating the war’s end eliminates the reference to aggression but otherwise repeats the 1995 Statement. Added is a reference to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The 1995 Diet Statement was backed up by a Statement by then-Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama. His Statement did make use of the word apology (owabi). Murayama insisted that his Statement be approved by the Cabinet, and he threatened to resign if it were not.
The 1995 Murayama Statement remains the only Japanese Cabinet-approved Statement using the term “apology.” There is, however, no specific reference to the Comfort Women is this Statement.
Conclusion
Expressions of remorse and sympathy extended to the Comfort Women thus far have been equivocal: designed to mislead receptive foreign audiences and reassure reactionaryJapanese political forces. The meaning of the apologies is thus left to be determined by the listener more than the speaker.The apologies have featured heartfelt expressions of remorse and sympathy from the highest governmental authorities but have, through semantics and government inaction, been prevented from ever achieving actual legal standing or the emotional closure asked for by the surviving Comfort Women.
For questions, Please contact
Asia Policy Point
2000 P Street, NW, Suite 620
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 822-6040, (202) 822-6044
1