Last week, I received an interesting invitation from an online television station. They wanted me to discuss whether the Japanese government should “formally apologize” to China regarding the incident on March 24 in which a young active-duty Self-Defense Forces officer trespassed onto the grounds of the Chinese Embassy in Tokyo.

The program, Abema Prime, streams online every weekday night targeted at young viewers who don’t typically watch traditional television. They asked me to join a live debate with young liberal guests advocating that Japan should apologize. At first, I was unsure how to respond because I had mentally braced myself for an “away game,” meaning a hostile environment where I would be in the minority.

However, the overall tone of the program was more well-balanced than I had anticipated. Of the three guests including myself, two argued that “since active-duty Self-Defense Forces personnel were involved, the Japanese government should issue a formal apology; failing to do so would harm Japan’s national interests.” One was a 20-something person and the other was a liberal journalist, but the atmosphere was by no means hostile.

I countered by stating, “The current debate does not align with international standards,” as follows:

To begin with, the concept of “apology” in Japanese differs significantly from what an apology means outside of Japan. In Japanese, an apology carries the implication that one will be forgiven. However, in other languages, apologizing — or sometimes just saying “I’m sorry” — means acknowledging responsibility. It seems that Japanese people often struggle to understand this.

If you demand someone's apology, you are demanding that he or she takes responsibility. For the Japanese government to apologize implies that the state is taking responsibility. However, in this incident in Tokyo, although an active-duty SDF officer was involved, the act was not carried out under orders from the Japanese government. It was a crime committed solely based on the individual judgment of that person.

The state has no need to take responsibility for such a crime and no government in any country would do such a thing. In such cases, countries use the term “regret.” “Regret” is indeed a subtle expression. It conveys both the sense that such a Self-Defense Forces member did something foolish and reprehensible, and at the same time, a feeling of deep disappointment. It is an expression that seems like an apology but is not quite one — yet it could also be considered a form of apology. I believe the Japanese government’s use of the phrase “truly regrettable” in this case was a sensible decision.

Second, does this mean that a state never apologizes for acts of state sovereignty? While such instances are certainly rare, they are not entirely nonexistent. Looking back, the Japanese government issued the Murayama Statement in 1995 in which it expressed “heartfelt apology” for the colonial rule carried out by the Japanese government in the past.

Bearing this in mind, to demand that the Japanese government apologize to the Chinese government in this case as well would be misguided. In 1995, Japan was one of the first countries to formally express an apology regarding colonial rule. Following Japan, countries such as Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium have since apologized for their own colonial histories. I also understand, however, that the United Kingdom and France have not yet gone so far as to issue an “apology.” This constitutes the international standard regarding apologies.

Third, what significance do the actions taken by the SDF officer in this case hold from an individual perspective? Again, the Japanese government is not required to take responsibility for the acts of individuals. On the other hand, as a general principle, the Japanese government must protect diplomatic missions and diplomats within Japan since embassies are subject to protection under the Geneva Convention on Diplomatic Relations. In that regard, since there is no doubt that Japan failed to fully fulfill such obligations this time, I understand that the phrase “truly regrettable” was used.

Finally, what is the reason that Chinese media or some Japanese liberals demand an apology from the Japanese government? Regarding China in particular, I find it truly baffling. In 2005, when anti-Japanese demonstrations raged in China, crowds — including some students — threw stones at the Japanese Embassy, causing significant damage to its premises. In response, Tokyo lodged a strong protest and demanded a formal apology.

Even so, Beijing merely expressed regret. However, compared to the acts of the Self-Defense Forces personnel in this case, I believe the Chinese government’s actions at that time involved a far greater degree of official intervention than mere individual criminal acts. This is because such large-scale protest rallies in China would never occur in the first place without the government’s approval or tacit consent.

I do not believe Abema Prime’s two “apology camp” guests were convinced by my explanation. In real-time online comments, there were even harsh remarks — likely directed at me — stating that “the caliber of guests on Abema Prime has declined.” However, overall, both the young hosts and other commentators in the studio maintained a balanced perspective. Today’s younger generations in Japan seem to be more realistic and conservative than I had anticipated.

Once again, my recent Abema Prime experience keenly reminded me that “old media” is insufficient for understanding contemporary Japanese society and that the gap between it and the mindset of the younger generations is quite significant.

© The Japan Times