Remembering the War and Aggression: A Discourse Analysis of Japan’s State Apologies and Commemoration Speeches on August 15th 1995-2015

Memories of historical injustices affect contemporary politics from local to global level. In East Asia, questions of commemoration and historical responsibility have turned into international and domestic controversies. The main focus has been and still is in apologies conducted by Japanese prime ministers in regards to the war, aggression and colonialism during the era of Imperial Japan. Although it is granted that state apologies are not a crucial part of reconciliation, they can be analysed as a linked but separate process within the context of memory and international relations. The purpose of this study is to examine the discourses of history in Japanese prime ministers’ commemoration speeches on Memorial Ceremony for the War Dead from 1995 to 2015 in order to analyse how the Japanese government is reflecting on its past. In particular, attention is paid on what is being commemorated and how, whether it is the war and its victims or Japan’s post-war era of peace. As an apology is a reciprocal activity, responses from Japan’s most vocal former victims, South Korea and China, were also examined. Discourse analysis was used to identify and examine the different representations of the past. In addition, the apology statements of Japanese prime ministers were analysed in the Many to Many apology framework developed by Tavuchis (1991). Primary material consisted of 21 prime ministers’ speeches from the annual Memorial Ceremony for the War Dead on August 15th and from three apology statements made in 1995, 2005 and 2015. Further international context was primarily collected from newspaper articles of The New York Times and The Times throughout the examined period. It can be concluded from the findings that in the official Japanese remembrance of the past war from 1985’s annexation of Taiwan to the atomic bombings in 1945, both discourses that reinforce apology and remorse over Japan’s past aggressions and discourses that consciously avoid doing so are used. The commemoration speeches and apology statements consistently assert that Japan has acknowledged its past and expresses regret over the acts of aggression. At the same time, the speeches and statements strengthen the narrative that Japan was a victim of circumstances as well as turn the focus on post-war peace-making or on Japan’s own victimhood.

Man O'War, le cheval qui a battu les records du monde : [photographie de presse] / [Agence Rol]

Référence bibliographique : Rol, 59717

The inadequate dominance of realism : an analysis of the U.S. war on terror /

There has been and will continue to be substantial debate over how the international system can best be characterized. The objective of this paper is to demonstrate that the international system can best be characterized by the essential features of realism, but the use of realist policy prescriptions are inadequate when applied independently to deal with the threat of terrorism as it exists today. In order to demonstrate this an examination of realism in the international system, U.S. foreign policy, and case analysis of Afghanistan and Iraq will be undertaken to demonstrate that although realist policy prescriptions do have a role in dealing with modem transnational security threats, these prescriptions on their own are inadequate when dealing with terrorism.

The Falkland Islands War of 1982: a legal, diplomatic and strategic evaluation

The Falkland Islands War of 1982 was fought over competing claims to sovereignty over a group of islands off the east coast of South America. The dispute was between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Argentina claims the islands under rights to Spanish succession, the fact that they lie off the Argentine coast line and that in 1833 Great Britain took the islands illegally and by force. The United Kingdom claims the islands primarily through prescription--the fact that they have governed the islands in a peaceful, continuous and public manner since 1833. The British also hold that the population living on the islands, roughly eighteen hundred British descendants, should be able to decide their own future. The United Kingdom also lays claim to the islands through rights of discovery and settlement, although this claim has always been challenged by Spain who until 1811 governed the islands. Both claims have legal support, and the final decision if there will ever be one is difficult to predict. Sadly today the ultimate test of sovereignty does not come through international law but remains in the idea that "He is sovereign who can defend his sovereignty." The years preceding the Argentine invasion of 1982 witnessed many diplomatic exchanges between The United Kingdom and Argentina over the future of the islands. During this time the British sent signals to Argentina that ii implied a decline in British resolve to hold the islands and demonstrated that military action did more to further the talks along than did actual negotiations. The Argentine military junta read these signals and decided that they could take the islands in a quick military invasion and that the United Kingdom would consider the act as a fait accompli and would not protest the invasion. The British in response to this claimed that they never signaled to Argentina that a military solution was acceptable to them and launched a Royal Navy task force to liberate the islands. Both governments responded to an international crisis with means that were designed both to resolve the international crisis and increase the domestic popularity of the government. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was facing an all-time low in popularity for post-War Prime Ministers while Argentine President General Galtieri needed to gain mass popular support so he could remain a viable President after he was scheduled to lose command of the army and a seat on the military junta that ran the country. The military war for the Falklands is indicative of the nature of modern warfare between Third World countries. It shows that the gap in military capabilities between Third and First World countries is narrowing significantly. Modern warfare between a First and Third World country is no longer a 'walk over' for the First World country.

An Address of members of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, to their constituents, on the subject of the war with Great Britain. --

Signed by George Sullivan and thirty-three other Federalist members.

Captain Lewis Warrington and others : memorial of Lewis Warrington, Captain in the U.S. Navy, (in behalf of himself and the officers and crew of the U.S. sloop-of-war Peacock); praying that the one half of the proceeds of the Epervier and goods which went into the officers and crew of said vessel, it having been decreed to them by the United States court as captors. April 26, 1848.--

Caption title.

The claim of Amasa Stetson, of Massachusetts, on the United States, for money advanced, in fulfilling the orders of the Government while discharging the duties of Commissary General of Purchases, in time of the late war with Great Britain ; and for services rendered. --

Claim relating to the War of 1812.

Fifth series of historical documents : [All relating to the War of 1812].

Published under the auspices of "The Literary and Historical Society of Quebec".

Important state papers : declaration of war, Washington, June 18, 4 o'clock, P.M.

Message to the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States / James Madison -- Report : the Committee on Foreign relations, to whom was referred the message of the President of the United States of the 1st of June, 1812 -- An Act, declaring war between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof, and the United States of America and their territories -- Address of the Senate to the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Letter from the acting Secretary of War, transmitting information relative to the claims of the State of Massachusetts for payment of the expenses of the militia ordered out by the executive authority of the state, during the late war. --

15th Congress, 1st session, 1817-1818, House. Doc. 81.