中國日報社論評安倍談話:巧言令色無助亞洲和解

演講措辭狡黠，文字遊戲令人印象深刻。對於日本首相安倍晉三有關日本在二戰中不光彩歷史的最新聲明，我們只能做出如此評價。

他似乎沒有偏離1995年時任首相村山富市的基準。但是在那場歷史性的演講裡出現的關鍵詞彙比如「侵略」、「殖民統治」、「懺悔」和「道歉」，在安倍的此次演講裡卻是似有若無。

對很多聽眾來說，他提出的「衷心感謝」對那些對日本寬容並幫助它回歸國際社會的人來說可能是一個意外的收穫，正如他承諾「正視歷史」。這也就是為什麼有人得出結論說，安倍此次講話已經超過了預期，一場東亞危機由此有驚無險，值得慶賀。

但是對日本有警惕之心的鄰國來說，安倍應該繼承村山談話，這不僅僅是對他歷史認真的試金石，而更是一個底線要求。

一旦這個底線被打破，日本與鄰國中國和韓國不斷惡化的關係將無法修復，至少在安倍任期內希望渺茫。

安倍知道接下來會出現什麼局面。所以他一邊挑釁鄰國，一邊拋出橄欖枝，要求舉行首腦會議。因為對村山談話的背棄，顯然他不會得到一個明確的答覆。

安倍巧妙嫁接村山講話的部分措詞，似乎足以讓他的批評者們沉默。但是不要被迷惑了，安倍並沒有代表自己表示歉意。他只是闡述了一個明顯的事實，那就是此前的日本內閣曾多次表示「衷心的歉意」。

不要天真地認為東亞緊張局勢將就此消失。安倍沒有越過紅線，是因為他知道最糟糕局面的可怕後果，他必須避免這種狀況。安倍在來自國內外的巨大輿論壓力下被迫做了表態，但他言不由衷。

與日本政客打交道要注意他們的修辭，這也是為什麼安倍談話中是否包括了那些關鍵詞至關重要。但日本政客擅於玩文字遊戲，這就意味著要聽其言，更要觀其行。從安倍過去的所做作為可以看出，他不吝於做出有關睦鄰友好的承諾，但是他卻常常言行不一。

安倍和他的幕僚一直糾結於是否延續村山談話，直到最後關頭執政黨才就最終稿的一些表述方式達成共識；安倍力圖避免將日本發動的戰爭表述為「侵略」，在提到日本的殖民統治和慰安婦問題時模凌兩可，這些統統說明了安倍政府對村山談話的「繼承」完全是虛情假意。

而且安倍談話和村山談話基調完全不同。與之前首相真誠的語氣形成鮮明對比，安倍迫切掩蓋歷史的意圖昭然若揭。因此，儘管眼前的危機暫時度過，東亞仍將在漫長的歷史陰影中尋找出路。

Crafty rhetoric, insincere politics

A very cleverly worded speech. An impressive play of the words. That's about everything we could say about Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's latest statement on his country's unseemly record in World War II.

Abe didn't seem to deviate much from the well-received benchmark statement in 1995 by then Japanese prime minister Tomiichi Murayama. And the key points of that historic speech, including "aggression", "colonial rule", "remorse" and "apology", did find their way into his speech, though with abundant ambiguity.

For many in his audience, his expression of "heartfelt gratitude" to those who have been tolerant of his country and helped it return to the international community might be an unexpected bonus - not unlike his pledge to "squarely face the history of the past". That could be why some believe Abe has delivered more than what had been anticipated, given the discrepancies among its versions in different languages.

That East Asia just got around a potentially explosive occasion that could have escalated tensions is itself something to celebrate. For Japan's vigilant neighbors, however, whether or not Abe included the salient points of the Murayama Statement in his speech is not just a touchstone to gauge his attitude toward history, but the bottom line as well. Once that line is crossed, Japan's deteriorating ties with neighboring China and the Republic of Korea will slide past a point of no return, at least during Abe's term in office.

Abe knows what will come next. So, even after provoking neighboring countries no end, he waved olive branches at them requesting meetings at the highest level. He is yet to get one, precisely because of his betrayal of the Murayama Statement's spirit.

By incorporating the key expressions of that milestone statement, Abe may effectively silence some of his critics, whose latest demand was that his statement include the core Murayama expressions.

But make no mistake, he didn't present an apology of his own. He merely stated the obvious truth that earlier Japanese cabinets had expressed "heartfelt" apologies for the atrocities committed by imperial Japan.

It would be naive to think the tensions paralyzing East Asia will thus be gone. That Abe didn't cross the Rubicon, at best, means he was aware of the dire consequences of doing so and avoided it. And, that tremendous public pressure from home and abroad forced him to squeeze those words into his speech doesn't mean he actually meant it.

Rhetoric counts when dealing with Japanese politicians, for whom whether or not the Abe statement includes those key words makes a difference. Japanese politicians' infamous tradition of "slip of the tongue", however, makes it even more important to see how they act.

Abe's track record belies his claims of commitment to peace and good neighborly relations. That Abe and his advisers had reportedly struggled over whether or not to include Murayama's expressions, that the ruling parties had not agreed on the exact use of the expressions in the final transcript until the very last moment, that Abe managed to avoid directly referring to Japan's war as one of aggression and some of the perished Japanese as war criminals, and that his words became evasive when it came to Japan's colonial rule and the "comfort women" issue all betrayed a sense of reluctance.

Needless to say, reading between the lines of the Murayama Statement and Abe's speech even a casual reader can feel the difference in tones. In contrast to Murayama's sincerity, Abe seemed eager to shut out the past, though its sophisticated wording did hit the sentimental sweet spot at some points. But that will not be possible until Abe acts sincerely to achieve real reconciliation.

Therefore, even after weathering an otherwise imminent crisis, East Asia will continue to struggle in the long shadow of history.

本文原文見於8月15日《中國日報》第5版，可點擊「閱讀原文」查看。