LONDON - A China-led row at the U.N. Security Council in 1995 over Japan's atonement for World War II and Beijing's subsequent concession following Japan's release of a landmark apology statement have been disclosed by newly released files at the National Archives in London.
Documents showed that on the eve of Aug. 15, 1995, China was pushing to include the word "aggression" in the text of a proposed U.N. Security Council chair's statement marking the 50th anniversary of the end of the war in the Asia-Pacific.
The statement ended up with no mention of aggression and called for peace and a tribute to those who sacrificed their lives during the war.
According to the unclassified diplomatic documents, China wanted to change "a devastating war" to a "devastating war of aggression." The latter expression indicates the war was illegal under international law and implies potential liability.
A memo from Stephen Gomersall, then Britain's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations and later ambassador to Japan, recalled that the council was "a little stunned at this last minute substantive change, clearly pointing the finger at the Japanese."
John Weston, Britain's U.N. permanent representative, intervened, arguing "not everything in WWII could be characterized as aggression" and urging "something more forward looking."
Chinese Ambassador to the United Nations Qin Huasun responded by changing his amendment to a "war unleashed by aggression."
Qin argued the council could not use similar language to a May 1995 chair's statement marking the 50th anniversary of Nazi Germany's surrender that ended the war in Europe, because Germany had "clearly apologized, while many Japanese continued to deny their responsibility."
The May statement did not use accusatory language towards Germany.
Concerned about the situation, Britain alerted the Japanese mission about the discussion, even though Japan was not a member of the U.N. Security Council at that time.
But the tide changed on Aug. 15, when then Japanese Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama -- the country's first socialist prime minister in nearly half a century -- issued a statement expressing his "deep remorse" and "heartfelt apology" for "the tremendous damage and suffering" inflicted by its colonial rule and aggression in Asia.
Britain insisted that Murayama's statement answered China's concerns, an argument which other council members, and eventually the United States, also supported. But China would not back down, according to Gomersall's accounts.
After further discussion, China softened its stance after the council got Japan to agree to the Indonesian presidency's proposal to circulate Murayama's statement as a document of the Security Council, alongside the council's statement.
The chair's statement issued on Aug. 15 referred to "a devastating war that shattered the lives of tens of millions of people" in the Asia-Pacific region.
Although a non-binding document, unlike a U.N. Security Council resolution, a chair's statement that included the word "aggression" could still have delivered a diplomatic blow to Japan at that time.
Gomersall's note said Britain decided to back Japan because of the "fair certainty that the Chinese amendment, behind its emotional origins, would also have been aimed at complicating Japan's campaign for a permanent Security Council seat."
The diplomat also pointed out the "very odd performance" of Japan, which "did not even seem to be aware of the timetable for discussion of the statement," while speculating that it may have been "a strategic decision to keep a low profile and live with the outcome."
He also said another "notable feature" was the unwillingness of the U.S. mission to get dragged into the argument, citing the fact that the reason given was "a simple desire not to use up capital for the Japanese when there were so many other U.S./China problems around."
