The author is director of the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and head of the Chinese team on the China-Japan joint history study

It is only natural that scholars from different countries hold varying or even conflicting views on historical issues. However, the joint history study program between Chinese and Japanese historians aimed at smoothing over sharp differences on historical issues has caught the world's eye since its first session was convened in Beijing last December.

China-Japan relations hit a rough patch largely because of the historical issues. As the two try to mend their ties, their leaders agreed to launch the program to jointly study these issues. What is the nature of these issues? Why have they affected bilateral relations so seriously?

A troubled past

As is well known, China and Japan have a long history of bilateral relations. For most of the time, the two neighbors enjoyed peaceful and friendly ties. Trouble did not befall them until modern times. In the mid-19th century, East Asian nations, including China and Japan, were forced to open their doors under the military and political pressure of Western colonial powers. They all risked being colonized by the West. Japan was the first to get rid of this risk. However, it treated other East Asian countries the way it had been treated by the colonialists, turning Korea into its colony and launching brutal aggression against China. These moves cast a dark shadow over the history of East Asia.

It has been over six decades since World War II ended in 1945. Had the war been clearly defined as a war of aggression, and had Japan accepted the just trials of its war crimes, taken responsibility for the war and learned the historical lesson that it should pursue peaceful development, no major contentions would have broken out between China and Japan and between South Korea and Japan over their wartime history.

Some people in Japan asserted that the "history issue" was purposely created by China. Others argued that wartime history had not become a problem in China-Japan relations until 1998. However, a review of postwar Japanese history renders these arguments invalid.

After Japan surrendered, anti-fascist countries tried Japan's war crimes in international tribunals. In an effort to return to the international community, Japan stated in the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 that it accepted the judgments of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and other allied war crimes courts both within and outside Japan.

In the Sino-Japanese Joint Statement issued in 1972 to normalize bilateral relations, Japan made the announcement that it was "keenly conscious of the responsibility for the serious damage that Japan caused in the past to the Chinese people through war, and deeply reproaches itself." This position was later reaffirmed in the Sino-Japanese Treaty of Peace and Friendship (1978) and the Sino-Japanese Joint Declaration (1998). It was also echoed by Japanese Emperor Akihito when he visited China in 1992.

Despite these reiterations, extreme nationalism has made a comeback in Japan since the beginning of the Cold War. Attempts were continuously made to rewrite Japan's wartime history by redefining the invasion of its neighbors as "self-defense" and "a war of Asian national liberation."

Japan rose to become the world's second largest economic power only next to the United States in the mid-1980s. Politicians anxious to make Japan a major political power believed that the war crimes trials constituted a stumbling block in their endeavor. So, they argued that it was wrong to hold Japan accountable for the aggressive war, and the "glory of the nation" should be underscored in history studies to imbue the Japanese with a sense of pride.

In this political context, some Japanese politicians set about whitewashing Japan's wartime conduct. For example, in 1986, then Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Masayuki Fujio told reporters that the annexation of Japan and Korea was an agreement between the two countries and Korea was also responsible for that. Then Director General of the National Land Agency Seisuke Okuno said in 1998 that Japan fought to protect itself at a time when the white race had turned Asia into a colony, denying that Japan had been the aggressor in the war fought between 1937 and 1945.

Since the 1990s, more politicians have joined their ranks, fueling the trend to rewrite Japanese wartime history. The Association for the Advancement of an Unbiased View of History, in particular, vowed to seek a new view of history, a view that is different from those established under the influence of the U.S. occupiers and the Soviet Union.

While standing firmly against blaming Japan for war crimes, the association does all it can to whitewash the atrocities committed by Japanese aggressors. It launched a nationwide campaign to remove the topic of "comfort women," or sex slaves for the Japanese military during World War II, from history textbooks. It also published articles denying the Nanjing Massacre, biochemical warfare and the exploitation of Chinese laborers.

At the end of 1996, it established an editorial committee to work on a new history textbook. In 2001, the history textbook was published with the approval of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. As it was rarely used in Japanese schools, the editorial committee came up with a revised version in 2005. These moves triggered widespread concerns in East Asia about Japan's evaluation of wartime history.

Japanese politicians' visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, which honors Class A war criminals along with other Japanese war dead, have also long been a point of contention. Given the special status of the shrine, it is easy to understand the political consequences of the formal visits paid by Japanese politicians, especially the prime minister.

It should be admitted that the issue concerning Japan's evaluation of history has been haunting China and Japan and East Asia at large since the end of World War II. Attempts to shun responsibility for its aggression and deny historical facts have persisted in Japan. These irresponsible acts not only run counter to the common interests of China and Japan but also hurt the feelings of the Chinese people. As a result, the two countries have yet to resolve their differences over historical issues, which have adversely affected the development of bilateral relations.

Out of the impasse

There is no denying that China and Japan have done a lot to resolve their differences over historical issues. The efforts of the two countries' politicians culminated in the adoption of a series of landmark political documents such as the Sino-Japanese Joint Statement, Sino-Japanese Treaty of Peace and Friendship and Sino-Japanese Joint Declaration.

Then Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama issued an apology statement on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II on August 5, 1995. It stated, "During a certain period in the not too distant past, Japan, following a mistaken national policy, advanced along the road to war, only to ensnare the Japanese people in a fateful crisis, and, through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly to those of Asian nations. In the hope that no such mistake be made in the future, I regard, in a spirit of humility, these irrefutable facts of history, and express here once again my feelings of deep remorse and state my heartfelt apology. Allow me also to express my feelings of profound mourning for all victims, both at home and abroad, of that history."

The Murayama statement is taken as an explicit expression of the Japanese Government's view of wartime history. Despite their different political backgrounds, successive Japanese prime ministers, including current Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, have upheld this position. While showing concerns over the controversial shrine visits, we should bear in mind that most Japanese are peace-loving, whereas those who attempt to revive militarism only represent a small fraction of Japanese society.

In Japan, different social strata and political blocs have diverse evaluations of history. While conservatives who refuse to take responsibility for the war still maintain a foothold, progressives who call for reflection and apology are becoming more assertive. Among these progressives, understanding of Japan's responsibility also varies.

Left-wing political parties, represented by the Japanese Communist Party, have staged a left-leaning mass movement, with the belief that the state and the leaders of the war headed by the Japanese emperor should be held politically accountable. The Japanese Communist Party is the only political party in Japan that stayed clear of the war.

Liberal-minded intellectuals are also active in reflecting upon Japan's responsibility for waging the aggressive war. Intellectuals who celebrate democracy, in particular, have voiced strong condemnation of the leaders of the state and the military who they believe are directly responsible for launching and expanding the war.

Thanks to the intellectuals' unremitting efforts, remarkable changes have taken place in Japan's history education. In the 1970s, as they condemned the United States for its involvement in the Viet Nam War, the Japanese younger generation was awakened to the aggressive and vicious nature of the war Japan waged against China. An opinion poll at the time showed that over half of the respondents believed the war was aggressive, whereas only some 10 percent of the people surveyed answered that it was defensive. History textbooks with a correct or largely correct evaluation of history became the mainstream.

Regarding the "history issue," two tendencies coexist in Japan. Some people face up to history, while others deny history. Sometimes Japan offers an apology; at other times it attempts to whitewash history of the invasion. Given this inconsistency, China and Japan face the common tasks of sustaining their peaceful and friendly relations, resisting any moves that jeopardize relations and honoring the principles enshrined in their basic political documents. Scholars of the two countries are obliged to do their part by carrying out the joint history study.