Of course, Japan’s evasion of adequate international justice and failure to make proper restitution to its victims is not unique.  An examination of the actions of both Allied and Axis countries both during and after the second world war, as well as the oppressive measures taken by colonial powers globally, reveals that not only was the twentieth century marked with widespread war crimes by countries as diverse as France, the Netherlands, Great Britain, and the United States (and the more typically vilified Germany, Italy, and Soviet Union) but also that in the majority of cases, the offenders either justified or rejected allegations of wrongdoing, and guilty parties remained unpunished.  However, Japan is in a somewhat unique position in that it has benefited greatly from postwar reparations itself.  Following the inexcusable obliteration of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the United States helped rebuild the country’s infrastructure, albeit with the cost of restricting Japan’s degree of independence from American coercion.  

This position as a recipient of aid affords Japan an opportunity that it chooses to routinely squander.  The Japanese could take a leadership role in promoting conscientious global citizenship and distance themselves from other nations’ shameful evasions and dismal human rights histories by formally apologizing in a manner suitable to victims’ wishes (and not solely Japan’s own), and by resolving, without the spur of legal action, prodding, or force, to implement a compensation strategy that would be acceptable to recipients and once and for all place old war crimes in the past.  To courageously renounce the international tradition of disgraceful self-preservation that the rest of the world espouses and to stand on the side of justice might usher in a new era of disclosure and global commitment to humane principles.  Viewed from an interpersonal perspective, if an individual violates the law and, when confronted, attempts to hide and lie about his actions to avoid punishment, any moral system would condemn him as a villain and a coward.  By contrast, if such a person, regardless of his transgressions, confesses his crimes, exhibits genuine remorse, and accepts the consequences of his misdeeds, he regains at least a portion of his integrity.  

Unless a country explicitly acknowledges its human rights abuses as unlawful and rejects such actions clearly and emphatically without equivocation, the message left unspoken, expressed intentionally or unintentionally, is that such a nation privately grants itself the right to justify similar behavior in the future.  Until a country can submit its behavior to the same justice that that state would wish for itself and abide by the penalties deemed necessary, its relationships will suffer from mistrust, residual bitterness from injured parties, and an eroded level of international respect.  The United States has yet to learn this lesson, while Japan, though familiar with it, continues to ignore it.  The consequences of not squarely addressing inhumane treatment matters is to risk appearing, directly or indirectly through rationalization, to condone such criminal behavior, and to perpetuate brutal and barbaric practices internationally by failing to promote justice as a prerequisite of civilized society, even when that justice balances its scales against one’s own country.  

Since the United States is the country with perhaps the most influence on Japan, strategies involving the U.S. may seem more viable to reach survivors’ goals, although America’s current lack of credibility with regard to questions of human rights may subvert our country’s efficacy in engaging Japans’ sympathies.  Nevertheless, should tactics of negotiation not prove effective, America’s clout in the world market and leverage in the U.N. might prove useful tools where moral example fails.  It should be noted that the U.S. itself also entered into a treaty in 1951 that absolved the Japanese of war reparations, thus not guaranteeing success for those wishing to utilize the U.S. justice system.  Immediate legal solutions notwithstanding, perhaps the single best method of causing Japan to reevaluate its position is to adopt the most potent weapon wielded by the postwar Jewish population—to engage the public imagination through the arts, and specifically film.  The sheer volume of material on the Nazi Holocaust has ensured that the words and images depicting its tragedies will forever burn into the public’s memory.    To date there have been only three films depicting the dramatic events of the Rape of Nanking, each project meeting with mixed results, and all of them released primarily to Chinese audiences.  The power of film is that, when done well, it most viscerally and instantaneously fuses ideas with raw emotions, and transforms cold facts into images that reach people’s hearts—and it is from the human heart and its compassion, its outrage, its sorrow, that people can be moved to act toward positive change.  

One thing is certain: to gain harmony in Asia will require more concessions from Japan for its war crimes than simply rhetorical assurances.  The actions of Japanese higher courts have continually undermined the sentiments expressed by passing administrations.  To apologize without offering assistance is an empty gesture.  Unless Japan looks forward to being dogged by decades-old disgraces, to being greeted with misgivings by its neighbors, and to having its goals thwarted into perpetuity by the begrudging descendants of its uncompensated victims, its offerings of peace and good faith must be as visible and real today as its reign of carnage was seventy years ago within the walls of Nanking.