Another item buried in the New York Times Asia/Pacific World news section caught my eye today.

An Indian judge named Radhabinod Pal is being honored more and more by the Japanese government and the Japanese press. Judge Pal was one of 11 presiding judges in the Tokyo Trials after World War II. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, its official title, prosecuted war crimes of the Japanese military and government.

The Tribunal classified crimes in three categories:

1. Class C: Crimes against humanity. Torture, slavery, murder.
   

2. Class B: Conventional war crimes. Violations of the Geneva Conventions, or the improper treatment of civilians and prisoners of war.
   

3. Class A: Crimes against peace. Basically waging a war of aggression, or in violation of laws and treaties.
   

Twenty-eight top Japanese officials were accused of Class A crimes, the most serious charge. Judge Pal was the sole dissenting judge with the rest voting to convict. In the intervening years, Judge Pal has been showered with memorials, tributes and lately, honored by the Japanese government.

This a perfect example of the types of differences that make it difficult for us to negotiate, empathize and deal with foreign cultures. The US is essentially an extension of Europe, so we better understand the cultural imperatives of Germany, Austria and Italy that shaped their decisions about war. The Germans have been contrite, teaching children about their build-ups to the wars. (At least, the second time around.) They are rooting out war criminals even to this day. A war fund of $6 billion was set up to compensate the 1.6 million people or their heirs that were presumed to have been forced laborers. They seem sorry.

The Japanese on the other hand didn't see what they were accused of as bad things. Necessarily. Invasions of Korea and China are seen as liberations of their existing empire. Although their government seems to understand the outrage the West would feel if they said this outright, they have absolutely no problem implying it. (Shades of Microsoft.)

Here is an actual statement from Mitsubishi, a company that is accused of having profited from forced labor during the war.

1. “Although countless wars have continued since the dawn of recorded history,
   

   these have been judged by future generations that arrived at a common historical
   

   understanding. Evaluation of the major war in question will also be left up to
   

   future generations. The debate continues today,” Mitsubishi said. “This [courtroom]
   

   is not the place to judge whether it was a war of invasion or not.”

   
   

The way I read this is: "We're not saying we did it; we're not saying we didn't. Someday someone might prove it and even then we still might not admit anything." Sort of a bass-ackwards nolo contendere plea, except without the implied admission of guilt. Evidently 60 years hasn't been enough time to decide for sure.

Judge Pal was a fellow Asian. He thought that the Japanese were being unfairly punished for what he referred to as wars of self-defense and liberation. While not denying the atrocities were committed, Pal thought they were crimes covered under Classes B and C. He even went so far as to say that US officials were the real war criminals for dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

So the Japanese honor Pal for standing up against the tribunal. Are we to take this as a tacit Japanese denial of wrongdoing? I don't think so. The Japanese have always been more about honor and pride than guilt or confession. It's as if they were saying "Okay, we did it. We understand why it bothers you, but get over it. We have." No apologies, no compensation.

The lack of an apology may offend our sensibilities, but that in and of itself isn't the important thing. Why don't we feel worse about the 350,000 victims of our atom bombs? Because we feel justified in having done it? Were our motives more pure? What if bombs wiped out two of our cities? The Japanese feel the same way about their war-time actions.

We need to think differently if we are to effectively deal with countries like Iran. Clearly, whatever we've been doing isn't working. Those who do not learn from their mistakes...