Few Americans are angry at Japan. Among other considerations: we were adequately avenged.

For those that don’t know, the Yasukuni Shrine has been a source of friction between Japan and their Asian neighbors, most notably Korea and China, in recent years.

South Korea and China are the loudest, but the Australians also raise a stink. Rather than single out those countries, one might ask why the US is so relatively silent on this. I guess Japan is lucky only a handful of Americans are aware of Yasukuni.

Yasukuni enshrines the names of approximately 2.5 million Japanese who died during the Meiji era of Japanese history. Interestingly enough, something you won’t hear too many Koreans talk about, is that over 21,000 Koreans who fought for the Japanese Imperial military during World War II are also enshrined in Yasukuni.

Not too many Koreans talk about it, perhaps, but they certainly do know about it. The Korean media has shed a lot of light in the 2000s on the involuntary enshrining of Koreans at Yasukuni. That’s certainly where I learned about it.

Think of it in the spirit of the Vietnam War Memorial, but instead of a wall a Shinto shrine is used. Korea and China believe the shrine should not include Japanese war criminals from World War II and Japan thinks otherwise.

I think this is an oversimplification, if for no other reason than “Japan” is not a singular entity. In fact, a great many Japanese do not agree with the visits, and a lot think it was wrong to enshrine the worst class-A war criminals, the architects of the brutal war that killed millions (the so-called Yasukuni-14.

Doing so was purely a political decision — made secretly by the shrine keepers and not revealed until well after the fact — in support of Japan’s far right and in complete denial of Japan’s responsibility for the egregious brutality it inflicted on East Asians and their liberators. That it was done in the 1970s and not the 1940s is very telling in that (a) it was not necessary to do from a Shinto standpoint and (b) it was opposed by many people, including the Imperial Family who since the enshrinement have not visited the shrine.

So it’s not some innocuous place, by design, the right wing has made it a litmus test for the believers in a Japan that was right to have invaded and brutally occupied its neighbors and should rise again. I wrote about this a few years ago:

It is they who have corrupted Yasukuni. If they in turn say that kami cannot be disenshrined, then it is they who have effectively destroyed Yasukuni and what it stands for. They have two choices: disenshrine the Yasukuni-14, something they say they cannot do, or not have enshrined them in the first place, something they plotted to do. By taking a symbol of peace and turning it into a far-right, historically revisionist mecca, they themselves have destroyed the shrine as a place for the nation’s leaders to come and honor the nation’s dead. Many Japanese leaders recognize this, including the Imperial Family and most prime ministers since 1979, when it was revealed to the public that the Yasukuni-14 were enshrined.

More from OP:

By interpreting history the way the Yushukan museum does, it keeps alive the perception that the Imperial Japanese of World War II is still what represents Japanese policy in regards to its Asian neighbors today. This perception is what allows the political demagogues in Korea and China to use anti-Japanese sentiment to deflect attention away from their own political short comings.

I don’t think it’s fair to bash Korea or even China in this regard. It suggests that if they didn’t have this then they would just have something else. But we have seen, four years later with the leftist administration in power in Tokyo, that Yasukuni essentially disappears as an issue when major political figures don’t visit. In other words, it’s Japan and its leaders who are in control of these issues occurring or not.

Both Russia and France are SUPPORTING Japan's seat in the security council.

Russia can have feel-good story for the bilateral relationship without dealing with territorial issues.

France simply want more countries in security council to conter Washington's influence.

Both want to have good relation with Germany,India and Brazil which all are taking more distance from Washington than Tokyo.

I'm not a supporter for Tokyo's bit though.

It is important to remember that Yasukuni is not owned by the Japanese government and has not been since the occupation.

Re Tom's comment. The Atomic bombs saved American lives…..and they kept the Russians out of Japan. A lot of Japanese don't realize how much Japan would have been hurt had the Soviets invaded Hokkaido and Northern Honshu…………

They lost momentum for a few reasons: one was opposition from African nations, which were mounting their own campaign to get African representation among the permanent members, and one was strong opposition from the current permanent membership. I think that based on all of this, most people have been well aware that the UNSC is most concerned with maintaining the veto power for the big five that now have it and granting it to nobody else.

A magazine I work on put out a special issue dealing with all these issues a couple years ago: http://www.japanecho.co.jp/sum/2005/b32sp.html
Check it out if you're interested.

See you around on the interwebs. Added you to my RSS feed list!

However, by eliminating the history dispute and other issues with its neighbors this eliminates any political cover that a country like China would have when they do veto any attempt to add Japan. As it stands now China could veto Japan and make a strong case why Japan should not be included based on the Yasukuni issue and people would probably buy it.

However, if the history dispute and other issues like the stupid Dokdo issue is solved the veto appears a whole lot more hollow and done purely for political purposes.

Then Japan should start its own political offensive by backing countries like Brazil and India to join the Security Council with them and if they continue to be denied this will ultimately dillute the power of the Security Council because it will appear that the council is more concerned about keeping its own power and advancing its own interests (which it is) instead of being a body representative of the world's best interests. If Japan can't get into the Security Council which according to population, military, and economic might says it should then at the very least they should work to dillude what remaining power the council still has.