I'm not 100% certain but it would seem that the 1972 joint communique would have contemplated an official apology. In so far as that would be the case, China is probably calling the bluff on Abe's theatrics about history revision and amending the language of the official apology and saying "if you (Abe) thinks you can unilaterally go back on you government's undertaking under the 1972 communique without consequences, well, it works both ways." Just my take on it.
-20 ( +6 / -26 )
"He said he refrained from answering to the question if Japan invaded Korea, for definition of invasion is not clear. First, your quote is incorrect in that Korea is replaced by Asia. Second, the usual definition of invasion is to occupy an area by military force. If you apply that definition to the situation in Korea in 1910, since there was no war, since there was no military occupation of Korea and since the unification of Korea and Japan was done by an agreement, it is not an invasion. I think it was a good call that he refrained from answering that loaded question."
How complicated does the meaning of invasion need to be? It is quite disturbing to witness here that denial is not only perpetuated by the LDP government but also by a section of the common people.
-2 ( +2 / -4 )