Torun International Studies 2022, No. 1 (15), pp. 77–91 Published online June, 2022 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/TIS.2022.005 * University of Lodz (Poland), e-mail: karol.zakowski@uni.lodz.pl ** University of Lodz (Poland), e-mail: sylwia.lagnowska@uni.lodz.pl Karol Żakowski* ORCID: 0000-0003-2715-570X Sylwia Łagnowska** ORCID: 0000-0001-5854-2513 SYMBOLS MAT TER: IMPERIAL DIPLOMACY IN POSTWAR JAPAN ABSTRACT This article analyzes the significance of imperial diplomacy in postwar Japan. While the em- peror performed many formal duties, he played only a  symbolic role in decision-making process and was usually separated from politics. Nevertheless, the symbolic importance of the emperor was periodically used by politicians to promote friendly relations with other countries. The main aim of the article is to examine to what extent Japanese decision-mak- ers took advantage of the emperor in diplomacy through drafting his speeches, arranging his appointments with foreign statespersons, and planning his visits abroad to realize their own foreign policy goals. Relying on institutional and legal analysis as well as short case studies, the authors argue that while the emperor was used in foreign policy, the reverence towards the emperor made such initiatives particularly controversial. The article tries to fill the gap in research on imperial diplomacy, which has been dominated by biographical studies on in- dividual emperors. Keywords: Japan, emperor, diplomacy, foreign policy 1. INTRODUCTION The emperor has been considered a passive player in the Japanese political system. Under the 1946 Constitution, his role was limited to strictly ceremonial practices, such as greeting for- DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/TIS.2022.005 ORCID: 0000-0003-2715-570X ORCID: 0000-0001-5854-2513 Karol Żakowski, Sylwia Łagnowska78 eign guests or sending cordial letters to the heads of other countries. The emperor’s political neutrality was guarded both by Japanese bureaucrats and by public opinion which critically evaluated any attempts at taking political advantage of the emperor’s duties. In many aspects, the Japanese imperial diplomacy was similar to the involvement of other monarchs in diplomacy. As indicated by Young (2008, pp. 178–179) in his analysis of Brit- ish foreign policy, unlike summits, state visits by monarchs did not generate the necessity of signing any significant agreements, but still provided “convenient cover for political talks held away from the public gaze.” Due to the exceptional separation of the Japanese emperor from politics, however, it was far more difficult to take political advantage of him than of other monarchs. Taking into account the strictly symbolic position of the Japanese emperor, it is not sur- prising that imperial diplomacy has been rarely researched. Most of scholars have focused on biographical studies on individual emperors. Hata (2007, pp. 181–235) emphasized that Emperor Hirohito’s role in foreign policy exceeded merely symbolic functions under the un- usual situation of American occupation. Large (1992, pp. 184–185), in turn, stressed that Hirohito was constrained in his initiative to apologize for the war of aggression by the Impe- rial Household Agency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA). Similarly, Togo (2010, pp. 281–285) underscored a crucial role of politicians in preparing Akihito’s visits abroad. While offering partial insight into the imperial diplomacy, none of the abovementioned stud- ies comprehensively examined the emperor’s role in foreign policy. This article argues that despite the theoretical separation of the emperor from political matters, the emperor was politically exploited in diplomacy both by the Japanese government and by foreign countries. On the one hand, Tokyo occasionally used the emperor’s speeches, meetings with foreign dignitaries, and visits abroad to promote different initiatives in foreign policy. On the other hand, foreign governments took advantage of the symbolic significance of the emperor not only to promote friendly relations with Japan, but also to put pressure on Tokyo regarding such delicate matters as history problems. 2. METHODOLOGY Institutional and legal analysis as well as qualitative and quantitative examination of the em- peror’s contacts with foreign dignitaries are the main research methods employed in this ar- ticle. Emphasis is placed not only on the official position of the emperor, which stems from the Constitution and the Imperial House Law, but also on the informal rules of the emperor’s involvement in diplomacy. While quantitative analysis is instrumental in tracing the evolu- tion of the number of imperial state visits abroad, greater attention is paid to the qualitative examination of selected visits. In particular, the international, procedural, ideological, politi- cal, and personal factors that either encouraged or inhibited imperial diplomacy are analyzed under the administrations of different prime ministers. Such short case studies help to trace the political interests behind the emperor’s involvement in diplomacy. This article is composed of three sections. The first section describes the competences of the emperor according to the Japanese Constitution and the practices established after the end of the Second World War. In this light, the second section analyzes both formal and in- formal rules of the emperor’s involvement in diplomacy. The last section examines the em- peror’s visits abroad as the most significant aspect of his role in promotion of Japan’s interests Symbols Matter: Imperial Diplomacy in Postwar Japan 79 on the international scene. It is argued that as symbols matter in international relations, im- perial diplomacy never was really politically neutral. 3. THE POSITION OF THE EMPEROR IN JAPAN’S CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM The Imperial House Law in its current form was fully developed shortly after the Second World War. War nationalism and the emperor’s strong cult, established in the Meiji era, be- came the main reason why the ruler was deprived of his right to rule the state after Japan’s sur- render. Moreover, the historical determinants are important to understand why it has been al- most impossible to introduce any changes to the Imperial House Law in the postwar period. The cult of the emperor, which was instilled in the entire nation by the decrees, official letters, and the native religion of Shinto, made many Japanese refuse to give up even in the face of inevitable defeat. Surrendering would mean breaking an order, which would amount to a loss of honor. Therefore, after the war, it became evident to the Allies that imperial au- thority could not remain under the previous form. Even before Japan’s occupation by Ameri- can forces, discussion took place about whether to abolish the emperor’s institution or not. Eventually, it was decided that a ruler who would lose his influence and help make the neces- sary changes to the political system would be of greater use (Henshall, 2011, p. 193). On Jan- uary 1, 1946, the emperor announced his humanitarian declaration (ningen sengen), in which he renounced the status of a living god, although the “divine” lineage was preserved. On May 3, 1947, two documents that became the imperial system’s foundation came into force: Ja- pan’s Constitution (Nihonkoku Kenpō) and the Imperial House Law (Kōshitsu Tenpan). Already in the Preamble to the Constitution, we can see a shift of the center of power from the emperor to the Japanese nation: “We, the Japanese people, acting through our duly elected representatives in the National Diet, […] do proclaim that sovereign power resides with the people and do firmly establish this Constitution” (Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, 1946). As in the previous Constitution, Chapter I was entirely devoted to the in- stitution of the ruler, but this time its role was significantly limited. In Article 1, it was em- phasized that the emperor’s role was not to rule the state and that he retained his position as a result of the nation’s decision, not a divine bestowal: “The Emperor shall be the symbol of the State and of the unity of the People, deriving his position from the will of the people with whom resides sovereign power” (Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, 1946). Ar- ticles 3 and 4, in turn, defined the scope of his political power: “The advice and approval of the Cabinet shall be required for all acts of the Emperor in matters of state, and the Cabinet shall be responsible therefor” (Article 3); “The Emperor shall perform only such acts in mat- ters of state as are provided for in this Constitution and he shall not have powers related to government” (Article 4) (Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, 1946). According to this provision, all functions of the emperor in the government, such as appointment of the prime minister (appointed by the Japanese Diet), promulgation of laws and regulations of the gov- ernment, administration of parliamentary elections, awarding of decorations, and reception of ambassadors, were purely representative. The emperor did not have the power that would allow him to engage in even the slightest political activity. Everything the emperor did was controlled and decided by the Japanese government (Piegzik, 2015, pp. 179–198). Karol Żakowski, Sylwia Łagnowska80 The legal act regulating the emperor’s and his family’s life was the Imperial House Law. The imperial throne could be inherited only by male heirs in the order established in Article 2 of that law. The possibility of the emperor’s abdication was excluded – the ruler remained in office from the moment he entered the throne until his death. Article 12 stipulated: “In case a female of the Imperial Family marries a person other than the Emperor or the mem- bers of the Imperial Family, she shall lose the status of the Imperial Family member” (Impe- rial Household Agency, 1947). In practice, this meant that an imperial family woman who married a man from outside her own family lost her status and all claims of her children to the throne, even if they were male descendants. The imperial system constructed in this way, depriving the emperor of real power, was, of course, a response to the military nationalism that had existed until 1945. The historical background influenced the Japanese society so strongly that to this day, the Constitution and the Imperial House Law have survived in their unchanged form. Regarding the emperor, the Japanese government revised the law only once. It took place in the late 1970s and concerned the nengō system.1 In August 2016, Emperor Akihito, in a television appearance, stated: “When I consider that my fitness level is gradually declining, I am worried that it may become difficult for me to carry out my duties as the symbol of the state with my whole being, as I have done un- til now” (Sieg & Lies, 2016). While Akihito did not admit that he would like to step down, the meaning of his speech became clear to everyone. The imperial system excluded even the slightest influence on politics, so the emperor could not himself submit a proposal to amend the Imperial House Law to the parliament, nor could he even order someone else to do so. Taking this into account, such speech was the emperor’s only chance to draw attention to the problem he was facing. And so it happened. Later that same day, Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzō said that he would establish a special commission to check whether the abdica- tion would be legally possible (Foster, 2016). It was not only the lack of legal provisions that constituted a serious obstacle to allowing the emperor to resign. Although abdication had been quite frequent in Japan’s history, it also entailed an additional threat. During the Heian period, the ruler was usually dominated by his advisers, who exercised actual power on his behalf. This led to frequent rotations on the imperial throne, as the emperors abdicated to free themselves from behind-the-scenes poli- tics. Unconstrained by the formal court, they began their political careers, which lay at the foundation of the ex-emperors’ reign (Japanese: insei). In the following years, they increased their power not only in politics but also in economy, and their position was often much great- er than that of the incumbent emperor (Tubielewicz, 1984, p. 109). There was a chance that a similar situation could take place in present times. Both the Constitution and the Imperial House Law did not in any way condition the role and limitations of the ex-emperor, so he could theoretically become involved in political matters, including foreign policy. Such situ- ation, in turn, could once again lead to the strengthening of the role played by the emperor and even to a return of nationalism (Pampling, 2016). Historical facts were not the only obstacle to the development of a law that allowed ab- dication. If such right was stipulated as a permanent law and put into the Imperial House 1 The nengō system was legally sanctioned during the Meiji period, when the rule of only one era name was adopted by one emperor. This name is derived from the real name of the emperor, by which he will be referred to after his death. Symbols Matter: Imperial Diplomacy in Postwar Japan 81 Law, it would become a problem to establish criteria that would allow the emperor to resign. There would still be a possibility that he would step down from office under the pretext of bad health condition, and this decision could be influenced by political pressure or the em- peror’s personal wishes. This, in turn, would stand in opposition to the law in force, since the emperor could not decide for himself and did not have political power. Setting a uniform “re- tirement age” would also be troublesome, given the shrinking imperial family and the prob- lem of an aging society in Japan. Therefore, the conservatives strongly opposed the introduc- tion of such a law, and requested a regency be set up in the event of the ruler’s deteriorating health (Yoshida, 2016). Finally, in June 2017, the Japanese Diet passed a one-time bill that allowed Emperor Aki- hito to abdicate in April 2019. This law was added as a clause to the present Imperial House Law and may be used by future rulers as a precedent in applicable law. The emperor moved to Kyoto for his retirement and is under the care of a newly created office, whose task is to help him adapt to his new life. In practice, this was to prevent the ex-emperor from meddling with politics (Nikkei Asia, 2017). As outlined above, the Japanese Constitution and the Imperial House Law not only did not allow the emperor to become involved in politics, but even refused him the right to ab- dicate. Due to historical determinants, any sign of the emperor’s involvement in politics brought back the difficult memory of military nationalism. All the official activities of the emperor, who remained “the symbol of the State and of the unity of the People,” were de- pendent on the decision of the government. Imperial diplomacy was not an exception. On the one hand, an uttermost attention was paid not to expose the emperor to political abuse. On the other hand, however, imperial diplomacy was subjected to the national interests for- mulated by each government. 4. THE EMPEROR AND DIPLOMACY The heads of state, including monarchs in democratic countries, usually play an important role in diplomacy. While the Japanese emperor was completely isolated from politics, he per- formed a  lot of duties in the diplomatic sphere, such as meeting ambassadors and foreign dignitaries. All newly appointed ambassadors extraordinary and plenipotentiary in Japan presented their credentials to the emperor, with participation of the foreign minister. It was a tradition that they were transported by horse-drawn carriages from the Tokyo Station to the Impe- rial Palace. In addition, the emperor and the empress received in audience ambassadors and their spouses before they assumed their posts. Occasionally, ambassadors were invited to teas, luncheons, cormorant-fishing in the Furutsu district in Gifu Prefecture, or duck-netting at the Saitama and Shinhama Imperial Wild Duck Preserves. The emperor was never involved in negotiations on concrete international matters. The same principle applied when the em- peror sent letters to foreign heads of state. The letters always concerned politically neutral topics and were written on the occasions of foreign country’s national holiday or independ- ence day, the birthday of a monarch, the demise of a head of state, or a major disaster (Impe- rial Household Agency, 2020). While all speeches of the emperor were prepared by Japanese diplomats, during conver- sation with foreign dignitaries, the emperor occasionally mentioned various topics on his Karol Żakowski, Sylwia Łagnowska82 own initiative. For instance, during a  meeting with Chinese Vice-Premier Deng Xiaoping in October 1978, Hirohito unexpectedly addressed the guest with words about long history of Sino-Japanese friendship that had been once disturbed by “unfortunate events” (fukōna dekigoto). As the Japanese MOFA had consulted in detail the contents of the conversation between the emperor and Deng with the Imperial Household Agency and the Chinese Em- bassy in Tokyo, this spontaneous remark impressed the Chinese vice-premier. Deng respond- ed positively, saying that instead of focusing on the past both countries should look forward to building friendship in the future (Shiroyama, 2009, pp. 50–51). In the same year, Hiro- hito stopped visiting Yasukuni – a shrine in central Tokyo that commemorated all the Japa- nese who had died for their fatherland. As disclosed by former Imperial Household Agency Grand Steward Tomita Tomohiko, this decision was made independently by the emperor due to his discomfort over the enshrinement of class-A war criminals (Tōgō, 2008, pp. 44–45). While Hirohito did not announce the reasons of his behavior at the time, it was evident that his personal convictions occasionally had an indirect impact on foreign policy matters. After all, in 1985, China and South Korea started criticizing Japanese prime ministers for paying homage to Yasukuni, so continuation of imperial visits to the shrine would have surely met with protests from Japan’s neighbors. History problems constituted one of the most fragile topics for the emperor’s diploma- cy. While Japanese prime ministers gradually started formulating more and more far-going apologies for the atrocities committed by the Imperial Army during the period of territorial expansion, they tried to keep Emperor Hirohito away from the dispute over his responsibil- ity for the war of aggression. History problems were discussed when Chun Doo-hwan, as the first South Korean president ever, visited Japan in 1984. Because the annexation of Ko- rea in 1910 had been carried out on behalf of the emperor, Seoul treated imperial apology as a precondition for this visit (Yamazaki, 2006, p. 35). Instructed by the government, dur- ing a meeting with Chun, Hirohito admitted that the “unfortunate past” between the two nations was “truly regrettable” (makoto ni ikan). Nevertheless, South Korea still hoped for a more direct apology (Yomiuri Shinbun Seijibu, 2014, p. 179). China was another country that paid attention to the emperor’s statements regarding history issues. After Hirohito’s fu- neral in 1989, his successor Akihito repeated the words of “regret” (ikan no i) for the “unfor- tunate history” (fukōna rekishi) in the contemporary period during a meeting with Chinese Prime Minister Li Peng (Shimada & Tian, 1997, p. 385). The new emperor went one step further when he greeted South Korean President Roh Tae-woo who visited Japan in 1990. Once more, Seoul insisted on an imperial apology. Akihito expressed a  “feeling of intense sorrow” (tsūseki no nen) for the past. The ambiguous language, full of euphemisms, did not necessarily result from Tokyo’s intention to dilute its responsibility for the atrocities commit- ted by Japan during the war. Such special language was characteristic of the mystique tradi- tionally associated with the emperor (Yamazaki, 2006, pp. 36–40). Japanese MOFA, which drafted the emperor’s speech, claimed that no other country had ever apologized in a more explicit way for the colonial rule (Yomiuri Shinbun Seijibu, 2014, p. 179). Meetings with the emperor were subject to a  strict etiquette. The Imperial Household Agency remained sensitive to any signs of disrespect towards the emperor. For instance, Chi- nese President Jiang Zemin’s behavior during his visit to Tokyo in 1998 was commented as rude by part of the Japanese media. Although it remained a strict rule that all guests wore either full evening dress or their traditional national clothing during banquets with the em- Symbols Matter: Imperial Diplomacy in Postwar Japan 83 peror, Jiang came dressed in a Mao tunic suit. Responding to accusations from the press that Chinese president behaved impolitely, Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Nonaka Hiromu had to explain that such dress might be treated as an official garment in China. In addition, the media criticized the fact that Jiang referred to history problems between both countries in a greeting speech during the banquet (Eguchi, 2012, pp. 329–340). Such posture result- ed from the fact that Prime Minister Obuchi Keizō had refused to offer written apologies to Beijing for the atrocities committed by Japan during the Second World War (Lam, 2002, pp. 31–54; Nukaga 2010, p. 94). As a result, Jiang’s speech was interpreted as a method for applying political pressure on the emperor, which did not contribute to promotion of friend- ly relations between both countries. Out of consideration for Emperor Akihito’s advanced age and health problems, as well as for treating all foreign dignitaries equally, the Imperial Household Agency established an unofficial principle of arranging the emperor’s appointments with foreign dignitaries with one month’s notice. Violation of this rule met with general condemnation from public opin- ion. For instance, at the end of November 2009, Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirano Hirofumi and the Secretary-General of the ruling Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), Ozawa Ichirō, ex- erted pressure on Imperial Household Agency Grand Steward Haketa Shingo to make Em- peror Akihito meet Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping in mid-December 2009. The leading DPJ politicians wanted to respond to Beijing’s request that Japan treated Xi, who was the main candidate for the post of president, equally to President Hu Jintao, who had met the emperor as vice-president in 1998. The government argued that holding audiences with for- eign dignitaries was a part of the emperor’s duties under the Constitution, but opposition politicians as well as Grand Steward Haketa accused DPJ authorities of exploiting the em- peror politically (Asahi Shinbun Seiken Shuzai Sentā, 2010, pp. 230–248). The abovementioned examples prove that while theoretically being completely separated from politics, the emperor was occasionally used by politicians to promote their foreign pol- icy initiatives. The South Korean and the Chinese authorities perceived the emperor as the most suitable person to address history issues, while Tokyo paid utmost attention not to let foreign leaders harm the emperor’s dignity. Nevertheless, also the Japanese government was sometimes accused of taking political advantage of the emperor, for instance by overly insist- ing on the emperor’s audiences with guests from abroad without heeding to the unofficial rules created by the Imperial Household Agency. 5. THE EMPEROR’S VISITS ABROAD The emperor’s state visits abroad were the most visible aspect of his involvement in diplo- macy. As such visits always attracted attention from the media both in Japan and in the host countries, their preparation had a  strategic importance for promotion of friendly relations with other states. Table 1 shows Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko’s visits abroad between their en- thronement in 1989 and abdication in 2019. It was a custom that the imperial couple paid only one state visit overseas per year and that it visited each country only once. The only ex- ceptions was the United States, due to its strategic importance, as well as such monarchies as Belgium, the United Kingdom, and Thailand, which were visited more than once due to vari- ous ceremonies related to royal families – e.g., funerals or jubilees of enthronement. Figure 1 Karol Żakowski, Sylwia Łagnowska84 illustrates the evolution of the number of visits abroad by all members of the imperial family between 1989 and 2019. As Emperor Akihiko’s health deteriorated over time, the members of his family to some extent filled the gap in diplomacy. Two times – in 2002 and 2014 – Em- press Michiko paid visits overseas alone. Emperor Naruhito, who was enthroned on October 22, 2019, has not visited any country as emperor as of February 2021. The main reason was the outbreak of coronavirus pandemic in early 2020, which forced Tokyo to revise the diplo- matic schedule of the imperial family. Table 1. Imperial visits abroad since 1989 Date Country Comments September 26 – October 6, 1991 Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia Visits to foster friendly relations October 23–28, 1992 People’s Republic of China Visit to foster friendly relations August 6–9, 1993 Belgium Visit to attend the funeral ceremonies of King Baudouin September 3–19, 1993 Italy, Vatican, Belgium, Germany Visits to foster friendly relations June 10–26, 1994 United States Visit to foster friendly relations October 2–14, 1994 France, Spain, Germany Visits to foster friendly relations May 30 – June 13, 1997 Brazil, Argentina, Luxembourg, United States Visits to foster friendly relations May 23 – June 5, 1998 United Kingdom, Denmark, Portugal Visits to foster friendly relations May 20 – June 1, 2000 The Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland Visits to foster friendly relations July 6 – July 20, 2002 Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Austria Visits to foster friendly relations September 28 – October 3, 2002 Switzerland Empress alone. Visit to attend as patron of the Jubilee Congress of the International Board on Books for Young People (IBBY) May 7–14, 2005 Norway, Ireland Visits to foster friendly relations June 27–28, 2005 United States (Saipan) Visit to commemorate the 60th anniversa- ry of the end of the Second World War June 8–15, 2006 Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia Visits to foster friendly relations, to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations with Singapore, and to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the enthronement of the king of Thailand Symbols Matter: Imperial Diplomacy in Postwar Japan 85 Date Country Comments May 21–30, 2007 Sweden,Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, United Kingdom Visits to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the birth of Carl von Linne and to foster friendly relations July 3–17, 2009 Canada, United States (Hawaii) Visits to foster friendly relations and to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Crown Prince Akihito Scholarship Foundation, the State of Hawaii May 16–20, 2012 United Kingdom Visit commemorate the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II November 30 – December 6, 2013 India Visit to foster friendly relations December 11–13, 2014 Belgium Empress alone. Visit to attend the funeral of Queen Fabiola April 8–9, 2015 Palau Visit to commemorate the 70th of the end of the Second World War January 26–30, 2016 Philippines Visit to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the normalization of diplomatic relations February 28 – March 6, 2017 Vietnam, Thailand Visits to foster friendly relations Source: Compiled by the authors based on Imperial Household Agency, 2021. Just as in the case of meeting guests in Japan, it was expected that foreign dignitaries would pay utmost attention to maintaining strict etiquette when greeting the emperor in their countries. Despite this fact, unfortunate inconformity with diplomatic savoir-vivre oc- curred occasionally. For instance, during a meeting with the emperor in Poland in July 2002, Prime Minister Leszek Miller’s wife, Aleksandra Miller, was dressed in a white and pink dress painted with such inscriptions as “sexy” or “love,” which was widely criticized by the press (Wprost, 2002). Table 1. Imperial… (cd.) Karol Żakowski, Sylwia Łagnowska86 Figure 1. Visits abroad by imperial family members Just as in the case of meeting guests in Japan, it was expected that foreign dignitaries would pay utmost attention to maintaining strict etiquette when greeting the emperor in their countries. Despite this fact, unfortunate inconformity with diplomatic savoir-vivre occurred occasionally. For instance, during a meeting with the emperor in Poland in July 2002, Prime Minister Leszek Miller’s wife, Aleksandra Miller, was dressed in a white and pink dress painted with such inscriptions as “sexy” or “love,” which was widely criticized by the press (Wprost, 2002). Figure 1. Visits abroad by imperial family members. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 19 89 19 91 19 93 19 95 19 97 19 99 20 01 20 03 20 05 20 07 20 09 20 11 20 13 20 15 20 17 20 19 Number of visits Number of visited countries Source: Compiled by the authors based on Imperial Household Agency, 2021. While the imperial family’s overseas visits usually were simply a sign of friendly relations with the host country, sometimes they had a strategic importance. For instance, Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke promoted the crown prince’s and princess’ visit to the United States to create a favorable atmosphere for the revision of the bilateral security treaty in 1960. The opposition parties criticized this plan as a method of putting pressure on lawmakers during deliberations on the ratification of the controversial treaty that aroused massive protests in front of the Diet building. Eventually, the visit was postponed due to resistance from Imperial Household Agency Grand Steward Usami Takeshi (Large, 1992, p. 173). Source: Compiled by the authors based on Imperial Household Agency, 2021. While the imperial family’s overseas visits usually were simply a sign of friendly relations with the host country, sometimes they had a strategic importance. For instance, Prime Min- ister Kishi Nobusuke promoted the crown prince’s and princess’ visit to the United States to create a favorable atmosphere for the revision of the bilateral security treaty in 1960. The opposition parties criticized this plan as a method of putting pressure on lawmakers during deliberations on the ratification of the controversial treaty that aroused massive protests in front of the Diet building. Eventually, the visit was postponed due to resistance from Impe- rial Household Agency Grand Steward Usami Takeshi (Large, 1992, p. 173). Even more controversial was the emperor’s visit to China to commemorate the 20th an- niversary of normalization of Sino-Japanese diplomatic relations in 1992. Beijing insisted on inviting the emperor in order to show to the international community that domestic situ- ation in China had returned to normal after the 1989 Tiananmen Incident. Nevertheless, right-wing LDP politicians opposed the initiative, claiming that China would exploit the vis- it politically (Nakajima, 1993, p. 23). In particular, the nationalists were afraid that Beijing would try to put pressure on the emperor to apologize for the atrocities committed by the Japanese Imperial Army during the Second World War. In addition, right-wing lawmakers said that Beijing could take advantage of the visit to reassert China’s claim to the Senkaku/ Di- aoyu Islands in the East China Sea that were administered by Japan. They backed their argu- ment with the fact that in February 1992, Beijing had issued the Law on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone that included this uninhabited archipelago within the Chinese terri- tory (Hagström, 2005, pp. 161–171). Referring to these bilateral problems, in August 1992, LDP lawmaker Fujio Masayuki gathered 57 signatures under a parliamentarians’ petition to postpone the emperor’s visit (Shimada & Tian, 1997, pp. 427–428). Prime Minister Miyazawa Kiichi promoted the imperial visit to China, but he admitted that in order to accept China’s invitation for the emperor, he had to first persuade the oppo- nents in the ruling party (Miyazawa, Iokibe, Itō, & Yakushiji, 2006, p. 49). The final deci- Symbols Matter: Imperial Diplomacy in Postwar Japan 87 sion was entrusted to the main decision-making organ of the LDP, the General Council. Its chairperson, Satō Takayuki, was initially skeptical about authorizing the emperor’s visit, but he was convinced to change his mind by his factional boss, former Prime Minister Nakasone Yasuhiro (Murakawa, 2000, pp. 65–57). Miyazawa also asked another former Prime Minis- ter, Fukuda Takeo, to persuade the members of his faction, the biggest right-wing group in the LDP, not to block the visit (Xu, 2002, p. 229). In addition, in June 1992, Miyazawa sum- moned to Tokyo Japanese ambassador to China, who explained to LDP politicians that Bei- jing did not treat apologies for the past war as a precondition for the emperor’s visit. These efforts sufficed to assuage voices of discontent in the ruling party. The imperial couple’s visit to China in October 1992 was a symbolic event. In line with the speech prepared by Japanese diplomats, the emperor expressed “deep sorrow” with the “unfortunate period” in the history of Sino-Japanese relations. While Akihito did not address explicit apologies to China, his pos- ture met with positive reception from the communist government (Żakowski, 2012, p. 248). While both Tokyo and Beijing officially maintained that the emperor was kept away from international politics, in fact, both sides did exploit his visit politically. As already mentioned, China showed to the world that its diplomatic isolation on the international arena had end- ed, while Japan warned China that making any decisions undermining friendship between the two countries could cause postponement of the imperial visit (Hagström, 2005, pp. 170– –171). As a result, at least temporarily, the visit led to assuaging bilateral frictions. Japanese prime ministers paid uttermost attention to resolving any history issues before the emperor’s visits to the countries that had suffered from Japan’s aggression. Perhaps they did not want to allow repetition of incidents that occurred during Hirohito’s trip to Europe in the autumn of 1971. Demonstrators threw faeces at the emperor in Denmark, called him “murderer” in the Netherlands, and poured hydrochloric acid on the roots of a symbolic tree of bilateral friendship he had planted in Great Britain (Large, 1992, pp. 184–185). A success- ful visit could become an opportunity at final reconciliation, while any incident against the emperor’s dignity could negatively influence bilateral relations. In order to prepare the emperor’s visit to the United Kingdom in 1998, Prime Minister Hashimoto Ryūtarō asked his British counterpart how to please the English public opinion. Under Prime Minister Tony Blair’s advice, Hashimoto sent a letter to The Sun, a popular Brit- ish newspaper, in which he expressed “deep remorse and heartfelt apology for the tremendous damage and suffering” caused by Japan during the war. In a reply letter, Tony Blair highly ap- praised the Japanese prime minister’s posture, which prepared the ground for Akihito’s cor- dial visit to London in May 1998. Despite the efforts by the politicians of both countries, the media reported that a group of 500 former prisoners of war turned their backs when a royal carriage with Emperor Akihito and Queen Elisabeth rode past to Buckingham Palace. On the other hand, thanks to a generally warm reception of the emperor by the British people, the incident did not overly harm bilateral relations (Togo, 2010, pp. 281–282). Similar preparations were necessary before Akihito’s visit to the Netherlands in 2000. It took several months for both sides to negotiate the exact wording of a statement that would satisfy both the Dutch victims of war and the groups in Japan who wanted to avoid issuing excessive apologies. Eventually, Prime Minister Obuchi Keizō expressed “deep remorse and heartfelt apology” to the Dutch during Prime Minister Willem Kok’s visit to Japan in Feb- ruary 2000. The statement paved the way towards Akihiko’s visit to the Netherlands in May 2000. Symbolically, the imperial couple laid a wreath at the National Monument for the War Karol Żakowski, Sylwia Łagnowska88 Dead (Togo, 2010, pp. 282–285). Despite limited demonstrations, the visit was positively commented by the press and served spiritual reconciliation between both nations (Suzuki & van Eemeren, 2004, pp. 102–111). History issues explain why the emperor has never visited South Korea despite the strategic importance of that country for Japan. Seoul periodically criticized the lack of repentance by Tokyo for the period of colonial rule, prime ministerial visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, white- washing of the difficult past in history textbooks, and insufficient compensation for former “comfort women” – sexual slaves from Korea abused by the Imperial Army. The lack of rec- onciliation between both countries did not create favorable conditions for the emperor’s visit. President Lee Myung-bak invited Emperor Akihito to South Korea when he met him in To- kyo in April 2008. Nevertheless, in August 2012, Lee stated that the emperor “doesn’t need to come if he is coming just to offer his ‘deepest regret’” (Kyodo, 2012). In the same month, the South Korean president visited Tokdo/Takeshima – a small island in the Sea of Japan, which is disputed between both countries. Such provocative behavior made Tokyo doubt that the emperor’s dignity would not be harmed during a visit to Seoul. Apart from enhancing friendly relations and pushing the process of reconciliation be- tween Japan and other countries forward, the emperor’s overseas visits served promotion of foreign policy initiatives launched by different administrations. For instance, most of the vis- its prepared under the second Abe administration from December 2012 to September 2020 were aimed at strengthening cooperation with the countries important from the point of view of Tokyo’s strategy of containing China’s rising ambitions: India, the Philippines, and Vietnam. All three states played a crucial role in Prime Minister Abe Shinzō’s policy of en- hancing economic cooperation as well as donating or selling military equipment to potential allies of Japan and the United States in order to counterbalance the economic and military power of Beijing (Żakowski, 2019, pp. 146–148). While the emperor avoided delivering any speeches referring to containment of China during his visits, the mere choice of destinations was aimed at promoting the foreign policy strategy of the government. The emperor’s visits abroad were always carefully prepared to prevent any incidents that could harm the emperor’s dignity. Sometimes, as in the case of Great Britain and the Neth- erlands, they served finalization of the process of mutual reconciliation. On the other hand, any signs of disrespect towards the emperor, as displayed by South Korean politicians, made resolution of history issues even harder to achieve. As evidenced by Miyazawa’s policy of rap- prochement with Beijing or Abe’s strategy of containing China, prime ministers occasionally took political advantage of imperial visits overseas by selecting their destinations in line with the diplomatic initiatives of the government. 6. CONCLUSIONS The role of the emperor in diplomacy, as “the symbol of the State and of the unity of the People,” was limited to the symbolic, ceremonious sphere. Japanese politicians and diplomats paid great attention to keeping the emperor’s dignity intact during his meetings with for- eign dignitaries. As any signs of disrespect towards the emperor were extensively comment- ed by the press, they could harm friendly relations with other countries. While minor gaffes against the etiquette were usually quickly forgotten, any intentional incidents had a consid- erable impact on the moods in bilateral relations. For that reason, Japanese prime ministers Symbols Matter: Imperial Diplomacy in Postwar Japan 89 were particularly keen on resolving all controversial problems, such as history issues, before the emperor’s visits abroad. Such visits often became an opportunity for finalizing the pro- cess of bilateral reconciliation, but excessive protests regarding insufficient compensation of the victims of wars waged by Japan before 1945 could, on the contrary, lead to reemergence of mutual animosities. Being a passive player in foreign policy, the emperor was expected to remain politically neutral. In very rare cases, such as the meeting with Deng Xiaoping in 1978, did the emper- or spontaneously mention politically significant topics without instruction from the govern- ment. Despite this fact, he was occasionally used by politicians to promote their diplomatic initiatives. While maintaining the appearances of a complete isolation of the emperor from political matters, the prime ministers were keen on exploiting his symbolic importance in their international endeavors through drafting his speeches, arranging his visits abroad, and planning his meetings with foreign dignitaries. The strategic use of imperial diplomacy was evidenced by DPJ’s pressure on the Imperial Household Agency to make Emperor Akihito meet Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping in 2009 or by an arbitrary choice of the destinations of imperial visits abroad by the Abe administration. Foreign governments were equally aware of the fact that symbols matter in international relations and they used invitation for the em- peror as an opportunity for promoting diplomatic, economic, and cultural exchange with Ja- pan. As such, imperial diplomacy never was really politically neutral. REFERENCES Asahi Shinbun Seiken Shuzai Sentā. (Ed.) (2010). Minshutō Seiken 100 Nichi no Shinsō [The Truth about 100 Days of Democratic Party of Japan’s Rule]. Asahi Shinbun Shuppan. Eguchi, S. (2012). Hashimoto Shushō no Yūrasha Gaikō to Kō Takumin Shuseki no Rain- ichi, 1997–1999 [Prime Minister Hashimoto’s Eurasia Diplomacy and President Ji- ang Zemin’s Visit to Japan, 1997–1999]. In Takahara A. and Hattori R. (Eds.), Nitchū Kankei Shi 1972–2012, I Seiji [History of Japan-China Relations 1972–2012, I Politics] (pp. 315–342). Tōkyō Daigaku Shuppankai. Foster, M. (2016, August 8). Japan’s Emperor Akihito says health is failing and hints at abdi- cation, The Guardian. Retrieved January 27, 2021, from https://www.theguardian.com/ world/2016/aug/08/japans-emperor-akihito-health-abdication-rare-tv-address Hagström, L. (2005). Quiet Power: Japan’s Policy in Regard to the Pinnacle Islands. The Pa- cific Review, 18(2), 159–188. Hata, I. (2007). Hirohito: The Shōwa Emperor in War and Peace. Global Oriental. Henshall, K. (2011). Historia Japonii. Bellona. Imperial Household Agency. (1947, January 16). The Imperial House Law. Retrieved Febru- ary 2, 2021, from http://www.kunaicho.go.jp/e-kunaicho/hourei-01.html Imperial Household Agency. (2020). Fostering Friendly Relations with Foreign Countries. Retrieved December 10, 2020, from https://www.kunaicho.go.jp/e-about/shinzen/ shinzen.html Imperial Household Agency. (2021). Overseas Visits. Retrieved February 1, 2021, from htt- ps://www.kunaicho.go.jp/e-about/shinzen/gaikoku.html Kyodo. (2012, August 15). Japanese Emperor Must Apologize for Colonial Rule: S. Korean President. The Japan Times. Retrieved December 14, 2020, from https://www.japantimes. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/08/japans-emperor-akihito-health-abdication-rare-tv-address https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/08/japans-emperor-akihito-health-abdication-rare-tv-address http://www.kunaicho.go.jp/e-kunaicho/hourei-01.html https://www.kunaicho.go.jp/e-about/shinzen/shinzen.html https://www.kunaicho.go.jp/e-about/shinzen/shinzen.html https://www.kunaicho.go.jp/e-about/shinzen/gaikoku.html https://www.kunaicho.go.jp/e-about/shinzen/gaikoku.html https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/08/15/national/japanese-emperor-must-apologize-for-colonial-rule-s-korean-president/ Karol Żakowski, Sylwia Łagnowska90 co.jp/news/2012/08/15/national/japanese-emperor-must-apologize-for-colonial-rule-s-ko- rean-president/ Lam, P. E. (2002). The Apology Issue: Japan’s Differing Approaches Toward China and South Korea. American Asian Review, 20(3), 31–54. Large, S. (1992). Emperor Hirohito and Showa Japan: A Political Biography. Routledge. Miyazawa, K., Iokibe, M., Itō, M., & Yakushiji, K. (2006). 90 Nendai no Shōgen. Miyazawa Kiichi. Hoshu Honryū no Kiseki) [Testimony of the 1990s. Miyazawa Kiichi. The Path of the Conservative Mainstream]. Asahi Shinbunsha. Murakawa I. (2000). Seisaku Kettei Katei [Policy Decision-Making Process]. Shinzansha. Nakajima, M. (1993). Dépasser la Diplomatie de l’Amitié. Cahiers du Japon, 55, 22–27. Nikkei Asia. (2017, April 22,). Japan Moving toward 2018 Abdication for Emperor. Retrieved January 27, 2021, from https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/Policy-Politics/Japan- moving-toward-2018-abdication-for-emperor?page=1 Nukaga, F. (2010). Seiji wa Gēmu Dewanai. Senryakuteki Nihon Kaihō Keikaku [Politics Are Not a Game. Plan of Strategic Opening of Japan]. Sankei Shinbun Shuppan. Pampling, G. (2016, August 14). The Emperor and the Question of Insei, Far Beyond the Miyako. Retrieved January 27, 2021, from https://www.farbeyondthemiyako. com/3696012293279312280612398125021252512464---far-beyond-the-miyako-blog/ the-emperor-and-the-question-of-insei Piegzik, M. (2015). Konstytucja Japonii z 1946 roku – droga i proces ustrojodawczy. Folia Iuridica Universitatis Wratislaviensis, 4(1), 179–198. Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet. (1946, November 3). The Constitution of Japan. Retrieved February 9, 2021, from https://japan.kantei.go.jp/constitution_and_govern- ment_of_japan/constitution_e.html Shimada, M. & Tian, J. (1997). Sengo Nitchū Kankei 50 Nen  – Nitchū Sōhō no Kadai wa Hatasaretaka [50 Years of Postwar Sino-Japanese Relations – Have the Mutual Sino-Japa- nese Tasks Been Fulfilled?]. Tōhō Shoten. Shiroyama, H. (2009). Chūgoku Kyōsantō “Tennō Kōsaku” Hiroku [Secret Record of “Emperor Manipulation” by the Chinese Communist Party]. Bungei Shunjū. Sieg, L. & Lies, E. (2016, August 8). Japan’s Emperor Speaks to Public in Remarks Suggest- ing He Wants to Abdicate. Reuters. Retrieved January 27, 2021, from https://www.reu- ters.com/article/us-japan-emperor-message-idUSKCN10J0J6 Suzuki, T. & van Eemeren, F. H. (2004). “This Painful Chapter”: An Analysis of Emper- or Akihito’s Apologia in the Context of Dutch Old Sores. Argumentation and Advocacy, 41(2), 102–111. Tōgō, K. (2008). Rekishi to Gaikō – Yasukuni, Ajia, Tōkyō Saiban [History and Diplomacy – Yasukuni, Asia, Tokyo Tribunal]. Kōdansha. Togo, K. (2010). Japan’s Foreign Policy, 1945–2009: The Quest for a Proactive Policy. Brill. Tubielewicz J. (1984). Historia Japonii. Ossolineum. Wprost. (2002, July 11). Pani Miller jest “sexy” i “love.” Retrieved December 7, 2020, from https://www.wprost.pl/zycie/27251/Pani-Miller-jest-sexy-i-love.html Xu Z. (2002). Zhong-Ri Guanxi 30 Nian 1972–2002 [30 Years of Sino-Japanese Relations 1972–2002]. Shishi Chubanshe. Yamazaki, J. W. (2006). Japanese Apologies for World War II. A Rhetorical Study. Routledge. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/08/15/national/japanese-emperor-must-apologize-for-colonial-rule-s-korean-president/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/08/15/national/japanese-emperor-must-apologize-for-colonial-rule-s-korean-president/ https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/Policy-Politics/Japan-moving-toward-2018-abdication-for-emperor?page=1 https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/Policy-Politics/Japan-moving-toward-2018-abdication-for-emperor?page=1 https://www.farbeyondthemiyako.com/3696012293279312280612398125021252512464---far-beyond-the-miyako-blog/the-emperor-and-the-question-of-insei https://www.farbeyondthemiyako.com/3696012293279312280612398125021252512464---far-beyond-the-miyako-blog/the-emperor-and-the-question-of-insei https://www.farbeyondthemiyako.com/3696012293279312280612398125021252512464---far-beyond-the-miyako-blog/the-emperor-and-the-question-of-insei https://japan.kantei.go.jp/constitution_and_government_of_japan/constitution_e.html https://japan.kantei.go.jp/constitution_and_government_of_japan/constitution_e.html https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-emperor-message-idUSKCN10J0J6 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-emperor-message-idUSKCN10J0J6 https://www.wprost.pl/zycie/27251/Pani-Miller-jest-sexy-i-love.html Symbols Matter: Imperial Diplomacy in Postwar Japan 91 Yomiuri Shinbun Seijibu. (2014). “Nitchūkan” Gaikō Sensō. Nihon ga Chokumen Suru “Ima Soko ni Aru Kiki” [“Japan-China-South Korea” Diplomatic War. The Crisis that Japan Faces “Here and Now”]. Shinchōsha. Yoshida, R. (2016, December 26). Abdication Panel Leans Toward One-off Deal After Em- peror Akihito’s Rare Video. The Japan Times. Retrieved January 27, 2021, from https:// www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/12/26/reference/abdication-panel-leans-toward-one- off-deal-emperor-akihitos-rare-video Young, J. W. (2008). Twentieth-Century Diplomacy: A Case Study of British Practice, 1963– 1976. Cambridge University Press. Żakowski, K. (2019). From Counterbalancing to Engaging China: Shift in Japan’s Approach towards the New International Order in the Asia-Pacific under the Second Abe Adminis- tration. Torun International Studies, 1(12), 143–155. Żakowski, K. (2012). Wewnątrzpartyjne uwarunkowania polityki japońskiej Partii Liberalno- Demokratycznej wobec Chin w latach 1955–2006. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/12/26/reference/abdication-panel-leans-toward-one-off-deal-emperor-akihitos-rare-video https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/12/26/reference/abdication-panel-leans-toward-one-off-deal-emperor-akihitos-rare-video https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/12/26/reference/abdication-panel-leans-toward-one-off-deal-emperor-akihitos-rare-video