Two minor events involving Japan’s Yasukuni Shrine seem to have escaped widespread notice. That’s unfortunate, because both may be more important than people realize.

The first came as a direct result of a Japanese-language editorial titled “Change Needed at Yasukuni”, written by Hisahiko Okazaki, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Thailand, in the August 24 Sankei Shimbun. The editorial has been translated into English and reprinted here in the Japan Times (registration required).

Okazaki uses most of his space to comment on a George Will column about on Yasukuni, which Japundit linked to last week. The former ambassador finds a lot to admire in Will’s column, and quotes him about the Yushukan museum located next to the shrine:

“The museum adjacent to Yasukuni says ‘The Great East Asia War’ began because, when the New Deal failed to banish the Depression, ‘the only option open to Roosevelt . . . was to use embargoes to force resource-poor Japan into war. The U.S. economy made a complete recovery once the Americans entered the war.’ ”

As Will puts it, “That is disgracefully meretricious — and familiar. For years, a small but vocal cadre of Americans — anti-FDR (President Franklin D. Roosevelt) zealots — said approximately that.”

At first, Okazaki seems to soft-pedal Will’s blunt commentary:

The exhibit reflects, if to a lesser extent than in other countries, some of the anti-America feelings that exist around the world.

But then he brings the hammer down:

It may be true that America eventually recovered from the Depression thanks to its economy going on a war footing, but the theory of premeditated action is something else. I can only describe it in terms similar to those used by Will — immature in historical judgment, one-sided, cheap, lacking in intellectual integrity and so on.

I demand that the exhibit in question be removed from Yushukan. Other exhibits, such as wartime films designed to stir up the fighting spirit, are justifiable as historical testaments. But this cheap view of history damages the dignity of Yasukuni. Should the exhibit remain, I would not be able to defend Yasukuni anymore.

Why was the opinion of this former ambassador important? Because it seems to have gotten results. Here’s what the Japan Times added in parentheses to the end of the editorial:

(Editor’s note: Yasukuni Shrine decided to make a necessary change to the aforementioned Yushukan exhibit in accordance with suggestions by the author after the original Japanese version of this article appeared in the Seiron column of Sankei Shimbun on Aug. 24)

What was “a necessary change”? The Japan Times could take its journalistic duties more seriously and be specific, but perhaps it was the English-language reference in the museum that charged Roosevelt with plotting war against Japan to end the Depression.

Does this mean the people in charge at Yasukuni are starting to pay attention to public opinion abroad? Could this small step—whatever it is—signal other changes at the shrine at the future? We’ll have to see.

It should not be lost on observers that the change at the shrine was spurred by a Japan-friendly, dispassionate presentation by George Will that eschews moralizing and blame. It might be an object lesson for the tirebiters of the left about the efficacy of yet another predictable, finger-wagging harangue, but they’re unlikely to get the point. Finger-wagging, haranguing, and tirebiting are their chief enjoyments in life, after all.

Meanwhile, the second Yasukuni nugget is the news of their rejection for enshrinement of a Japanese Coast Guard officer killed while in wartime action. This is curious for a facility dedicated to memorializing Japan’s war dead.

As this article in the Japan Times explains (registration still required), Sakataro Nakatani was killed when his Japan Coast Guard ship hit a mine in a secret minesweeper unit operating off North Korea during the Korean War.

The incident occurred just after Japan’s pacifist constitution took effect, and Nakatani’s elder brother Toichi, who wants the sailor enshrined, claims the Maritime Safety Agency suppressed information about the accident and destroyed the records.

Yasukuni sent him a letter rejecting the request saying that “the Korean War at this moment is beyond the scope” for enshrining wartime fatalities.

Evidently, the people at Yasukuni realize there are limits, even for people who aren’t war criminals. Though the Japanese Coast Guard was involved in an operation whose objective was to save lives, rather than take them, the operation itself was illegal under the Constitution.

Of course, Article 9, the peace clause of the Japanese Constitution, still remains in force today. That would mean any members of the Self-Defense Forces serving in Iraq unlucky enough to be killed on duty also would be deprived of the honor of having their souls enshrined at Yasukuni.

What does this portend for the future? On the one hand, someone at Yasukuni seems to be exhibiting a sense of propriety and is paying attention to what others think, while on the other, the Shinzo Abe administration, which is likely to succeed that of Junichiro Koizumi later this month, will press for an amendment to the Constitution’s peace clause. We are sure to see some changes, but the contour of those changes is still unknown.

This follows the pattern that is often the rule for transitions that occur in this country—subtle, incremental, giving something to everyone involved, and resulting in an inherently logical solution from a Japanese perspective.