In August 1999, the Japanese Diet's lower house passed the bill of Japanese national flag and anthem law, which defines Hinomaru and Kimigayo as the nation's official flag and anthem. I believe this kind of issue per se, should entail nation-wide arguments from various viewpoints, since it is the matter of the very fundamental national identity. However, it is very regrettable to see that the Diet members are still absorbed in the fruitless, old-fashioned dispute of the right and left.

It is very disappointing to see this bill was passed and enforced in this single Diet session without granting 125 million Japanese people with sufficient time to deliberate and discuss this issue. Because this law will force the significant part of Japanese people to have the "official" national flag and anthem without the willingness to approve them.

In my opinion, what makes the discussion fruitless is the 54-year-old dispute on Hinomaru and Kimigayo since the end of the WWII, which has continuously fought by the right and the left, most obviously between the Ministry of Education and the Teachers' Association of Japan. This dispute, just like the territorial dispute between two nations, has been going along parallel lines. No logical development can be observed in this dispute, because both sides have completely different view on the WWII and the pre-war and post-war Japanese states, which seems almost impossible for them to concede. This dispute might be explained in three major viewpoints. Firstly, the rightist defines the Hinomaru flag and Kimigayo song as the symbols of national unity, while the leftist understands them as the symbols of militaristic pre-war Japanese state. Secondly, the rightist emphasizes the continuity and similarity of pre-war and post-war state, while the leftist sees them as completely different political entities. Thirdly, the rightist stresses on the value of Japanese history, tradition and culture, the leftist gives the supreme value on the peace and democracy, especially on the post-war Japanese constitution.

The recent discussion on national flag and anthem seems to be confined in the domain of the disputes that I have mentioned above. I think pro-bill arguments are similar version of the rightist view, while most of anti-bill arguments are based on the leftist view. In other words, the Japanese has yet to come to the consensus on the view of WWII, and pre-war and post-war Japanese state. In this sense, the post-war period is not over for the Japanese for all the 54 years of time.

This type of dispute might be a great interest for people who experienced the WWII, or the drastic shift of national education from militaristic to democratic one. However, for our generation in the 20s and 30s, this does not really matter. We are rather concern, being in the midst of expanding global economy, on how to get along with people with wide variety of backgrounds from all over the world, while maintaining our own national or personal identity. This concern requires a new type of idea on national unity, beside the old dispute on WWII and pre-war, post-war state. In this essay, I suggest the idea of "national unity with tolerance of different values".

I think national unity is necessary to ensure domestic tranquility, and I understand the national flag and anthem is one of the symbols of national unity. Here I define the term "national unity" as the state in which the members of a nation share the basic values, live under the common laws, regulations and institutions. I think Japan is one of the most unified nation states out of some twenty nations I have visited. In this country, almost one hundred percent of people are educated by the same system, speak the same language, live under the same laws and regulations. The absence of serious ethnic and religious conflict in this country, there has fortunately also been the absense of devastating domestic social unrest such as civil war. The unity of Japanese nation definitely contributes to the creation of this free, prosperous society.

I think the main reason the Japanese are well unified is the fact that the people in this archipelago have shared a common history for thousands of years. Since the emergence of Yamato Regime of 5th century, this country has been continually ruled by the central governments that enforce the same laws and regulations all over Japan. People have been networked by the number of land and water transports, with which people gradually share the culture that is categorized as the distinct "Japanese culture". I believe even before the modernization of Meiji Era, the Japanese people would understand Kyoto and Kamakura as the country's old capital cities, recognize the Tenno (emperor) as the political authority over hundreds of years. I think this historical fact made it easier for Japan to create the unified, modern nation state.

Given this argument, I think the symbol of national unity should be based on the Japanese people's common historical experience of several thousand years. I think the Hinomaru flag and Kimigayo song is one of the suitable applicants of the national symbol. Because the flag is rooted from the nation's myth of the world creation, and the song represents Tenno, the long-lasting political authority, and tanka, the traditional 31-syllable Japanese poems. I know the fact the Hinomaru flag and Kimigayo song have been the symbol for the notorious militaristic aggression of pre-war Japanese state, and considerable number of people both inside and outside Japan see them in hatred manner.

I know some peoples' argument that the flag and song should be abolished and replaced by something else that represent the new democratic Japanese post-war state. However, I am skeptical to the idea that Japanese people willingly accept new national symbols. Of course, I admit that most Japanese including myself would think the free, democratic post-war state is much better than the militaristic pre-war state. However, the post-war states has just 50 years of history, that consists a very, very small part of the entire Japanese history, and it is not strong enough to reverse the concept of Japanese history and tradition.

However, The modern discussion the national flag and anthem requires the further consideration, that is, how we prioritize the loyalty to the country and the individual freedom of faith. I believe in the commonly accepted idea that the individual freedom is one of the most significant achievements of the human being, and this should, in principle, have priority on the loyalty to the country. Given this principle, the idea of tolerance of different values should be the prerequisite of the argument on modern national unity.

Today, Japanese people have great variety of different values. Concerning the national flag and anthem, there are considerable number of people in this country who are not willing to accept them. The reason varies from those who were severely suffered by militaristic Japan such as Korean-Japanese and Okinawan people, to those who are of different faith such as Christians. I think all of these values are worth respected. Accordingly, I think we must officially recognize the right not to raise the national flag, and not to sing the national anthem. Of course, the majority opinion of raising Hinomaru flag and singing Kimigayo song should be respected as well, but they do not have the right to force these national symbols to those who do not accept them.It is regrettable to know that some Japanese people think every Japanese people must accept the national symbols no matter what kind of values they have. For example, I have recently noticed one of the Japanese magazines criticized a famous soccer player who did not sing the Kimigayo anthem. I felt disgusted by this news. I think what forced the Hiroshima high school principal to death was not the "dissident" high school teachers, but that kind of argument which lacks the tolerance of different values and respect to the individual.

Finally, in modern advanced nations, especially the ones that were founded by immigrants, the idea of tolerance of different values is well embedded in the national unity. For example, multi-culturalism, which is the de-facto national principle of Australia and Canada, is the idea that the national unity itself respects the different values of each individual and ethnic group. I think whether the Japanese, through the nation-wide discussion on national symbols, come to a consensus to tolerate different values while establishing the national unity is extremely important. Because I think it is an examination of whether the Japanese can commit itself to the construction of the coming century, by cooperating with the leading countries in the world.

�@