演讲措辞狡黠，文字游戏令人印象深刻。对于日本首相安倍晋三有关日本在二战中不光彩历史的最新声明，我们只能做出如此评价。
他似乎没有偏离1995年时任首相村山富市的基准。但是在那场历史性的演讲里出现的关键词汇比如“侵略”、“殖民统治”、“忏悔”和“道歉”，在安倍的此次演讲里却是似有若无。
对很多听众来说，他提出的“衷心感谢”对那些对日本宽容并帮助它回归国际社会的人来说可能是一个意外的收获，正如他承诺“正视历史”。这也就是为什么有人得出结论说，安倍此次讲话已经超过了预期，一场东亚危机由此有惊无险，值得庆贺。
但是对日本有警惕之心的邻国来说，安倍应该继承村山谈话，这不仅仅是对他历史认真的试金石，而更是一个底线要求。
一旦这个底线被打破，日本与邻国中国和韩国不断恶化的关系将无法修复，至少在安倍任期内希望渺茫。
安倍知道接下来会出现什么局面。所以他一边挑衅邻国，一边抛出橄榄枝，要求举行首脑会议。因为对村山谈话的背弃，显然他不会得到一个明确的答复。
安倍巧妙嫁接村山讲话的部分措词，似乎足以让他的批评者们沉默。但是不要被迷惑了，安倍并没有代表自己表示歉意。他只是阐述了一个明显的事实，那就是此前的日本内阁曾多次表示“衷心的歉意”。
不要天真地认为东亚紧张局势将就此消失。安倍没有越过红线，是因为他知道最糟糕局面的可怕后果，他必须避免这种状况。安倍在来自国内外的巨大舆论压力下被迫做了表态，但他言不由衷。
与日本政客打交道要注意他们的修辞，这也是为什么安倍谈话中是否包括了那些关键词至关重要。但日本政客擅于玩文字游戏，这就意味着要听其言，更要观其行。从安倍过去的所做作为可以看出，他不吝于做出有关睦邻友好的承诺，但是他却常常言行不一。
安倍和他的幕僚一直纠结于是否延续村山谈话，直到最后关头执政党才就最终稿的一些表述方式达成共识；安倍力图避免将日本发动的战争表述为“侵略”，在提到日本的殖民统治和慰安妇问题时模凌两可，这些统统说明了安倍政府对村山谈话的“继承”完全是虚情假意。
而且安倍谈话和村山谈话基调完全不同。与之前首相真诚的语气形成鲜明对比，安倍迫切掩盖历史的意图昭然若揭。因此，尽管眼前的危机暂时度过，东亚仍将在漫长的历史阴影中寻找出路。
Crafty rhetoric, insincere politics
A very cleverly worded speech. An impressive play of the words. That's about everything we could say about Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's latest statement on his country's unseemly record in World War II.
Abe didn't seem to deviate much from the well-received benchmark statement in 1995 by then Japanese prime minister Tomiichi Murayama. And the key points of that historic speech, including "aggression", "colonial rule", "remorse" and "apology", did find their way into his speech, though with abundant ambiguity.
For many in his audience, his expression of "heartfelt gratitude" to those who have been tolerant of his country and helped it return to the international community might be an unexpected bonus - not unlike his pledge to "squarely face the history of the past". That could be why some believe Abe has delivered more than what had been anticipated, given the discrepancies among its versions in different languages.
That East Asia just got around a potentially explosive occasion that could have escalated tensions is itself something to celebrate. For Japan's vigilant neighbors, however, whether or not Abe included the salient points of the Murayama Statement in his speech is not just a touchstone to gauge his attitude toward history, but the bottom line as well. Once that line is crossed, Japan's deteriorating ties with neighboring China and the Republic of Korea will slide past a point of no return, at least during Abe's term in office.
Abe knows what will come next. So, even after provoking neighboring countries no end, he waved olive branches at them requesting meetings at the highest level. He is yet to get one, precisely because of his betrayal of the Murayama Statement's spirit.
By incorporating the key expressions of that milestone statement, Abe may effectively silence some of his critics, whose latest demand was that his statement include the core Murayama expressions.
But make no mistake, he didn't present an apology of his own. He merely stated the obvious truth that earlier Japanese cabinets had expressed "heartfelt" apologies for the atrocities committed by imperial Japan.
It would be naive to think the tensions paralyzing East Asia will thus be gone. That Abe didn't cross the Rubicon, at best, means he was aware of the dire consequences of doing so and avoided it. And, that tremendous public pressure from home and abroad forced him to squeeze those words into his speech doesn't mean he actually meant it.
Rhetoric counts when dealing with Japanese politicians, for whom whether or not the Abe statement includes those key words makes a difference. Japanese politicians' infamous tradition of "slip of the tongue", however, makes it even more important to see how they act.
Abe's track record belies his claims of commitment to peace and good neighborly relations. That Abe and his advisers had reportedly struggled over whether or not to include Murayama's expressions, that the ruling parties had not agreed on the exact use of the expressions in the final transcript until the very last moment, that Abe managed to avoid directly referring to Japan's war as one of aggression and some of the perished Japanese as war criminals, and that his words became evasive when it came to Japan's colonial rule and the "comfort women" issue all betrayed a sense of reluctance.
Needless to say, reading between the lines of the Murayama Statement and Abe's speech even a casual reader can feel the difference in tones. In contrast to Murayama's sincerity, Abe seemed eager to shut out the past, though its sophisticated wording did hit the sentimental sweet spot at some points. But that will not be possible until Abe acts sincerely to achieve real reconciliation.
Therefore, even after weathering an otherwise imminent crisis, East Asia will continue to struggle in the long shadow of history.
本文原文见于8月15日《中国日报》第5版，可点击“阅读原文”查看。
