In brief
On Oct. 31, 2026, a delegation from Japan’s Association for Inheriting and Propagating the Murayama Statement visited Unit 731 memorial sites in northeast China. The group, composed of scholars, journalists, lawyers and civic activists, expressed remorse, condemned right‑wing revisionism, and called for Japan to accept responsibility for wartime biological warfare. The visit highlighted the enduring impact of Japan’s actions during World War II and underscored unresolved tensions over historical accountability between the two nations.
On 31 October, 2026, a Japanese civil‑society delegation traveled to the former Unit 731 sites in Heilongjiang Province, China, to confront the legacy of wartime biological warfare. The group, drawn from the Association for Inheriting and Propagating the Murayama Statement, halted outside an exhibition hall that presented evidence of crimes committed by the Japanese army’s notorious biological warfare division during World War II.
During the visit, the delegation took the chance to exchange views with Chinese experts and scholars. The group is composed of scholars, journalists, lawyers, and civic activists committed to reflecting on Japan’s history of aggression. Shigenori Kanehira, a delegation member and veteran Japanese media professional, said that although he already knew a lot about this history, stepping into these historical sites in person left him even more shocked. Mitsuhisa Fukutomi, a university professor who had studied international politics, likewise noted that seeing the crime scenes firsthand evoked immense shame and sorrow.
“I sincerely apologize to the Chinese people who perished in the disaster,” the delegation’s head, Takakage Fujita, said after walking through an exhibition of human experiments. He labeled the Japanese army’s act of injecting bacteria into living people as “demonic.”
Fujita also condemned the growing tide of historical revisionism and right‑wing countercurrents in Japan. He noted that since last year, some right‑wing politicians have made “absurd and ignorant remarks” in attempts to incite regional conflict, even openly calling for actions that could reignite tensions in the region.
The exhibition hall, which houses evidence that has been confirmed by numerous archaeological excavations and academic verification, demonstrates that the truth of these crimes cannot be buried. The sites were deliberately destroyed by invading Japanese troops to conceal evidence, yet the chain of criminal evidence remains irrefutable. The delegation’s visit, according to the Xinhua report, helped them fully recognize this reality.
While the delegation’s statements were framed as a call for responsibility on the part of Japan, no formal diplomatic or legal agreement was reached during the visit. Likewise, the Chinese side did not issue a joint statement, and the delegation’s call for accountability remains a diplomatic gesture rather than a legally binding demand. The visit also coincided with a symposium in which the delegation shared its perspective with Chinese scholars, but the details of that discussion were not disclosed beyond general remarks about the need for remembrance and consent.
In the broader context, the delegation’s work occurs alongside a continuing debate within Japan about how best to address wartime atrocities. The Association for Inheriting and Propagating the Murayama Statement promotes a “murayama” approach that emphasises remembrance and apology, but it is unclear how its calls dovetail with official Japanese government policy or other civil‑society initiatives. The right‑wing faction’s remarks, meanwhile, highlight a continuing domestic disagreement over historical narrative, yet the extent to which these voices influence policy decisions is not reported.
What remains uncertain, as noted by the sources, is the scope of Japan’s future accountability—whether it will involve formal reparations, legal prosecutions, or broader educational reforms. It is also unclear whether the political rhetoric of right‑wing politicians will continue to influence Japan’s stance on the historical record, or whether the nation will move toward a more reconciliatory approach in light of these diplomatic gestures. The outcome of the delegation’s visit, and whether it will spur substantive policy change or merely add to the roster of public apologies, is still an open question.
