Editor's note: Cao Cong, a special commentator for CGTN, is a doctoral candidate at the School of Global and Regional Studies, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

From October 17 to 19, Japan's Yasukuni Shrine is holding its annual Autumn Grand Festival. At this moment, the attitude of Japanese political circles toward the shrine, which honors 14 Class-A war criminals and more than 1,000 Class-B and Class-C war criminals from World War II (WWII), once again offers an important window into its approach to history.

Even though the rituals may go ahead as scheduled, responsibility for wars of aggression must not be allowed to fade through ceremonies repeated year after year. For Asian countries that suffered Japanese aggression during WWII, the question remains whether Japan can translate its pledges of historical reflection into political action.

Recently, Japan's public broadcaster NHK aired a special program disclosing internal meeting records and audio recordings from Yasukuni Shrine, shedding further light on the decision to enshrine 14 Class-A war criminals in 1978.

The opposition of Nagayoshi Matsudaira, the shrine's chief priest at the time, to the Tokyo Trial, together with his insistence that war criminals be enshrined as people who had "died for their country," exposed the political intent behind that decision. These materials are a reminder that the controversy over Yasukuni has always centered on how wars of aggression and those responsible for them are judged.

Mourning the victims of war is a natural human response. But remembrance must draw a clear line between victims and perpetrators and never turn those who bear responsibility for aggression into figures worthy of reverence. By enshrining Hideki Tojo and other war criminals among its "heroic spirits," the Yasukuni Shrine frames the masterminds and proponents of aggressive war as people who sacrificed for the country.

In such narratives, questions about who launched the war, who suffered aggression and who should bear responsibility are gradually displaced by the ambiguous notion of "sacrifice for the country." It is precisely this blurring of historical right and wrong that Asian victim countries have consistently opposed.

Japan's right-wing forces have long sought to reduce the controversy to a matter of religious custom or personal sentiment while sidestepping the public implications of political participation. The offices held by prime ministers, cabinet ministers and members of parliament mean that their gestures of respect toward Yasukuni inevitably send signals beyond the private sphere. Visits in person, ritual offerings and monetary contributions may differ in form, but all raise the same question: Why insist on paying homage at a site that honors those war criminals?

In April this year, Sanae Takaichi sent ritual offerings and a monetary contribution to Yasukuni Shrine, while some cabinet ministers and lawmakers visited the site, drawing criticism from neighboring countries that had been subjected to Japanese aggression during WWII. The recurrence of such actions exposes a clear gap between professed commitments to upholding a position of remorse and actual political conduct. Japan cannot ask its neighbors to trust its commitment to peace while portraying actions that hurt the feelings of people in victim countries as routine practices beyond scrutiny.

"Routine rituals" cannot legitimize a misguided position on history. The fact that a practice has continued for years does not make it acceptable. When visits and offerings become established political gestures, scrutiny of war responsibility can easily be pushed aside. Public attention focuses on whether ceremonies take place and which politicians attend, while the people being honored and the memories of war being conveyed may receive less attention.

By making these gestures habitual, Japan's right-wing forces turn a subject demanding serious reflection into a political instrument for rallying support and signaling allegiance. The damage extends beyond historical narratives. How a country interprets its past influences how others assess its present policies.

When aggressive war is reduced to an abstract story of national suffering and those responsible are woven into a narrative of glory, the historical lessons that should restrain the use of military force are weakened. The doubts this creates cannot be dispelled by a few statements about "praying for peace." For Japan, a loss of credibility on historical issues will continue to make regional dialogue more difficult and erode mutual trust on security.

Calls for confronting the Yasukuni Shrine issue also come from within Japanese society. Such criticism concerns Japan's own responsibility to safeguard peace and educate future generations. By dismissing criticism as external pressure, Japan's right-wing forces also shut out serious debate within their own society about responsibility for the war.

Meaningful remembrance should help people understand how wars began and what devastation aggression inflicted on other countries while preventing the same mistakes from recurring. Japan should respond with concrete steps to stop glorifying war criminals and confront its history of aggression. Evading responsibility in the name of ritual only makes the absence of remorse more apparent. Whether Japan can earn its neighbors’ trust will ultimately be judged by its actions.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)