Since the 1980s, sharp debates have centered on Japanese government censorship of school textbooks. The treatment of such issues as the Nanjing Massacre, the military comfort women, and Japanese use of wartime slave labor have been contentious not only in Japan but also in neighboring countries of East Asia that were colonized or occupied by Japanese forces. But the issues are not confined to history. This article carries the story to the present, exploring the implications of Japanese support for the Bush administration's foreign policy as reflected in the revisions required of the latest textbooks.

Afghanistan

Most of the texts submitted for certification in politics/economics this year treat the U. S. attack on Afghanistan. However, on the grounds that it was an assault "based on UN resolution," the certifiers did not accept the term "attack" and revised it to "ground assault," "military assault," and the like. Even if opinions differ on whether the attack on Afghanistan was based on UN resolution, the unilateral revision of the texts, imposing only the government's view, not only damages the freedom of speech and thought of the authors; it also damages the high school students' right to learn. Permit this sort of certification, and in the next round of certification they will probably not accept the term "invasion," either, for this year's aggression against Iraq, unjust no matter how you look at it. This is a new second coming of the "aggression/advance" issue that was previously fought out with respect to textbook treatment of Japan's attack on China in the fifteen year war.

Again, in a passage concerning the invasion of Afghanistan, "it was also the role of ally Japan to urge second thoughts on arrogant America," "America" was replaced by "great power," thus obscuring U.S. responsibility. In the caption for the illustration at the head of the same page, the words "without armed force" were deleted from "Japan contributes without armed force to UN-centered peace;" this is also serious. Toeing the U.S. line, the Ministry openly supported an "international contribution" with armed force.

Atomic Bomb

An ethics text that raised the issue of responsibility for the dropping of the atomic bomb wrote: "It was the American armed forces that dropped the atomic bomb, and that responsibility rests without doubt with the President of the United States of America, the supreme commander of the American military." It went on, "Because it held to its policy of 'all-out resistance' as before, without forethought, the Japanese leading stratum of the time probably cannot avoid a certain responsibility for providing the American military a pretext for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." The certifiers held that "there is danger here of one-sided understanding" and deleted the passages in their entirety.

US-Japan Relations

A passage that the U.S.-Japan security structure "is being broadened and strengthened to 'world-wide scale'" was held to ignore the realities of the new guidelines and the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law of 2001, so it was revised to "is gradually being broadened and strengthened."

A reference to Japan's Self-Defense Force as a "standing military organization" was deleted on the grounds that it ran the "risk of misleading students to think that the force is a 'standing military organization.'" This is a startling view that reverses the fact that the Self-Defense Force is a standing military organization.

New History Textbooks

One text in Japanese history took up the issue of the Society for New History Textbooks, which backed a nationalistic textbook for middle school students.: "When this text won Ministry certification in the 2001 round, a broad citizen's movement arose everywhere to oppose its adoption, and in the end, in middle schools at city, ward, town, and village levels it was accepted virtually nowhere." This passage was revised heavily to read: "The middle-school history text ... was submitted to the Ministry for certification. The Ministry issued many comments and forced revisions, and in 2001 this text was certified. Meanwhile, a broad citizens' movement arose everywhere concerning the rights and wrongs of adopting this text. It was adopted in virtually no middle school." From the revision the inference is that the certification process led to changes in the text. In fact, it was the citizens' movement that led to the changes. To deny the significance of the citizens' movement—by not recognizing the cause-and-effect relation between non-adoption and the citizens' movement, one might term this a certification championing the Society for New History Textbooks.

Postwar Reparations

As has happened before, certification opinions were issued that the problem of reparations between nations was settled and over; but this time, in addition, it was noteworthy that a passage, "The issue of reparations was left in its unsettled state,"was revised to read, "The postwar reparations issue came to be raised as a foreign issue after 1980." Students might thereby be misled to think that the postwar reparations issue did not exist objectively all along but was raised only after 1980.

A passage that referred to compensation for former comfort women was revised to indicate that the government had recommended financial support for "the Asian peoples' peace foundation for women." Thus the textbook seemed to exculpate the government's responsibility for what had happened to the women.

Another revised left the impression that the Japanese army's responsibility for the abuse of the women was vague.

In a passage, "During wartime…in areas Japan invaded, the Japanese army rounded up many women by force," the subject—"the Japanese army"—was deleted. The phrase, "the Japanese Army’s comfort women" was also revised to "comfort women" on the ground that the term was "not in general use."

Asia-Pacific War

Over the last dozen years the phrase "Asia-Pacific War" instead of "Pacific War" has come to be used more frequently. This is because the "Pacific War" cannot represent the entire war correctly: it calls to mind only the war between Japan and the U.S., and Japan's aggression against Asia disappears from consciousness. In this round, too, most of the texts in Japanese history used the phrase "Asia-Pacific War"—that fact alone indicates that this phrase has already achieved broad standing. Absolutely no rational reason exists any more for using the certification authority to exclude the term "Asia-Pacific War" from the texts. Nevertheless, the Ministry asserted that this phrase is "not in general use" and changed it to "Pacific War" throughout. Unconstitutional interference by the authorities in scholarly opinion: that is precisely what this is.

We'll need to keep an eye on submissions like this as well as on the activities of groups like the Society for New History Textbooks.

This article has been edited. It first appeared in Shukan Kinyobi. It was translated by Richard H. Minear for Japan Focus, which brought the article to our attention. The original text can be accessed by clicking here.