The Politics of War Memory in Japan

Progressive Civil Society Groups and Contestation of Memory of the Asia-Pacific War

Kamila Szczepanska

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9780415707718
• eBook ISBN: 9781134600205
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Japanese History
• Index: History

Since the 1990s, questions of Japanese wartime conduct, apologies for aggression, and compensation to former victims of the country's imperial policies, have been brought to the fore of national and regional politics. The state is undoubtedly the most important actor in the process of memory production and along with conservative legislators and the grass-root revisionist movement there has been a consistent trend towards denying or undermining the existing acknowledgments of responsibility for Japan's wartime past. However, to fully comprehend war memory in Japan, due attention must be paid to competing discourses that demand an alternative view, and only then can the complexity of Japanese war memory and attitudes towards the legacies of the Asia-Pacific war be understood.

The Politics of War Memory in Japan examines the involvement of five civil society actors in the struggle over remembering and addressing the wartime past in Japan today. In studying progressive war memory activists, it quickly becomes clear that the apologia by conservative politicians cannot be treated as representative of the opinion of the majority of the Japanese public. Indeed, this book seeks to remedy the disparity between studies devoted to the official level of addressing the 'history issue' and the grass-root historical revisionist movement on the one side, and progressive activism on the other. Furthermore, it contributes to scholarly debates on the state of civil society in Japan, challenging the characterisation of Japanese civil society as a depoliticised space by demonstrating a more contentious side of civil society activism.

Drawing important new empirical research, this book will be of huge interest to students and scholars of Japanese civil society, Japanese politics, Japanese history and memory in Japan.

1	Introduction

Since the 1990s questions about Japanese wartime conduct, apologies for aggression, and compensation for former victims of the country’s Imperial policies, have been brought to the fore of national and regional politics. The changes in the geopolitical setting in the region, the re-emergence of previously forgotten or neglected episodes of the Asia-Pacific War as well as political shifts on the domestic front, which included the temporary loss of control of the government by the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), contributed to a greater recognition of the wartime culpability of Imperial Japan by the government and engagement in the politics of apology towards neighbouring countries. However, the increasing prominence and purchasing power of discourses emphasising Japan’s culpability, as well as the instances of the expression of remorse at the official level, have provoked negative reactions from certain sectors of conservative political elites and the wider society against the so-called masochistic view of national history.

The way in which the state addressed the subject of war memory and responsibility for the suffering inflicted on nationals of neighbouring countries in the 1990s, including the efforts to popularise a more ‘positive’ overview of the Asia-Pacific War by certain sectors of lawmakers, has attracted wide academic interest.¹ Additionally, the grass-root movement to correct the ‘masochistic’ view of history, centred on the Association for History Textbook Reform (Atarashii rekishi kyōkasho o tsukurukai), has been vigorously discussed by scholars, and has led to broadening knowledge on the reasons for its emergence, its discourse(s) and actions.² The tendency to deny or justify the country’s wartime record, as reflected in the behaviour and remarks of conservative political lawmakers as well as the growth of a vocal historical revisionist movement, prompted certain members of the research community to evaluate war memory in Japan in a highly critical manner, as demonstrated in a study by George Hicks (1997) condemning Japanese ‘amnesia’ and an unfavourable account presented by Gavan McCormack in his work entitled The Emptiness of Japanese Affluence (2001: 225–87). Other members of the academic community have expressed their disappointment with simplistic portrayals of the multiplicity of attitudes in Japanese society towards the country’s wartime past and the introduction of sweeping generalisations by other scholars as well as foreign observers (e.g. Seaton 2005, 2007a; Richter 2008: 53–4).

The war narratives produced at the state and official commemoration level are of paramount importance in international relations owing to their influence in shaping the perceptions of the past held by members of the public, and by extension the citizens’ sense of national identity. There is no denying that the state remains the most important actor in the process of memory production and, therefore, the level of academic attention devoted to the state is well justified. However, accounts of failure to acknowledge responsibility for Japan’s wartime past at the official level, as demonstrated by denials of wrongdoing by a significant number of conservative legislators, and attention to the grass-root revisionist movement, unintentionally lead to a certain marginalisation of discourses and actors that demand greater acceptance of manifold responsibilities stemming from the country’s past. The under-representation of these ‘progressive’ voices operating below the state level lessens the possibility of grasping the complexity of Japanese war memory and attitudes towards the legacies of the Asia-Pacific War.

Progressive war memory activism in Japan: what is already known and what more is there to find out?

This book strives among the others to partly remedy the previously mentioned disparity between studies devoted to the official level of addressing the ‘history issue’ and the grass-root historical revisionist movement on the one hand, and progressive activism on the other. The term progressive refers to individuals as well as groups who, first, reject Japan’s wartime Imperial project with its colonial and militarist pursuits; second, profess their support for the idea of Japan as a ‘peace state’; and third, are supportive of the notion that the Japanese state bears responsibility for the victimisation of its neighbours, and this requires that certain amends should be made as well as furnishing the Japanese public with knowledge about the country’s past misdeeds.³ A number of previous studies of war memory in Japan have addressed the subject of progressive activism in relation to the ‘comfort women’ issue, the textbook controversy and the struggle for redress. These are briefly presented below in order to position the book in the existing body of scholarship that engages with the subject of progressive war memory activism.

Among the studies that concentrate on the participation of civil society actors in contestation of war memory in Japan, the research of Seraphim (2006, 2007) and Nozaki (2008) aptly captures the depth of involvement of non-governmental groups in the dynamic process of producing meaning and making sense of the past. Seraphim’s (2006) work focuses on investigating the social politics of war memory in Japan through the examination of five civic groups ranging from organisations with a progressive agenda to conservative actors. In her study, Seraphim shows that various agents of civil society were actively engaged in the struggle concerning how to remember and commemorate the country’s wartime past from the early post-war years onwards. In fact, it is suggested that the state played a limited role in domestic discussion about remembrance of Japan’s wartime experiences, as this particular issue was left to be contested between actors at the civil society level. Whereas Seraphim’s studies cover a broad spectrum of struggles concerning the meaning of Japan’s wartime past between a range of actors, the research of Nozaki (2008) focuses on an episode of immense importance in the post-war history of Japan, i.e. the court battles of Ienaga Saburō against the government regarding the issue of the official certification of textbooks. Nozaki’s work demonstrates that Ienaga’s lawsuits played a central role in the struggles concerning the shape of the national historical narrative and national identity in Japan. Furthermore, her book emphasises the influence of lawsuits outside the court. The litigation contributed to invigorating both research and public interest in the problem of Japan’s wartime conduct, as well as helping to pave the way for the wider circulation of alternative discourses about the war that were critical of the existing, sanitised narratives about the Asia-Pacific conflict. The works of Seraphim and Nozaki make a valuable contribution to problematising the simplistic assumptions on the subject of Japan’s war memory by demonstrating how the fragmented perceptions of the Asia-Pacific War were produced and promoted by various agencies at the civil society level, as well as how their discourses resonated with wider audiences. Nevertheless, both works chiefly focus on the period preceding the 1990s, and in consequence the activism of progressive actors who entered the scene in the 1990s is addressed only to a limited extent.

Among scholarly publications investigating the subject of war memory activism that includes Japanese progressive actors from the 1990s onwards, studies concerning the ‘comfort women’ movement are especially prominent. The development and activities of the ‘comfort women’ movement in Japan is presented in the writings of practitioners, including researchers-turned-activists, such as Watanabe (1994), Kim (1996), Yamazaki (1996) and Hayashi (2001, 2008). The discourse about ‘comfort women’, culminating with the redefinition of the sexual violence experienced by the victims as a war crime and grave violation of human rights, as well as the role played by feminist activists in this process, is addressed in detail in the writings of Ueno (2004) and Soh (2008). The process of the ‘strategic retelling’ of the stories of ‘comfort women’ is also discussed by Mitsui (2007). The single event connected with the ‘comfort women’ movement that captured the attention of scholars is the Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan’s Military Sexual Slavery (WIWCT) organised in 2000 by Japanese, Korean and Filipina activists (e.g. Chinkin 2001; Dudden 2001; Kim 2001; Sakamoto 2001; Matsui 2003). An instance of contesting the matter of wartime violence against women in Japan which attracted the interest of scholars in the 2000s, is the legal battle between the Nippon Hōsō Kyōkai/Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK) and Violence against Women in War Network Japan (VAWW NET Japan) (2001–8), an organisation supporting the ‘comfort women’ cause in Japan, over the editing of a documentary on the WIWCT. This particular subject is addressed by McCormack (2005), Morris-Suzuki (2005), Yoneyama (2005a, 2005b), and Field (2007) in their accounts of the controversy that originated from the introduction of extensive ‘amendments’ to the programme.

Whereas in the majority of cases, generally speaking, the ‘comfort women’ movement and its achievements are perceived in a positive light, there are voices that problematise the contribution and influence of activists. For instance, whereas Ueno recognises that the change in perceptions of the issue from ‘national shame’ to ‘gender discrimination’ and ‘national discrimination’ was brought about by the campaigns of Korean feminists, she also points out a strong trait of nationalism in the discourse produced by the latter (2004: 92). Likewise, without denying the contribution of feminist groups to popularising the matter, Soh (2008) remains highly critical of Korean activists (i.e. the Korean Council for Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery), and by extension other foreign groups that sympathised with them, for instrumental promotion of a simplified and distorted narrative about ‘comfort women’ that reduces the complexity of the experiences of the latter during the war. An equally critical evaluation is presented by Horvat (2007). The latter, on the basis of comparing the role of non-governmental actors in settling the negative legacies of the past in Europe and East Asia, argues that ‘Japan’s civil society organisations are too weak to be able to nurture on their own TNAs [transnational non-state actors] needed to achieve European style people-to-people reconciliation on historical issues’ (ibid.: 217). Among the sources of the aforementioned weakness, Horvat (ibid.: 223–4) enumerates institutional constraints connected with obtaining legal status by non-governmental groups and securing funding. In Horvat’s opinion, this led to the emergence of a movement dominated by ‘zealotry’ (ibid.: 227). Horvat’s critique targets mainly the ‘comfort women’ activists in Japan, who he perceives as being counterproductive to the reconciliation process.

In addition to the ‘comfort women’ movement, the extant literature reveals the involvement of civil society actors in the contestation of history education in Japan. The presence and role of progressive activists in the 2001 textbook controversy is discussed by Rose (2005: 61–2, 66, 2006: 141–2), who shows how groups concerned with the rise of historical revisionism (including Children and Textbooks Japan Network 21 – CTJN21) organised a campaign countering the efforts of the Tsukurukai to have its book introduced to schools and discusses measures deployed by organisers of the campaign. The Internet presence of progressive groups during the 2001 textbook controversy is addressed by Ducke (2007) in her study on the Internet and civil society in Japan. Regarding the importance of progressive actors in the contestation of history education in Japan, both Rose and Saaler (2005) acknowledge their contribution to hindering the spread of neo-nationalist discourses about Japan’s wartime past. Although Rose recognises that the conservative agenda in the sphere of education advanced since the mid-1990s, at the same time she observes that ‘the persistence and vigour with which the progressives are fighting their corner should not be underestimated, and the debate is far from over’ (2006: 148). For Saaler (2005: 168–70) the existence of a citizens’ movement opposing efforts to rewrite national history according to a neo-nationalistic script guarantees that trials to instil state-centred nationalism in the populace will be unsuccessful.

In addition to the textbook controversy, in recent years scholars have begun to pay increasing attention to grass-root efforts to bridge the gaps in historical perceptions between East Asian nations and to create a common history teaching material to alleviate conflicts over history in the region (Iwasaki and Narita 2008; Wang 2009; Hirano 2009: 210–16; Chung 2011: 219–21; Kawate 2011: 235–40; Park 2011; Su 2011: 159–60). A trilateral book (Mirai o hiraku rekishi [History that Opens the Future]) that was the outcome of co-operation between non-governmental actors from South Korea and Japan as well as a number of prominent academics from China received the attention of scholars as the first initiative of this kind in history (see, for instance, Iwasaki and Narita 2008 and Park 2011), although researchers have differed in their evaluation of the book’s content and its potential contribution to reducing conflicts about the past.

Finally, the contribution of Japanese civil society groups to the contestation of the country’s wartime past has been recognised in connection with the struggle for redress by former forced labourers and the POW issue (Reynolds 2005; Rose 2005; Underwood 2006a, 2006b, 2006c, 2008; Wan 2006; Zablonski and Seaton 2008; Nagase 2010; Nemoto 2011). In her study on the history issue and reconciliation between China and Japan, Rose (2005: 69–98) shows the extent and breadth of the engagement of Japanese civil society groups in supporting the court battles of Chinese former forced labourers, ‘comfort women’, and victims of biological warfare and chemical weapons for apology and compensation. Rose also demonstrates how co-operative initiatives between lawyers, researchers and citizens in both countries, which, despite limited success in terms of securing favourable court rulings, contributed greatly to fact-finding and promoting knowledge about the matter among the general public in Japan. Similarly, research conducted by Underwood reveals links between Japanese groups and their foreign counterparts in South Korea (see 2006b, 2006c, 2008) and China (2006a). Nevertheless, Underwood (2006c) remains sceptical about the realisation of a tri-national redress movement, due to ‘factionalism and compartmentalisation [which] have long weakened progressive political movements’ and ideological divisions among Japanese supporters of Korean and Chinese redress movements. The article by Zablonski and Seaton (2008) introduces two groups that are engaged in grass-root reconciliation efforts in northern Japan through the organisation of the exhumation and return of the remains of Chinese and Korean forced labourers to their homelands as well as young people’s exchange initiatives.

The subject of involvement of civil society groups in activism concerning the issue of Allied POWs in Japan is briefly touched upon in the extant studies. Most importantly, Nagase Takashi, a former kempeitai interpreter at the Kanchanaburi POW camp near the Thai-Burma border, who was committed to promoting reconciliation between former victims and victimisers, drew academic attention (e.g. Reynolds 2005: 342–3; Nagase 2010; Nemoto 2011). Regarding the contribution of Japanese activists to the clarification of the historical records about the POW issue during the past decade, an article by Lawrence Repeta (2009) mentions a fact-finding initiative conducted by a member of the Prisoners of War Research Network Japan (POWRNJ). An article contributed by a member of POWRNJ, Fukubayashi Toru, to Sekai (translated in the Asia Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, 17 August 2009) provides further details about the discovery of documents and other activities of the group.

Taking into consideration the above-mentioned scholarly work concerning the subject of progressive war memory activism, the following points can be put forth. The available literature on ‘comfort women’ activism, including Japanese actors, covers the subject of shaping the discourse on sexual exploitation by activists and researchers, as well as the development of the movement during the 1990s and early 2000s. However, there is a relative lack of research on the period after the WIWCT. The Tribunal was given substantial coverage in academic sources, whereas only a limited number of reports concerning the activities of domestic actors in the national setting have been published during the last decade. In this situation, it is necessary to ask what happened in Japan during the decade following the WIWCT and what efforts were undertaken by civil society actors to pursue the cause in the country and to what ends. Second, although studies on the transnational dimension of the movement tackle significant issues concerning cross-border networking between activists and their efforts to popularise the ‘comfort women’ cause in international arenas, it is necessary to explore how in practice domestic groups work to promote awareness of the problem and act in pursu...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• List of abbreviations
• Glossary of Japanese terms
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Performing the politics of (war) memory
• 3. The actors
• 4. How do you make your voice heard? Clarifying historical records and reaching out to the public
• 5. How do you make your voice heard? Engaging the mass media
• 6. How do you make your voice heard? Targeting national and local governments
• 7. How do you make your voice heard? Transnational networking and co-operation with international institutions
• 8. Conclusion
• Appendix: Chronology
• Bibliography
• Index