A push by Japan to correct perceived bias in accounts of the country’s wartime past is creating a row that risks muddling the positive message in a mammoth public relations campaign to win friends abroad.
The PR campaign, which has a budget of more than US$500 million, comes as Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe aims to adopt a less apologetic stance on Japan’s actions before and during World War II and ease the fetters imposed on defense policy by Japan’s post-war, pacifist constitution.
History is hardly the sole focus of the public relations program. Many of the funds will be used for soft-power initiatives to cultivate “pro-Japan” foreigners, such as supporting Japanese studies at universities and setting up “Japan House” centers to promote the “Japan Brand.”
However, the government is also targeting wartime accounts by overseas textbook publishers and others that it sees as incorrect and damaging to Japan’s image.
One such effort has already sparked a backlash.
Nineteen historians from US universities have written a letter of protest against a recent request by the Japanese government to publisher McGraw Hill Education to revise its account of “comfort women,” the term used in Japan for those forced to work in Japanese military brothels.
The request was rejected.
“We stand with the many historians in Japan and elsewhere who have worked to bring to light the facts about this and other atrocities of World War II. We practice and produce history to learn from the past,” says the letter, a copy of which will be carried in the March edition of the American Historical Association’s newsletter.
“We therefore oppose the efforts of states or special interests to pressure publishers or historians to alter the results of their research for political purposes,” it added.
Abe himself has signaled support for the more aggressive PR push.
“Being modest does not receive recognition in the international community, and we must argue points when necessary,” he recently told a parliamentary panel.
The effort comes at a touchy time as Asia marks the 70th anniversary of World War II’s end with bitter memories not yet laid to rest, especially in China and North and South Korea.
After a decade of shrinking spending on public diplomacy, the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs won a total of ￥70 billion (US$590 million) for strategic communications in an extra budget for 2014/2015 and the initial budget for the next year from April — up from just ￥20 billion in the initial 2014/2015 budget.
Many politicians and officials worry that Japan has been outmaneuvered by the aggressive public diplomacy of regional rivals China and South Korea.
“Many countries are investing hugely in this field and we feel we were not investing enough,” a Japanese foreign ministry official said.
Conservatives have welcomed the bigger budget, but want priority placed on correcting perceived errors about history.
“When we see lots of misunderstanding or prejudice against Japan’s history, we’d like to at least set the record straight,” said Yoshiko Sakurai, a journalist and head of the Japan Institute for National Fundamentals, a conservative think tank.
“We have already lost [the information war]. Now we have to recover,” she said in an interview.
Aware of the danger of a backlash, diplomats seem to have mitigated pressure to make the “Japan House” centers — to be set up first in London, Los Angeles and Sao Paulo late next year — beachheads to market an official view of history.
Instead, the facilities could provide what one bureaucrat called a “platform for balanced discussion” on controversial topics, for example, by sponsoring seminars.
However, conservative politicians want bolder steps.
“We are half-satisfied. By mobilizing all means, we must strengthen Japan’s information strategy ... so that in a real sense, we can have [others] properly understand what is good about Japan,” said Liberal Democratic Party Japanese Legislator Yoshiaki Harada, who heads a party committee on improving Japan’s communication strategy.
Experts said government efforts to seek changes in historical accounts would be counter-productive, since it would keep the issue of Japan’s wartime past in public focus.
“Dragging people into a long discussion about history ... seems like they are going to brand Japan with that atrocity in terms of its image,” Dartmouth College professor Jennifer Lind said. “It’s a losing battle.”
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS