The Irony of the New History Textbook
TAOKA Shunji / Senior Defense Correspondent of the Asahi Shimbun
July 26, 2001
In the last half century, the proponents of pro-South Korean policies in Japanese politics and media had been the conservatives. Holding to their beliefs in anti-communism, pro-American policies and stronger defense, they felt unilateral sympathy towards South Korea for confronting the threat of North Korea. They asserted that if red flags be raised in Pusan, the southernmost port city of Korea, Japan would become the next target of Soviet expansionism. So they pushed forward with negotiations and the ratification of the Treaty of Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea in 1965, and supported various policy measures for extending economic aid, technological transfers and massive investments aimed at making war-torn South Korea economically viable.
At the same time, Japanese conservatives tend to hold positive views about the heritage and history of the nation, and fiercely react to criticism from foreign countries, just as conservatives in other countries do. They take pride in the fact that Japan forced China to recognize full independence for Korea following Japan's victory against China in 1895, and that when Russia occupied Manchuria in 1900 and started to infiltrate into Korea, Japan challenged the military superpower of the day and expelled Russian troops from Korea and Manchuria, as well as destroying the Russian Pacific and Baltic fleets.
As the result of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 and 1905, Russia recognized Japan's mastery in Korea and it became Japan's protectorate. And after the Japanese governor Prince Ito, a highly respected prime minister during the Russo-Japanese war, was assassinated by a Korean terrorist, direct rule started. While Japanese conservatives admit that any colonial rule is basically wrong, they attempt to point out such positive factors as: (1) due to improvements in hygiene and general living standards, the Korean population increased by 70% in the first thirty years, and food production more than tripled by the introduction of Japanese agricultural technology; (2) feudalistic social systems, including slavery, were abolished after Korea's independence from China in 1895 due to the pressure exerted by Japanese advisors and (3) administration, legal systems and education were modernized and infrastructures for transportation, communication and industry served as one of the foundations of South Korea's post-World War II development.
Koreans on the other hand believe that such "modernization" was nothing more than the means for Japan to strengthen its colonial rule, and emphasize the negative aspects. This presents a sharp contrast to the surprisingly pro-Japanese attitudes shown by the Taiwanese.
Objectively thinking, most foreigners are likely to side with the Korean point of view. For example, if Americans were to say that living conditions of former Mexicans in Texas improved after it was annexed by the US in 1845, or that the Philippines was "modernized" after the American conquest in which more than 100,000 Filipinos lost their lives (Mark Twain writes "one million"), both Japanese and Europeans would be amused, even if some truth was contained in such assertions. China's insistence that it broke feudalistic rule in Tibet and was modernizing it, is akin to the "modernization" theory of Japanese conservatives. In any country, conservatives are positive about the history of their nation while critical to similar conduct by others.
Hence, discord between pro-South Korean Japanese conservatives and Koreans regarding history was inherently inevitable. In other words, the two had been on an extended collision course. And they have finally collided. The new history textbook was published by Fuso-sha, a publishing company that belongs to conservative and generally pro-South Korean (or anti-North Korean) Sankei newspaper group. Its authors are members of a group of revisionist historians who have accused existing history textbooks as being "masochistic" and " inclined to left wing ideology" because of their emphasis on the dark side of Japan's history.
Possibly for the first time, Japanese conservatives may have realized the contradictions inherent in their pro-South Korean stance and their views toward Japanese history. If China had been the vanguard of the attack against the new history textbook, this contradiction would not have surfaced. But the Chinese government, giving economic interests top priority, showed mature judgment and superb diplomatic skill. China limited its actions to sending a mild note of complaint to Japan, and tactfully hid itself behind South Korea in the textbook dispute. After all, Japan is the largest donor of development aid and one of the most important investors and export market for China.
Japan's Ministry of Education and Science can request publishers to correct obvious factual errors in textbooks or make recommendations about their content. Already, more than 150 corrections and changes in expressions have been made before the textbook was approved as acceptable. Local boards of education are to choose a suitable one out of many textbooks. The Ministry has no authority to suspend publication or urge local communities not to use a textbook. Should this issue develop into a lawsuit regarding the constitutional right of freedom of expression, the government will be in a weak position. So whatever the Koreans say, the government can do nothing but to ignore them. It is very ironical that a textbook published by a "pro-South Korean" group is at the center of the current crisis in Japanese-Korean relations.
In April this year too, a ridiculous incident occurred. When a conservative Japanese politician said in a TV debate that if North Korea attacks US Forces in Korea, Japan should help the US forces based on the right of collective self-defense, South (not North) Korea's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade immediately accused him of neglecting Korean sovereignty. And because of the emotional frictions over the textbook, the joint exercise of Japan's Maritime Self Defense Forces and the ROK Navy was cancelled by the Korean side. Proponents of collective self defense have met an adverse wind and have been taken aback. Now, South Koreans need worry no more about Japanese forces coming to their rescue.
Likewise, Japanese tax payers need not be concerned by the possibility of having to shoulder the gigantic cost of Korean unification, estimated at over one trillion dollars. Japanese conservatives have lost the ideological or psychological grounds for their pro-South Korean policy, while the peninsula's strategic importance for Japan has diminished as a consequence of the dramatic weakening of Russian forces in the Far East. The textbook issue has taught a severe lesson to Japanese conservatives.
The writer is Senior Defense Correspondent of the Asahi Shimbun.
At the same time, Japanese conservatives tend to hold positive views about the heritage and history of the nation, and fiercely react to criticism from foreign countries, just as conservatives in other countries do. They take pride in the fact that Japan forced China to recognize full independence for Korea following Japan's victory against China in 1895, and that when Russia occupied Manchuria in 1900 and started to infiltrate into Korea, Japan challenged the military superpower of the day and expelled Russian troops from Korea and Manchuria, as well as destroying the Russian Pacific and Baltic fleets.
As the result of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 and 1905, Russia recognized Japan's mastery in Korea and it became Japan's protectorate. And after the Japanese governor Prince Ito, a highly respected prime minister during the Russo-Japanese war, was assassinated by a Korean terrorist, direct rule started. While Japanese conservatives admit that any colonial rule is basically wrong, they attempt to point out such positive factors as: (1) due to improvements in hygiene and general living standards, the Korean population increased by 70% in the first thirty years, and food production more than tripled by the introduction of Japanese agricultural technology; (2) feudalistic social systems, including slavery, were abolished after Korea's independence from China in 1895 due to the pressure exerted by Japanese advisors and (3) administration, legal systems and education were modernized and infrastructures for transportation, communication and industry served as one of the foundations of South Korea's post-World War II development.
Koreans on the other hand believe that such "modernization" was nothing more than the means for Japan to strengthen its colonial rule, and emphasize the negative aspects. This presents a sharp contrast to the surprisingly pro-Japanese attitudes shown by the Taiwanese.
Objectively thinking, most foreigners are likely to side with the Korean point of view. For example, if Americans were to say that living conditions of former Mexicans in Texas improved after it was annexed by the US in 1845, or that the Philippines was "modernized" after the American conquest in which more than 100,000 Filipinos lost their lives (Mark Twain writes "one million"), both Japanese and Europeans would be amused, even if some truth was contained in such assertions. China's insistence that it broke feudalistic rule in Tibet and was modernizing it, is akin to the "modernization" theory of Japanese conservatives. In any country, conservatives are positive about the history of their nation while critical to similar conduct by others.
Hence, discord between pro-South Korean Japanese conservatives and Koreans regarding history was inherently inevitable. In other words, the two had been on an extended collision course. And they have finally collided. The new history textbook was published by Fuso-sha, a publishing company that belongs to conservative and generally pro-South Korean (or anti-North Korean) Sankei newspaper group. Its authors are members of a group of revisionist historians who have accused existing history textbooks as being "masochistic" and " inclined to left wing ideology" because of their emphasis on the dark side of Japan's history.
Possibly for the first time, Japanese conservatives may have realized the contradictions inherent in their pro-South Korean stance and their views toward Japanese history. If China had been the vanguard of the attack against the new history textbook, this contradiction would not have surfaced. But the Chinese government, giving economic interests top priority, showed mature judgment and superb diplomatic skill. China limited its actions to sending a mild note of complaint to Japan, and tactfully hid itself behind South Korea in the textbook dispute. After all, Japan is the largest donor of development aid and one of the most important investors and export market for China.
Japan's Ministry of Education and Science can request publishers to correct obvious factual errors in textbooks or make recommendations about their content. Already, more than 150 corrections and changes in expressions have been made before the textbook was approved as acceptable. Local boards of education are to choose a suitable one out of many textbooks. The Ministry has no authority to suspend publication or urge local communities not to use a textbook. Should this issue develop into a lawsuit regarding the constitutional right of freedom of expression, the government will be in a weak position. So whatever the Koreans say, the government can do nothing but to ignore them. It is very ironical that a textbook published by a "pro-South Korean" group is at the center of the current crisis in Japanese-Korean relations.
In April this year too, a ridiculous incident occurred. When a conservative Japanese politician said in a TV debate that if North Korea attacks US Forces in Korea, Japan should help the US forces based on the right of collective self-defense, South (not North) Korea's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade immediately accused him of neglecting Korean sovereignty. And because of the emotional frictions over the textbook, the joint exercise of Japan's Maritime Self Defense Forces and the ROK Navy was cancelled by the Korean side. Proponents of collective self defense have met an adverse wind and have been taken aback. Now, South Koreans need worry no more about Japanese forces coming to their rescue.
Likewise, Japanese tax payers need not be concerned by the possibility of having to shoulder the gigantic cost of Korean unification, estimated at over one trillion dollars. Japanese conservatives have lost the ideological or psychological grounds for their pro-South Korean policy, while the peninsula's strategic importance for Japan has diminished as a consequence of the dramatic weakening of Russian forces in the Far East. The textbook issue has taught a severe lesson to Japanese conservatives.
The writer is Senior Defense Correspondent of the Asahi Shimbun.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
歴史教科書の皮肉
田岡 俊次 / 朝日新聞編集委員
2001年 7月 26日
過去半世紀、日本の政治、メディアでの親韓政策の主張者は保守派だった。反共主義、親米政策、強い防衛力を信じる日本保守派は、北朝鮮の脅威と対決する韓国に一方的な共感を感じてきた。彼等は、韓国最南部の釜山に赤旗が掲げられれば日本はソ連の拡張主義の次の目標となる、と主張し、1965年の日韓基本条約の批准を推進し、韓国への経済援助、技術移転、投資を支持してきた。
同時に日本保守派は、他の国の保守派と同様、国の伝統と歴史に肯定的見解を持ち、外国人がそれを非難することに激しく反応する。彼等は日本が1895年の中国に対する勝利によって韓国の完全な独立を承認させたこと、ロシアが満州を占領し韓国北部に侵入すると、日本がこの軍事超大国に挑戦し、韓国と満州からロシア軍を駆逐し、その太平洋、バルト海両艦隊を撃滅したことを誇りとする。
日露戦争の結果、ロシアは日本の韓国支配を承認して韓国は日本の保護国となり、日本人に尊敬されていた日露戦争時の首相伊藤公爵が韓国人テロリストに暗殺されたのち、直接統治が始った。日本保守派は植民地支配は良くないことは認めつつ、衛生水準の向上、日本の農業技術の導入により、最初の30年で朝鮮の人口は70％増え、食料生産は三倍以上となり、奴隷制を含む封建的社会制度が1895年の中国からの独立後、日本人の顧問たちの圧力で廃止され、行政、法律制度、教育が近代化され、交通、通信、工業などのインフラストラクチュアが第二次大戦後の韓国発展の一つの基盤となったなどの肯定的要素を指摘しようとする。
一方、韓国人はそうした"近代化"は日本が植民地支配を強化する手段にすぎなかったとし、否定的側面を強調する。これは驚くほど親日的な台湾人と鋭い対照を示している。
客観的に考えれば諸外国人は韓国人の見解に組みするだろう。例えば、もしアメリカ人が「テキサスの元メキシコ人の生活水準は1845年以後アメリカ支配下で向上した」とか、十万人以上の（マーク・トウェインは100万人と書いている）フィリピン人が命を失ったアメリカによる征服の後、「フィリピンは近代化された」と言えば、それに幾分の真実が含まれていても、日本人もヨーロッパ人も笑うだろう。「チベットの封建制を打破し近代化した」という中国の主張も、日本保守派の「韓国近代化」説と同類だ。どこの国でも保守派は自国の歴史に肯定的、他国の類似の行動に批判的となりがちである。
故に、日本の保守的親韓グループと韓国人の歴史に対する対立は本質的に不可避であり、両者は長い衝突コースにあった。ついに衝突は発生した。問題の新しい歴史教科書は保守系で伝統的に親韓国的な産経新聞グループに属する扶桑社により出版された。著者たちは従来の日本の歴史教科書が暗い側面を強調する"マゾヒスティック"で"左翼に傾いている"と非難してきた一群の歴史家たちだ。
日本の保守派は彼達の親韓感情と、その歴史的見解に内包されていた本質的矛盾をはじめて自覚したのではあるまいか。もし中国が親歴史教科書への攻撃の先鋒となれば、この矛盾は表面化しなかったろう。だが経済的利益を優先順位のトップに置く中国政府は成熟した判断を示し、最大のODA供与国、最重要の投資国、輸出市場である日本に対し、教科書問題では温和な抗議をしただけで、巧妙に韓国の背後に隠れた。
日本の文部科学省は教科書の事実の明白な誤りについて出版社に訂正を求め、内容について勧告はできる。すでに元の原稿に対して百五十点余の表現の変更、訂正が行われ、許容範囲の教科書として承認された。多くの教科書のうち、どれを選ぶかは地方の教育委員会が決定する。文部科学省が出版を止めさせたり、使用しないように自治体に命ずる権限はない。憲法上の表現の自由に関する訴訟になれば、政府は弱い立場だ。韓国人が何を言おうがそれを無視するしかあるまい。皮肉にも日韓関係は"親韓派"が作った教科書によって危機に面することとなった。
今年の四月には、日本の保守系政治家が、「もし北朝鮮が在韓米軍を攻撃すれば、日本は集団的自衛権により、在韓米軍を助けるべきだ」とテレビ討論で述べたのに対し、韓国（北朝鮮ではない）の外務通商部が「国の主権を軽視した」と抗議するこっけいな事件が起きた。教科書に関る感情の摩擦で海上自衛隊と韓国海軍の共同訓練は、韓国によって中止された。"集団的自衛"論は予期せぬ逆風に会って裏帆を打った。韓国人は日本の部隊が彼らを助けに来ることを心配する必要はなくなった。
同様に、日本の納税者たちは朝鮮半島が統一された場合の巨額のコスト、推定一兆ドル以上、が自分たちの肩に掛ることを恐れる必要はなくなった。日本の保守派が親韓政策のイデオロギー的、心理的根拠を失い、かつ同半島の日本にとっての戦略的重要性は極東ロシア軍の劇的な衰弱により減少したからである。教科書をめぐる紛議は日本の保守派に手厳しい教訓を与えたのである。
（筆者は朝日新聞編集委員）
同時に日本保守派は、他の国の保守派と同様、国の伝統と歴史に肯定的見解を持ち、外国人がそれを非難することに激しく反応する。彼等は日本が1895年の中国に対する勝利によって韓国の完全な独立を承認させたこと、ロシアが満州を占領し韓国北部に侵入すると、日本がこの軍事超大国に挑戦し、韓国と満州からロシア軍を駆逐し、その太平洋、バルト海両艦隊を撃滅したことを誇りとする。
日露戦争の結果、ロシアは日本の韓国支配を承認して韓国は日本の保護国となり、日本人に尊敬されていた日露戦争時の首相伊藤公爵が韓国人テロリストに暗殺されたのち、直接統治が始った。日本保守派は植民地支配は良くないことは認めつつ、衛生水準の向上、日本の農業技術の導入により、最初の30年で朝鮮の人口は70％増え、食料生産は三倍以上となり、奴隷制を含む封建的社会制度が1895年の中国からの独立後、日本人の顧問たちの圧力で廃止され、行政、法律制度、教育が近代化され、交通、通信、工業などのインフラストラクチュアが第二次大戦後の韓国発展の一つの基盤となったなどの肯定的要素を指摘しようとする。
一方、韓国人はそうした"近代化"は日本が植民地支配を強化する手段にすぎなかったとし、否定的側面を強調する。これは驚くほど親日的な台湾人と鋭い対照を示している。
客観的に考えれば諸外国人は韓国人の見解に組みするだろう。例えば、もしアメリカ人が「テキサスの元メキシコ人の生活水準は1845年以後アメリカ支配下で向上した」とか、十万人以上の（マーク・トウェインは100万人と書いている）フィリピン人が命を失ったアメリカによる征服の後、「フィリピンは近代化された」と言えば、それに幾分の真実が含まれていても、日本人もヨーロッパ人も笑うだろう。「チベットの封建制を打破し近代化した」という中国の主張も、日本保守派の「韓国近代化」説と同類だ。どこの国でも保守派は自国の歴史に肯定的、他国の類似の行動に批判的となりがちである。
故に、日本の保守的親韓グループと韓国人の歴史に対する対立は本質的に不可避であり、両者は長い衝突コースにあった。ついに衝突は発生した。問題の新しい歴史教科書は保守系で伝統的に親韓国的な産経新聞グループに属する扶桑社により出版された。著者たちは従来の日本の歴史教科書が暗い側面を強調する"マゾヒスティック"で"左翼に傾いている"と非難してきた一群の歴史家たちだ。
日本の保守派は彼達の親韓感情と、その歴史的見解に内包されていた本質的矛盾をはじめて自覚したのではあるまいか。もし中国が親歴史教科書への攻撃の先鋒となれば、この矛盾は表面化しなかったろう。だが経済的利益を優先順位のトップに置く中国政府は成熟した判断を示し、最大のODA供与国、最重要の投資国、輸出市場である日本に対し、教科書問題では温和な抗議をしただけで、巧妙に韓国の背後に隠れた。
日本の文部科学省は教科書の事実の明白な誤りについて出版社に訂正を求め、内容について勧告はできる。すでに元の原稿に対して百五十点余の表現の変更、訂正が行われ、許容範囲の教科書として承認された。多くの教科書のうち、どれを選ぶかは地方の教育委員会が決定する。文部科学省が出版を止めさせたり、使用しないように自治体に命ずる権限はない。憲法上の表現の自由に関する訴訟になれば、政府は弱い立場だ。韓国人が何を言おうがそれを無視するしかあるまい。皮肉にも日韓関係は"親韓派"が作った教科書によって危機に面することとなった。
今年の四月には、日本の保守系政治家が、「もし北朝鮮が在韓米軍を攻撃すれば、日本は集団的自衛権により、在韓米軍を助けるべきだ」とテレビ討論で述べたのに対し、韓国（北朝鮮ではない）の外務通商部が「国の主権を軽視した」と抗議するこっけいな事件が起きた。教科書に関る感情の摩擦で海上自衛隊と韓国海軍の共同訓練は、韓国によって中止された。"集団的自衛"論は予期せぬ逆風に会って裏帆を打った。韓国人は日本の部隊が彼らを助けに来ることを心配する必要はなくなった。
同様に、日本の納税者たちは朝鮮半島が統一された場合の巨額のコスト、推定一兆ドル以上、が自分たちの肩に掛ることを恐れる必要はなくなった。日本の保守派が親韓政策のイデオロギー的、心理的根拠を失い、かつ同半島の日本にとっての戦略的重要性は極東ロシア軍の劇的な衰弱により減少したからである。教科書をめぐる紛議は日本の保守派に手厳しい教訓を与えたのである。
（筆者は朝日新聞編集委員）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟