月: 2025年3月

Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=2303

Tsukasa Shirakawa
Fellow, International Research Institute of Controversial Histories (iRICH)

On December 20, 2024, the “Expert Panel on the Future of the Science Council of Japan,” established under the Minister of State for Special Missions, submitted its final report. In response, the government plans to approve a cabinet decision in early March to submit a bill to the Diet that would transform the Science Council of Japan (SCJ) into a special corporation.

So far, the proposed changes include increasing the number of members from the current 210 to 250, setting a six-year term for members with the possibility of a single reappointment, and making the selection process for members more transparent. Additionally, the SCJ’s current authority to issue recommendations to the government will be retained even after its incorporation.

■ Background ■

The issue of the Science Council of Japan came to public attention following the 2020 dispute when then-Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga refused to appoint six nominees for membership. Until then, the council's problems had been a concern for only a limited audience. The controversy highlighted that, although the SCJ operates under the Cabinet Office, it has maintained a strong anti-government (specifically, anti-Liberal Democratic Party) stance, frequently opposing national policies.

This antagonistic stance is believed to stem from the council’s origins under the General Headquarters (GHQ) before Japan’s rearmament. The SCJ was initially established by the GHQ as a mechanism to prevent Japan’s remilitarization. This period coincided with the “Purge from Public Office,” which excluded conservative intellectuals from public positions, allowing the SCJ to come under the strong influence of the Japanese Communist Party. As a result, the SCJ became a center of influence of “pacifism”, promoting postwar peace ideologies.

Even as the security environment evolved drastically, the SCJ continued to adhere to postwar pacifism, opposing government policies under the influence of the Japanese Communist Party. Meanwhile, the council failed to provide meaningful recommendations during major crises, such as the Great East Japan Earthquake and the COVID-19 pandemic. The SCJ became preoccupied with political activities, neglecting its primary function of offering policy advice to the government.

The controversy over the appointment refusals exposed these problems to the public. Although the prime minister has the legal authority to decide on appointments and merely exercised that authority by rejecting several candidates, the refusal sparked fierce backlash from opposition parties, such as the Japanese Communist Party and the Constitutional Democratic Party, along with major media outlets like Asahi Shimbun. This backlash itself revealed that the SCJ, despite being a national institution, functioned as a hub for an anti-government, or anti-LDP network.

Additionally, despite being a national academic body, the SCJ exhibited a personnel imbalance, with an overrepresentation of humanities scholars, such as legal experts, and a marked absence of security experts.

Recognizing the gravity of the situation, the administration of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida initiated reforms to restructure the SCJ. The key issues in the reform debate are whether to separate the SCJ from the government and whether the council can transform into a balanced national academy that provides unbiased, politically neutral advice. Another critical challenge is addressing the opacity in the member selection process, which became widely known due to the appointment refusal incident.

Public backlash, especially from conservative circles, has also been fueled by the fact that the SCJ, despite remaining under the influence of the Japanese Communist Party, continues to receive approximately one billion yen in annual public funding.

■ Summary and Evaluation of the Final Report ■

The following are key points from the final report by the expert panel:

- Ensuring Independence and Transparency: The panel concluded that incorporation as an independent administrative corporation is the optimal solution. 

- Need for a National Academy: The report advocated for transitioning to an independent organization that provides scientific advice and engages in dialogue with society. 

- Necessity of Incorporation: The proposal emphasizes maintaining public financial support while strengthening governance and ensuring transparency in member selection. 

- Mission and Purpose: The SCJ should pursue scientific advancement and social contributions, providing medium- to long-term policy recommendations. 

- Transparency in Member Selection: External advisory bodies should be utilized to ensure diversity and accountability. 

- Strengthening Financial and Administrative Bases: The SCJ should maintain public funding while diversifying financial sources and improving organizational capabilities through digitalization and stronger administrative functions. 

The report raises expectations that reforms will address the SCJ’s long-standing issues. The conclusion that the SCJ should become an independent corporation, separate from the government, is a notable and positive outcome. 

However, a December 24, 2024, editorial in the Sankei Shimbun criticized the final report on three points: 

1. Loss of Government Oversight: The transfer of appointment authority from the prime minister to the SCJ itself would mean the government has no say in member selection. 

2. Weak Accountability Measures: Relying solely on an evaluation committee or audits to address inappropriate activities or lack of achievements is insufficient. 

3. Continued Public Funding: Despite being separated from the government, the SCJ would continue to receive public funds. 

Specifically, these criticisms stem from the inherent conflict between two reform goals: ensuring the SCJ’s independence from the government and maintaining its political neutrality. Independence requires the SCJ to manage its own operations without interference, but if it becomes a fully independent corporation, it will be harder for the government to intervene in its governance.

As a result, the reform proposes a halfway measure: a quasi-independent structure where the SCJ receives public funding but remains under external oversight. This solution reflects the difficulty of achieving full independence without sacrificing accountability.

■ The SCJ’s Reaction ■

In a February 11, 2025, interview with the Asahi Shimbun, former SCJ President Takaaki Kajita expressed strong opposition to the final report. 

Kajita argued that the SCJ’s autonomy and independence are paramount. He criticized the proposed appointment system, which allows the government to assign auditors and members of the evaluation committee, calling the incorporation proposal a “reform without vision.” Kajita repeatedly emphasized that the SCJ’s value lies in offering recommendations that may challenge government policies.

While some aspects of Kajita’s argument are understandable, it is evident that his position reflects the postwar pacifist ideology that the Japanese Communist Party has sought to preserve within the SCJ. 

Public resentment towards the SCJ primarily stems from i their commitment to postwar pacifism, which is increasingly out of step with the current security environment. The SCJ’s reluctance to adapt its stance highlights the core problem: its refusal to face reality.

During the interview, when asked, “As a Nobel laureate in physics, do you feel unfairly disregarded?” Kajita replied, “Well, I wouldn’t say there’s none of that feeling. But, if others choose to disregard me, there’s nothing I can do about it.”

In my book, *A Study of the Science Council of Japan*, I argue that the fundamental problem with the SCJ is the attitude of its members—particularly those with strong leftist tendencies—who hold a sense of a perceived disconnect from the practical realities of policymaking. SCJ scholars often regard political activities by elected officials as less intellectually rigorous and continue to criticize them from an ideological pedestal.

However, when unelected scholars show disdain for decisions made by the Diet, which represents the electorate’s will, they effectively show contempt for the public. Rather than scorn the government, they should reflect on their inability to address practical realities. 

I have come to the conclusion that the only way to reform the SCJ is to reduce the number of members who remain ideologically bound to postwar pacifism.

Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=2292

Fujioka Nobukatsu
Senior Researcher, iRICH

Around November 2023, a notice of a strange book to be published in the United States appeared on Amazon’s website. The book is Japan’s Holocaust: History of Imperial Japan’s Mass Murder and Rape during World War II (Knox Press), written by Bryan Mark Rigg.

As known widely, “holocaust” refers to the mass murder planned and committed by Nazi Germany against Jewish people during World War II and has nothing to do with Japan. Daring to mention any comparison between Japan and “holocaust,” it could be said that the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the air raid when Tokyo was carpet-bombed, burning a huge number of Japanese to death, committed by the Allied Forces, were holocausts. But in either case, Japanese people were victims of a “holocaust.”

However, as its subtitle clearly shows, this book’s title reads that Japan was the perpetrator of a holocaust. Japan has never thought of planning to annihilate any nation. This book’s title itself is sheer extravagance and fake. The book was published in paper form in March 2024, and became easily accessible to readers. The contents are culmination of the anti-Japan demagogic propaganda that has been created and promoted for years. The array of cruel photographs allegedly depicting the Nanjing Incident shown in the book, which have been already refuted and proved to be false, clearly indicates this book’s intention.

What effect, then, will the publication of this book possibly have in the United States? This book pretends to be academic and as such contains as many as 1,564 endnotes. We fear most that the American young people, taking this book for an academic history guide, would read it at the very start of their studies and adopt a wrong perception about Japan.

In coping with an anti-Japan propaganda book as this one, what should we do and how should we deal with it? Regarding this point, this author (Fujioka) consulted experts and those concerned in the various fields of history, military, diplomacy and journalism for their opinions. Of course, this was done within this author’s area of knowledge.

Their responses split perfectly. On the one hand, some say that the matter is urgent, and we must totally refute the book or else the extravaganza may be accepted as a solid fact. On the other hand, it is argued that such a sheer propaganda book as this should not be dealt with seriously. This book’s author expectantly waits for the Japanese to respond and responding to this kind of book may help its wide promotion. Roughly speaking, the more professional they are, the more careful they are in dealing with this book. And foreign scholars are more concerned and worried about the impact of the book. Between them, I was totally lost and unable to decide about the course of action I should take, which delayed the start of this project of ours.

Incidentally, regarding the book The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II (Basic Books), written by Iris Chang, published in 1997, this author started a study group immediately after the publication of the book with the cooperation of Mr. Higashinakano Shudo, leading expert on the study of the Nanjing incident. To begin with, we organized a study group of propaganda photographs and started examining the photos shown in the book. Generally, photographs (写真) are thought to reflect（写）the truth (真), but in fact, nothing is more untrustworthy than photographs. At that time, there was no automatic translation machine, and we made up a team to unofficially translate the book for our study work. The Japanese translation of Chang’s book was published in 2007, ten years after the original publication. Our examination triggered the establishment of the Japan “Nanjing” Study Society (Chairman: Higashinakano Shudo) in 2000 and I am proud to mention that our study bore the decisive fruit.

Regarding the current case, it is very unlikely that a translation of this extravagant book would be published, and there is no need to do so at all. So long as things go as they are, this book will hardly have any direct influence on the Japanese society. However, today, information travels instantly around the world and it is possible to manipulate information and quickly change people’s awareness, using the latest technology. This book may gain some influence at any time. We cannot predict exactly when, but we should be prepared for this possibility. So, we have decided to tackle this issue.

I consulted with Mr. Ara Kenichi, the top Nanjing incident scholar, along with Mr. Higashinakano Shudo and Mr. Tanaka Hideaki, with great achievements in history study and translation work related to China, Asia and the United States before and during the Pacific War. On the other hand, with the agreement of President Sugihara Seishiro and Director Yamamoto Yumiko of the International Research Institute of Controversial Histories and the approval by its board of directors, we have decided to start a study group named “War Propaganda Study Group” as a part of the project team under iRICH. The Chairman of the Study Group is Mr. Ara and Mr. Tanaka is Vice-Chairman, and this author is secretary general.

The Study Group has assigned twenty-four “researchers” as of February 15, 2025, five of whom are foreigners with American and Canadian nationalities respectively. The Study Group meets openly on a monthly basis, starting in August last year and is to be terminated with the 8th study meeting this March. The speakers and their topics at the open Study Group meetings are as follows. [  ] indicates the date of group meeting.

[August 18, 2024]

Tanaka Hideo, The fallacy of the theory “Japan’s holocaust with 30 million victims”.

[September 15, 2024]

Mizoguchi Ikuo, The examination of “propaganda photographs” of the Nanjing incident.

Ikeda Haruka, Why the fallacy of the “Nanjing Incident” stays alive—Reveal the evil of the American missionaries, the true writers of the story.

[October 20, 2024]

Ohtaka Miki, Japan’s Holocaust –Kaitai Shinsho (Terhel Anatomia)

Marutani Hajime, Propaganda of “Atrocious Japanese Army” in the Pacific front

[November 17, 2024]

Moteki Hiromichi, Apparent “anti-Japan racism book”

Uyama Takuei, Japan’s history warfare tried by Japan’s Holocaust

[December 15, 2024]

Kasaya Kazuhiko, No more Hiroshima! No more Pearl Harbor!

Jason Morgan, How to make “fake history,” learning from Japan’s Holocaust

[January 26, 2025]

Max von Schuler, America’s war crime—The U.S. military comfort women and air raid.

Miroslav Marinov, What is “holocaust”?

[February 16, 2025]

Nagatani Ryosuke, Reviewing Japan’s Holocaust by the criteria of history study.

Yano Yoshiaki, Correct the error of the theory justifying the atomic bombing—the theory of 30 million victims is its extension.

[March 16, 2025 (slated)]

Fujioka Nobukatsu, Comparison reveals the degree of extravagance of Japan’s Holocaust

Takahashi Shiro, The present situation of Japan under the control of “war propaganda”

Besides those listed above, we are planning to have Mr. Ramseyer of Harvard University, Mr. Robert Eldridge living in Japan and studying security issues and several more Japanese writers. Incidentally, the titles in the book to be published may have different titles from those listed above. These speeches are to be published by the end of this June, and we are now engaged in compiling and editing them. We are planning to sell the completed book by subscription, including a unit of \5,000 donation to cover the expenses for publishing the English translation edition in the United States.

To make it clear once again, the purpose of our book is not to counterargue Japan’s Holocaust. So to speak, it is going to be a book of “revelation” or “revealer.” The concepts and facts revealed in the book will be critical of the current state of the American history research. This year is the 80th anniversary of the end of the Pacific War. We hope the fruit borne out of our study that clears this year’s focal historical controversies will be widely shared among the Japanese people.