Symposium: The Second World War in Asia: Justice Efforts, War Memory, and Reparations
Words Matter, Translation Matters
by Professor Kayoko Takeda (Rikkyo University)
Published on 3 October 2022
Translation creates opportunities for a state to promote its narrative of war memories while meeting potentially conflicting political expectations of different parties, domestic and international. This was the focus of my 2020 essay Rewriting War Memory Through Translation. Specifically, I analysed four cases in which the Japanese government under Shinzo Abe’s premiership (2006–07, 2012–20) strategically used translation to address (or avoid addressing) disputed representations of the Asia-Pacific War (1931–45), including the Japanese government and military’s exploitation of Korean men and women as wartime forced labourers (choyoko, requisitioned labourers) and ‘comfort women (ianfu).’
More recent cases illustrate the fact that translation continues to be an integral part of the Japanese government’s strategy for negotiating conflicting war memories. In addition to explaining in English Japan’s overall stance on historical issues, the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) has produced multilingual texts and videos explaining Japan’s views on specific issues that have strained Japanese-South Korean relations and attracted international attention, such as those of ‘comfort women’ and forced labourers. In response to the 2020 controversy surrounding the ‘comfort women’ statue in Berlin, the MOFA expanded its multilingual explanations of Japan’s efforts on the issue to include a German text. Included are Japan’s objections to the three details commonly cited in the global conversation on ‘comfort women’: the ‘forceful taking away’ of ‘comfort women’, ‘comfort women’ being ‘sex slaves’ and the number of ‘comfort women’ totalling ‘200,000 persons’. To refute each point, the MOFA cites lack of concrete evidence and factuality.
Also, in order to counter global campaigns by Koreans to denounce the rising sun flag (kyokujitsuki) as a symbol of Japanese militarism and war crimes, the MOFA prepared in 2021 a statement on Japan’s position on the issue in six languages (Japanese, English, Korean, French, Spanish and Thai) and in video form in ten languages (the above-mentioned languages, plus Italian, German, Russian and Chinese). Through these mediums Japan has attempted to convince the international community that the rising sun flag has an extensive history as part of Japanese culture, widely used in many different contexts and never for displaying political statements.
Undoubtedly, translation is key to communicating effectively and consistently in different languages to reach global audiences and garner understanding and support for Japan’s stances on historical issues. It should be noted here that, owing to the general accessibility of both source and translated texts/speeches of major statements and speeches on government websites, ‘non-standard’ translations can be detected and questioned by concerned parties, the press, academics and even the general public. Thus, the political use of translation has become more readily exposed. For the past few years, the Japanese government does not seem to have presented any discrete instances of questionable translations such as those I discussed in my above-mentioned 2020 essay. Attention should be paid, however, to the Japanese government’s recent efforts to downplay its involvement in the suffering of ‘comfort women’ and forced labourers by modifying the phrasing used to label and describe them.
Following the 2018 Korean Supreme Court’s rulings that ordered two Japanese corporations to compensate Koreans forced to work under Japanese colonial rule, the Abe administration decided to change ‘kyu minkanjin choyoko (former requisitioned civilian workers)’, the term the government had been using in Japanese (and English), to ‘kyu chosen-hanto shusshin rodosha (former civilian workers from the Korean Peninsula).’ The explanation for the change was that Koreans followed several different paths to Japan as workers during the colonial period, including voluntarily applying for jobs in response to recruitment efforts by private companies, and thus not all Korean labourers were forced to work. This change appears to be a regression from the Japanese government’s 2015 acknowledgement, during the inscription process for the Sites of Japan’s Meiji Industrial Revolution on the World Heritage List, that ‘there were a large number of Koreans and others who were brought against their will and forced to work in harsh conditions in the 1940s.’ (The 2021 UNESCO report found the Japanese effort to inform the visitors about Korean forced labourers remained insufficient.)
Since the announcement of the change in labelling, the Japanese government has consistently been using the revised term, which disguises the coercive circumstances under which Korean labourers came to Japan to work. Interestingly, the Japanese-language press in Japan has never given up the term choyoko (requisitioned labourers), as it has also been widely used in popular Japanese discourse over the past eight decades. Most of the English-language newspapers published in Japan, however, started replacing ‘forced laborers’, ‘requisitioned laborers’ or ‘drafted labourers’ with ‘wartime laborers/workers’ in line with the updated government practice. (For the controversy surrounding the editorial decision to revise the wording and description of ‘comfort women’ and forced labourers by the Japan Times, the oldest English newspaper in Japan, see ‘Japan Times’ Newspaper Redefines ‘comfort women’ and ‘Forced Labor’ and ‘Fear’ and ‘Favor’ Chill Newsroom at Storied Japanese Paper.) Presumably, these English-language newspapers are aware of how their choice of words in English may impact international audiences’ perceptions of the issue of wartime forced labour. This view is shared by nationalist critics within Japan who pressurise these English-language newspapers in Japan to adopt the Japanese government’s terminology. It should be noted that those Japanese newspaper companies that publish both Japanese-language and English-language editions, such as Asahi Shimbun and Mainichi Shimbun, seem to have conflicting policies vis-à-vis the 2018 government announcement on the use of a revised term. While their Japanese-language editions keep using ‘choyoko (requisitioned labourers)’, their English-language editions switched to ‘wartime laborers/workers.’ This seeming self-censorship in the English-language editions can be understood as another example of the source text and translation having different purposes and the translation as a form of rewriting, as discussed in my 2020 essay.
Another example of changes in phrasing can be found in the Japanese government’s screening process for history and other social studies textbooks to be used in high schools in 2023. To receive government approval, some publishers had to revise the original text or add an explanatory note to references to ‘comfort women’ and forced labourers to stay in line with the government’s official standing on certain points announced in 2021. This recent development originates in the provision added to the textbook screening standards under the Abe administration in 2014. It stipulated that any unified government stance decided by the cabinet must be observed as the basis for writing about relevant topics in social studies textbooks. In April 2021, in response to an inquiry from a parliament member, the Suga cabinet stated as its official position that it is inappropriate to describe workers from the Korean Peninsula under Japanese colonial rule being ‘forcibly brought’ to Japan, and that references to ‘comfort women’ in textbooks should not contain anything to indicate the Japanese military’s involvement in any part of the operations. Thus, these official views must now be followed in order to receive government approval for new textbooks. As a result, some modifications had to be made during the education ministry’s screening process. Publishers dropped ‘jugun (military service)’ and ‘nihon-gun (Japanese military)’ from ‘jugun ianfu (military service ‘comfort women’)’ and ‘nihon-gun ianfu (Japanese military ‘comfort women’).’ One publisher kept the term ‘jugun ianfu (military service ‘comfort women’)’ as a quotation from the 1993 Kono Statement (in which Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono acknowledged the Japanese military’s involvement in the establishment and management of the comfort stations and recruitment of ‘comfort women’ against their will in many cases, and extended ‘sincere apologies and remorse’) but added the 2021 government’s official view on this issue. Incidentally, although the Kono Statement refers to ‘iwayuru jugun ianfu (so-called military service ‘comfort women’) twice, this term is translated into English by the MOFA as ‘wartime comfort women’ in one place and ‘comfort women’ in the other. As for the wording ‘kyosei renko (forcibly taken away)’, some publishers changed it to ‘okurare (sent)’ or ‘doinsare (mobilized).’ One publisher maintained the term ‘kyosei renko’ but added the 2021 government statement as a note. These manipulations of wording and phrasing reflect the Japanese government’s endeavour to promote a diluted perception of the extent of the Japanese government and military’s involvement and responsibility in the operations of ‘comfort women’ and forced labour.
These revisionist and denialist initiatives were mostly driven by Shinzo Abe and his conservative followers as part of their ‘history wars (rekishi-sen)’ agenda to promote Japanese government’s views on historical issues to global audiences in competition with the similar efforts by South Korea and other nations. Pressured by Abe and nationalistic members of his party, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida reportedly formed a ‘history wars’ team in February 2022 in connection with Japan’s application for the Sado gold mine to be named a World Heritage Site to refute strong opposition from South Korea, pointing to Japan’s disregard for Korean labourers forced to work there during the war. I will continue monitoring how translation (and manipulation of source terms) plays out in efforts by the ‘history wars’ team.