Originally published on April 21, 2019.
Drawing on a Sankei Shimbun article, this essay criticizes the fact that UNESCO’s Memory of the World is operated through a closed and opaque screening process, one that gives Japan no opportunity even to rebut China’s one-sided claims.
At the same time, it denounces the absurdity that Japan has continued, without arrears, to shoulder an enormous share of UN funding, thereby sustaining the high salaries and status of such dubious organizations and their officials, and argues that Japan must now demand reform with firmness.
2019-04-21
The most ridiculous thing of all is the truly absurd fact that it is the Japanese nation that has continued to provide high salaries and lifetime security to these incomprehensible people.

What follows is the article continuing from the front page.
This article comes from what is now the most decent newspaper in Japan…。
A newspaper that reports correctly as a journalistic institution…。
A newspaper that properly conveys the truth of events taking place in the world…。
Truths that the people, who labor day and night with the greatest diligence in the world, have no way of knowing…。
Anyone possessed of sound intelligence ought to understand that clearly.

Almost no Japanese people knew the reality of UNESCO that Sankei has now made known to us.
The world must know even less than Japan.
That is why such “bottomless evil” and “plausible lies” are allowed to prevail.

The most ridiculous thing of all is the truly absurd fact that it is the Japanese nation that has continued to provide high salaries and lifetime security to these incomprehensible people.
As I told you yesterday, of the assessed contributions borne by all 185 member states of the United Nations, no less than one-fifth…。
Japan has continued paying it, without repeated arrears such as those of the United States, Britain, or Russia, and has thereby sustained the United Nations.
In other words, it is Japan that has financed the high salaries of UN officials and helped build their careers.
And the result is this laughable state of affairs…。
I shall write more about this in the next chapter.

The bold emphasis other than the title, and the comments after the asterisks, are mine.

“Nanjing” biased education may be accelerated.
China’s one-sided claims may be mistaken for having received an “official seal of approval.”

On the 9th, it became likely that the “Nanjing Massacre documents” submitted by China concerning the Sino-Japanese War would be registered in UNESCO’s Memory of the World.
People in the educational field are concerned that “if this is taken as having received UNESCO’s official endorsement, China’s one-sided claims may be spread by some teachers.”
At the same time, voices have also arisen calling on UNESCO to improve the transparency of the registration screening process.
(See page 1.)

Non-public, with no opportunity for rebuttal.
UNESCO screening.

In the screening of UNESCO’s Memory of the World, the opacity of the process by which registration is approved has been criticized, and voices have arisen calling for efforts to improve transparency.
Whereas in UNESCO’s World Heritage and Intangible Cultural Heritage systems, whether or not to register an item is debated in a public forum, Memory of the World is screened by a closed International Advisory Committee and then endorsed by the Director-General of UNESCO.
Because the committee held from the 4th to the 6th was also closed to the public, Japan had no opportunity to rebut the claims.
Because of such a system, regarding the “Nanjing Massacre documents” and “comfort women-related materials” submitted by China for registration, the Japanese government has had no choice until now but to protest repeatedly through diplomatic channels and request that China withdraw them.
Moreover, the Chinese application materials could only be viewed in summary form on UNESCO’s website, while the specific documents and photographs were not disclosed in advance, leading Japanese researchers to say that disclosure should be demanded.
The reason the registration process lacks transparency lies in the difference in origin between it and World Heritage or Intangible Cultural Heritage.
Unlike those other two, there is no underlying international treaty, and not only governments but also municipalities, organizations, and even individuals can apply for registration.

*There must be many people who, on reading this passage, are utterly dumbfounded.

The screening too differs from the other two, which are discussed by representatives of treaty signatory states, whereas in the case of Memory of the World it is conducted by experts selected by the Director-General.
The reality is that the framework was not designed with political misuse in mind.
A senior official in the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology said, “The procedures are simplified, and the operational structure is small in scale.
There is no way to know how authenticity and importance are being investigated.
This may lead to debate over the need to improve the framework.”

*It is not a matter of saying that such a debate may arise…。
This time, at least…。
Japan must, with firm resolve and great force…。
Compel these people to reform.
And if they do not reform, then what should be done, that is what I shall discuss in the chapters that follow.