なお、「国際センター」は「The Centre of International Studies（国際研究センター）」の誤り。
⇒書名の誤り。正確には、東大出版会から2003年に小菅・木畑洋一・トウルの3人の編で出された本の題名は『戦争の記憶と捕虜問題』（なお、2000年に英国で出された同書のタイトルはJapanese Prisoners of Warである）。 また、「日本軍を批判した日本人研究者の論文は全て取り除かれた。すなわち、英国人の日本批判の基盤となる論文は、編集者らにより消去され、和解や国際条約を尊敬する日本像が強調された。」「結果は、まるでそういう効果が生まれるように、何かの「見えざる手」が組み合わせたかのようだ。」は中尾の思いこみによる一方的な断定。
(5) Tomoyo Nakao's continuous argumentum ad hominem against Nobuko Margaret
Kosuge and her old friends
The following email message from Tomoyo Nakao, University of Okayama, which
was also sent out towards some more 50 academics and others over the world,
by mass-emailig, obviously, in order to oppose to the BCS decision with
Nobuko Kosuge, with her contibuous false, misleading arguments:
Would you pelase make photocopies of this and hand to each committee members;
Regarding the coming symposium
First I must thank you all for all your effort arranging an event to commemorate the 60th year of the war and BCS. And I especially thank for Mrs.Purvis’ effort to make it realize, and Mr.Masao Hirakubo’s deep concern.As a e-mail committee member, and as a person invited to the symposium, I feel I owe you an explanation as to why I made such a belated answer regarding my attendance at the symposium.
It was never clear how the symposium was organised, and who was chosen on what basis
I first heard very briefly of the plan of the symposium last summer after the service in Coventry from Mrs. Phillida Purvis. It was that she and Mrs. Kosuge thought of a symposium the next summer, and she wished to have it as a symposium open to all people, both academic and otherwise. As I had organised a symposium in 1998 at SOAS (International Foreign Course for Overseas Students) on the War in Burma and POWs, I thought the plan worthwhile, and agreed. I suggested that Coventry would be a good venue since the local people, including many Burma veterans, were supportive of reconciliation. However, until last December, I heard no news of further arrangements, and it came as a surprise that the guests to be invited had already been ‘decided’. It was more surprising that the main host was not the BCS. As I agreed the symposium, I had already spoken to Professor Nemoto, a specialist on Burma occupation period, when I attended the excellent sympodium on the Burma Occupation Period in last October. Mr. Oba was there as well, with whom had recommended to Mrs. Purvis in an e-mail that he could be an ideal person to invite. Prof. Nemoto told me then that even if he receives no budget, it would be possible for him to come over for the symposium. After that, I heard that Mrs. Kosuge had approached him. Other than this, no discussion was made as to the concept of the symposium. It was never discussed in an open and democratic fashion. It was a pity that when several members are quite knowledgeable about the specialists on the issue.
The concept ‘Peace and War’ – the question of the position of the BCS
When I saw the formation of the symposium, I wondered whether this would suit the BCS. While it is clearly important to discuss war and peace, the BCS has the issue of the Burma Campaign at its core, and this was not reflected in the plan of the symposium at first. It could be more focused on the war in Burma as well as other issues related to POWs, JSPs, which is a stumbling block for anglo-Japan peace. It seems rather oddly organised as well - half of the academics in the list are not specialists of either Burma or War. This is not open to the individuals, academics and groups who have already done a considerable amount of research on the war in Burma, POWs, and so forth. Certainly, they would be able to read excellent papers concerning war and peace, but the focus remains unclear. Further, I find it rather strange to have a discussion with the Japanese ambassador at the end of the symposium. It seems a jumble of all sorts of themes and topics, half academic and half not (due to their speciality), and therefore it was correct that the plan was turned down once by the Japan Foundation, and found ‘not academic’. It does not necessarily have to be academic, but the topics should be more focused.
Invitations were not confirmed
As with my consent, I realised later that the lists of academics were hypothetical. Even I was surprised by the fact my name was on the list, as I had not heard that the symposium was going ahead till December. I was astonished that the plan was presented to the Japan Foundation without each individual’s consent, because in the academic world it is absolutely necessary to have a confirmed answer in order to organise a conference. Admitting that the conference must have been organised quickly, it is clear that the names of the attendees acted, even if not meant so, to attract other participants or fund-giving parties. This is, strictly speaking, a confidence trick, and not worthy of association with the good name of the BCS. Professor Kibata in particular withdrew from the plan last October, and made clear that he cannot attend due to his commitments, yet his name was still on the list (I would imagine for the occasion of Japan Foundation). Usually, this ought to be made clear to other participants. It was because of this procedure, in the February version and the latest version, half the attending members have changed.
This ought not to be the case, and it is rather a disgrace to the name of the BCS.
Speaker’s topics for the symposium
I was asked for a summary of what I wanted to speak about after I had originally consented to appear. My title was also put forward as a hypothesis on the initial program. Again, usually the order of decision is the reverse. First you ask the participants what they wish to talk about, and second you arrange the sessions. I wish the acadmic who orgnised this could have a better knowledge of proper procedure, and dealt it with honor..
Connection with the Japanese Embassy
While the friendship with the Japanese Embassy is welcome, it has the consequence that the plan and content of the symposium has to be organised to please the people in government. We had a bad experience of this when we arranged the conference in Cambridge. The participants were selected so as not to offend or provoke both the Japanese government. The symposium seems to be modelled after the Cambridge symposium, in which some papers criticising Japan were eliminated. We must ensure freedom of expression always. I overheard that Mrs Kosuge was in charge of organising since she has connections to the foreign office. I would imagine that even if we organise the conference as we choose, it would still be acceptable to the foreign office.
Finally, it is very difficult to approve this method of organising the symposium. Initially I was not aware that I was on the list; latterly I hesitated to be included in the symposium due to the observations I made listed above. I chose to attend since I had been asked quite often, and I did not wish to provoke any further argument with other BCS members. However, hereby I present the reasons why I was not able, and then reluctant, to say ‘yes’ to attending the symposium. I hope this symposium is the first of many more, and not the last one. Also, I sincerely wish that whatever the process of organisation, the symposium will be useful and enable us to move forward in many areas of discussion. I have a kind of overall image in my mind too of what is necessary for reconciliation and clear understanding of the events of the war and the importance of the BCS in bringing this about; I wish BCS could continue in future to arrange a step forward.,being a friend member of the BCFG since 1996 I have tried very hard with other BCS current members to continue the group which was later established as the BCS. I am sure other members have a similar hope for the future of the BCS and this symposium.
In conclusion, I thank everyone concerned for their efforts in organising this symposium, and I dearly hope that next one might be organised in a more open, respectable, and democratic fashion.
BCS e-mail committee member
Associate Professror in Behavioural Sciences University of Okayama, Japan
As you see as above, Tomoyo Nakao was obviously misled and was in a bad
way, on which Profs. Yoichi Kibata and Kei Nemoto totally agree with us.