ASR: CMU Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Special on Heterodoxy in Global Studies (2018) Vol. 5 No.2 99

The Unintended Consequences of UNESCO’s Documentary
Heritage Program: Shaming without Naming
Ryoko Nakano
School of International Studies, Faculty of Law, Kanazawa University, Japan
Corresponding author. E-mail: rnakano@staff.kanazawa-u.ac.jp
https://doi.org/10.12982/CMUJASR.2018.0006

ABSTRACTUNESCO operates the documentary heritage program, Memoryof the World, in accordance with its mission of promoting international
peace and cooperation. However, the creation of ‘world significant‘
documentary heritage can sow the seed of international conflicts. This
article examines how UNESCO is trapped in a pitfall whereby documentary heritage functions to shame its member states without naming.
While ‘naming and shaming‘ is a popular tactic to condemn the unethical conduct of states, shaming can occur without naming. This
article highlights the political aspect of UNESCO’s heritage listingby focusing on the domestic processes in which the actors outside
heritage construction perceive and react to the heritage promotion. In
particular, the case of Japan helps to showcase this problem. At theend, this article argues that UNESCO’s documentary heritage program is under severe criticism and vigorous scrutiny because heritage
has a socio-political dimension that the organization cannot control.
Keywords: UNESCO, Naming and shaming, Documentary heritage,
Japan, Memory

INTRODUCTION
Raped while dying
And still no arrests?
How come, Chief Willoughby?
(Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri, 2017)

100 ASR: CMU Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Special on Heterodoxy in Global Studies (2018) Vol.5 No.2
Losing a beloved one to rape and murder causes a strong sense ofanger and heartbreak. The pain of bereaved families is so strong thatthey may have a desire for revenge, but how and to what extent should
this be accepted? Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri, nominatedfor the 2017 Academy Award for Best Picture, brings this question to
the fore in a subtle but striking manner. The main protagonist, Mildred
Hayes, a mother whose daughter was raped and murdered on the road,decided to post some questions on three billboards outside the town.
The words with a question mark do not directly accuse the police chief,
but everyone in town understands that it is meant to shame the lack ofpolice actions to catch the criminal perpetrator.
‘Naming and shaming’ is a popular tactic to change the behaviorof targeted actors through publicly exposing the violations of normative
standards and legal institutional frameworks (Friman, 2015). Nongovernmental organizations, news media, and international organizations can use this tactic to gain public support to condemn the unethicalconducts of states, such as human rights violations (Risse et al., 1999;
DeMeritt, 2012). Discourse is important because it creates meaning,knowledge and even ‘reality’ (Van Dijk, 2003). Public accusation to
put the immoral conduct in the spotlight may work when it shapes
the international public discourse on what should and should not
be allowed.
However, shaming can take place even without the act of naming.
Just showing a symbol of critical historic events is sufficient to cause asense of shame for viewers who are attached to the events in some way.
Statues, monuments, signs, and visual images can cause tensions andcontestations in society when viewers recognize a political motive
behind those objects and buildings. Amongst them, what is called
heritage, and the promotion of it, also has a socio-political impact
because its existence is deeply embedded in a social context (Smith,2006). Precisely for this reason, conflicts over heritage are heavily
politicized over the decisions of international heritage listings, mostnotably UNESCO’s World Heritage lists (Meskell, 2018). Despite
UNESCO’s noble mission to create ‘peace in the minds of men andwomen‘, its heritage programs unintentionally function as a place
to intensify tensions and conflicts among nations and states.
This brief article highlights such a paradox by focusing on theway in which UNESCO’s listing of documentary heritage invites sharp
criticism and reactions from its member state, Japan. By no means is thisASR: CMU Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Special on Heterodoxy in Global Studies (2018) Vol. 5 No.2 101
the only case to show the paradox, as Palestine’s nomination of the‘Liberation graphics Collection of Palestinian Posters‘ caused acontroversy in Israel and beyond (Houdek, 2016). However, the case of
East Asia is an important one that significantly influences the selection
process of UNESCO’s documentary heritage program. To examine how
UNESCO’s decision on the heritage listing caused a controversy in Japan,
I use public speeches, news articles, and opinion papers related tothe subject as empirical data.
The structure of this article is as follows. First, I briefly sketch
out UNESCO and its Memory of the World (MOW) program. Second,
I explain how UNESCO’s inscription of the ‘Documents of Nanjing
Massacre‘ in its MOW Register in 2015 invited fierce criticism fromJapan. Third, I provide analysis and discussion on the ways in which theJapanese government and media responded to UNESCO’s inscription.
In conclusion, I summarize the findings of this article and give an alertthat UNESCO’s heritage programs can be a place to reinforce tensions
and contestations against its original intention for enhancing international
cooperation.

UNESCO AND ITS DOCUMENTARY HERITAGE PROGRAM
UNESCO is known as an international cultural organization
whose mission is to promote international peace. Founded in theaftermath of World War II, it has a strong moral orientation towards
the construction of human solidarity and peace from below, as statedin the preamble to its constitution, “Since wars begin in the mindsof men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must
be constructed” (UNESCO, 1945). As the heir of the International
Institute of Intellectual Cooperation under the League of Nations,
UNESCO is also known as an expert organization. Scientists, writers,
artists and intellectuals from different countries and cultures are
involved in the scientific, educational and cultural activities undertaken by the organization. In cooperation with other expert organizations and local counterparts, UNESCO has launched a numberof programs, many of which have a global impact (Duedahl, 2016).
Memory of the World (MOW) is one of those programs started
in 1992. Like World Heritage, the original aim is to protect precious
historical documents from destruction (Harvey, 2007). Its scope has
expanded to include other aims such as promoting universal accessand public awareness of the world’s significant documents as the102 ASR: CMU Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Special on Heterodoxy in Global Studies (2018) Vol.5 No.2
common heritage of humankind (UNESCO, 2002). This is an expertinitiated program as the General Guidelines to Safeguard Documentary
Heritage has been prepared and updated mostly by nongovernmental
expert institutions, such as the International Federation of Library
Associations (UNESCO 1995; 2002). In the MOW program, the meaningof ‘documents’ does not literally limit to documents but includes
recorded audiovisual materials. They are defined as “moveable, madeup of signs/codes, sounds and/or images, preservable (the carriers
are non-living), reproducible and migratable, and the product of adeliberate documenting process” (UNESCO 2002). Those objects are
subject neither to World Heritage that aims to ensure the protection
and preservation of sites, monuments and landscapes, nor to Intangible
Cultural Heritage that targets traditions or living expressions passed
on from generations to generations. To increase international awareness of documentary heritage, MOW has developed public registers
that list up materials of ‘world significance’ (UNESCO 2002). Although
there are national and regional registers, the international one is
the most visible for its attachment to UNESCO in general.
MOW has a unique feature that reflects the time of the postCold War era. First, MOW welcomes civil society initiatives. While
World Heritage and Intangible Cultural Heritage accept nominations
only from the national commissions for UNESCO, MOW allows any
person or organization to nominate the documents for inscription in
the register. Second, MOW has an expert-orientation with little spacefor state’s interference. Because MOW has not been built by any
conventions or treaties, it is the International Advisory Committee(IAC), which consists of fourteen experts in archival and librarystudies, to assess nominations and make a recommendation to
UNESCO’s Director-General. UNESCO’s Director-General, the final
decision-maker over the MOW Registers, conventionally endorses
the recommendation by the IAC. These features are supposed
to make the program less political and more neutral.
For IAC to carry out its duty of assessment, the MOW Guidelines
set criteria on authenticity, uniqueness, world significance, rarity andintegrity, the existence of threats, and a management plan. Thosereference points are neither to interpret the meaning of documents
and audiovisual records nor to evaluate the truthfulness of what theysuggest or signify. However, a nomination form, to which IAC refers,
often contains an interpretive description of the nominators about

ASR: CMU Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Special on Heterodoxy in Global Studies (2018) Vol. 5 No.2 103
the materials. For instance, the University College London (2016) thatretains the George Orwell Archive wrote in its nomination that
Orwell’s writing…had a profound influence on human thought in all parts of theworld, an influence that remains potent today … It is rare to find serious
reviews analysing current events even now, in the first quarter of the 21st
century, with no mention of Orwell or his ideas.
As this description indicates, nominations can be made withslight exaggeration without hard evidence, though it can still soundneutral, reflecting the perspective of nominators who understand thesignificance of the documents. Besides, after the successful entry into
the MOW Registers, the local and national media tend to describe theinscription as proof that the nominators’ evaluation is internationallyaccepted. The Guardian, a UK newspaper, reported, “UNESCO’s selectors had recognised the ‘world significance and outstanding universal
value’ of Orwell’s writings” (Flood, 2018). While this sentence implies
that the content of Orwell’s writings is recognized as significant anduniversal, either IAC nor UNESCO make such a direct claim. In theory,the value of documents and historical interpretation are virtually
separated when IAC assesses the nomination. However, the nomination
form includes the language of constructing the meaning and valueof the content that makes documents heritage, and the media referto such language and connect it to the universal norm of UNESCO.
To create a list of global documentary heritage, MOW also
reflects the normative and mnemonical trend in the liberal international
order, that is, the reshaping of memories from a human rights
perspective. For example, World Heritage Lists has included sites ofslavery and atrocity, ranging from Auschwitz-Birkenau (inscribedin 1979) to the Atomic Bomb Dome (1996), and to the Stone Town ofZanzibar (2000). Those negative heritage sites provide an opportunity
for learning lessons from the past, and hence, giving a positive didactic
influence (Logan and Reeves, 2009). In a similar way, MOW Registers
have gained a number of documentary collections related to human rights
violation at the turn of the millennium. In 2003, ‘Human Rights
Archive of Chile‘, listed in the MOW Register, contains the records of
3,877 human rights violations that were investigated by the Truth andReconciliation Commission after the military dictatorship from 1973

104 ASR: CMU Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Special on Heterodoxy in Global Studies (2018) Vol.5 No.2
to 1989. Argentina’s ‘Human Rights Documentary Heritage 1976-1983—Archives for Truth, Justice and Memory in the Struggle Against State
Terrorism‘ was included in the Register in 2007 and Paraguay’s‘Archives of Terror’ in 2009.
Compared to World Heritage, MOW has a small scale andis less known to the public. Nevertheless, state and non-state actors
aim to use this program to promote their own heritage to the world(Nakano, 2018). While the documents such as the Diaries of Anne
Frank and the Magna Carta are already famous worldwide, many otherdocuments would not be known to the public without any platform for
publicity. Getting listed in MOW Registers provides an opportunity
for international recognition and UNESCO’s credibility. For its socialand economic impacts, local and national communities promote theirheritage, hoping to rekindle a sense of pride and attachment to thehistorical documents and to gain external support and increase tourism.
As the functions of heritage and heritage listings become widely
recognized and shared in international society, East Asian countries
have also become keen to engage in UNESCO’s heritage programs.

UNESCO’S 2015 HERITAGE LISTING AND
JAPAN’S RESPONSE

UNESCO announced the inscription of 48 documentary or
audiovisual collections as world significant heritage in 2015. Amongthem, two entries from Japan, ‘Return to Maizuru Port—Documents
Related to the Internment and Repatriation Experiences of Japanese(1945-1956)‘ and ‘Archives of Tōji Temple Contained in One-Hundred
Boxes‘, were successfully inscribed in the MOW Register. However,
the inscription of China’s nominated item, the ‘Documents of Nanjing
Massacre‘, gained much bigger public attention in Japan.
On October 2 and 13, 2015, Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary
Yoshihide Suga (2015a, 2015b) made two main points regarding thiscase. First, Japan considered China’s nomination as a political abuseof UNESCO. He argued that Japan repeatedly asked China for reconsidering the nomination since 2014, but in vain. China’s unwillingness to discuss this issue with Japan was against the spirit of moving
forward for cooperation. Second, UNESCO may lack transparency andfairness in operating the MOW program. He suggested that UNESCO
should carry out its mandate to promote international cooperation.
If not, Japan would consider a suspension of its financial contribution.

ASR: CMU Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Special on Heterodoxy in Global Studies (2018) Vol. 5 No.2 105
Suga’s strong critique of China and UNESCO was echoed by theruling party, the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan (LDP), the media,
and historical revisionists in Japan. LDP adopted a resolution thatstrongly opposed China’s ‘political use of UNESCO‘ and demanded
UNESCO’s neutrality over political issues (Sankei, 2015a). The Sankei
media company, renowned for its far-right political stance, haspublished a number of reports and opinion articles that criticizes
UNESCO’s inscription. Its magazine Seiron [Sound Arguments] (2015)
invited historical revisionists to feature this issue with a sensationaldescription that the inscription was Japan’s ‘diplomatic defeat in
the history war‘. In this issue, Nobukatsu Fujioka (2015) argued thatsome of the films and photos included in the ‘Documents of Nanjing
Massacre‘ were fake. Shiro Takahashi (2015) and Kenichi Ara (2015)
deplored that Japan was not able to prevent China and UNESCO
from tarnishing Japan’s international image and status. The issue
was also followed by the center-left magazine Sekai (2016) in a styleof forum among experts on this subject. Although the tone was softer,
its critique was placed on China and UNESCO as well.
The critics of UNESCO also voiced concern over the possibility
that another WWII-related archival collection would be included in
the MOW Register. A group of Chinese archival institutions alreadyhad nominated ‘Archives about ‘Comfort Women’ for Japanese Troops‘
in the 2014/2015 cycle. After it failed, the Chinese institutions werereported to join a Korea-based civil society network to nominate
a more extended documentary collection under the name of the‘Voices of Comfort Women‘ in the 2016/2017 cycle. When it
materialized, Suga (2016) argued that the nomination from Korea wasagainst UNESCO’s spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation.
Hiroshi Yamada, an LDP member, also asserted at a public meetingin the House of Councillors of Japan (2016) that the comfort womenmaterials included the paintings of the former comfort women,
one of which depicted the imaginary punishment of the Japaneseemperor. He suggested that such a collection should come under more
scrutiny. Sankei news (2016a) also argued that any efforts to inscribe
the comfort women documents in UNESCO should be prevented
because they were suspected to include untruthful oral testimonies.
What followed was Japan’s efforts to promote an institutional
reform of MOW. At UNESCO’s General Conference in November 2015,
the Japanese education minister urged UNESCO’s member states106 ASR: CMU Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Special on Heterodoxy in Global Studies (2018) Vol.5 No.2
to ‘discuss among each other for reforms in order to improvegovernance and transparency’ of the MOW program‘ (Hase, 2015).
Japan’s government encouraged the IAC members to reconsider the
program’s selection process and made a proposal for the creation of
an inter-state committee, a requirement for expert examination ofsubmitted documents and a revised process for selecting the IAC’smembers (Sankei, 2016b).
In Sankei newspaper, the target of criticism mostly rested on
bureaucratic institutions such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs(MOFA) and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology (MEXT), not the government under Shinzo Abe. For
example, it said,
What are the MOFA and MEXT doing? Prime Minister Abeshould not rely on UNESCO to do an important task for thecreation of an institutional framework to prevent any political abuse.
Rather, he should take an initiative in pushing this agenda with thestrong leadership of the Prime Minister’s office. (Sankei, 2016c).
Moreover, Sankei’s opinion makers, Shiro Takahashi, a professorof education and a historical revisionist who attended UNESCO’s
meetings due to his close connection with Abe, and Yoshiko Sakurai,
a freelance journalist and TV presenter, also deplored the lack ofJapanese engagement in UNESCO’s MOW program, as well as theexperts involved in UNESCO’s MOW program. Takahashi (2016)
wrote that Japan was outside the international archivist networks
and that no Japanese was regrettablya current member of IAC. He
described that the report of the sub-committee reflected the Chinese
view and the very fact that Japan could not interfere in the MOW’s
decision making was a failure of Japanese diplomacy. Japan’s
incapability of preventing the inscription was considered a loss of its
international influence vis-à-vis China. Sakurai (2016) directly criticized
the Japanese collaborators within a Korean group that nominatedcomfort women documents, as well as one of the founders and advisorof MOW, Ray Edmondson, as a non-elected archivist who encouraged
such efforts. She went further to suggest that due to his secretconnection with the Korea-based civil society group, Edmondson was
like Harold John Timperley, who served as an advisor forthe publicity department of the Chinese Nationalist Party during WWII
to propagate forged information on what happened in Nanjing.

ASR: CMU Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Special on Heterodoxy in Global Studies (2018) Vol. 5 No.2 107
From October 2016 to December 2017, the Japanese government
suspended its financial contribution to UNESCO twice, puttingpressure on the organization to revise the selection process in themanner outlined in Japan’s proposal. During this period, the review of
MOW program took place in UNESCO. Sankei’s editor Noboru
Okabe (2017) criticized MOFA while encouraging the government
to press for a fundamental change in the MOW. His editorial criticized
the lack of action by MOFA against the naming and shaming ofJapan from other countries and summoned MOFA’s courage toengage in ‘international public communications within a systemic
framework of historical recognitions based on facts‘. Sankei (2017)
continued to argue, “to protect Japanese honor, the government should
communicate a clear, fact-based message to international society”.
In December 2017, a review report on MOW came out in favorof Japan, saying that mediated dialogue between the concerned parties
should be required for any ‘questioned nomination’ (UNESCO, 2017).
As a result, the assessment of the ‘Voices of Comfort Women‘was suspended. The Japanese government finally made payment of
the assessed contribution to UNESCO at the end of 2017. To further ensure the implementation of MOW’s reform, Japan has continued its
diplomatic efforts. When Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met
the new Director-General of UNESCO Audrey Azoulay in October
2018, he emphasized the importance of MOW reforms. He also senta special envoy to UNESCO to ensure acknowledgment of the Japanesepoint of view in February 2019 (Sankei, 2019).

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: SHAMING JAPANUNESCO’s inscription of the ‘Documents of Nanjing Massacre‘
invited substantial reactions from the Japanese government, LDP,
and the rightwing nationalistic media. Without naming Japan, theinscription is perceived as shaming Japan. Two types of shame were
provoked. The first is directly related to the Documents of Nanjing
Massacre where by past allegations of brutal Japanese conduct are
documented. Although neither China nor UNESCO directly criticizedJapan’s past wrongdoings in World War II, UNESCO’s recognition ofthe ‘massacre’ documents as ‘world significant’ heritage heighteneda sense of Japan’s ontological insecurity. The second comes fromthe social effect of having UNESCO’s credential associated with
China’s historical narrative. This is considered a symbolic resultof the weakness of Japan’s diplomatic, political, and cultural power.

108 ASR: CMU Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Special on Heterodoxy in Global Studies (2018) Vol.5 No.2
On the first point, China’s nominated documents, packaged
under the label of ‘Nanjing Massacre’, unfairly provoked a sense of
shame in Japan. They include oral testimonies that exaggerate thenumber of Chinese victims under the Japanese invasion, as well as
photos taken in a place irrelevant to Nanjing. While those documents
and other materials have been used as historical evidence of
the Chinese official narrative of the war, their reliability and neutrality
have not been accepted in Japan. The Japanese conservative
government persistently tends to put more emphasis on historicalaccuracy and avoidance of any simplification that Japan was thesame as Nazi Germany. To prevent the accrual of such deep-seatedstigma in international society, Japan refuses to give an unconditional
apology to other Asian countries for what occurred during WorldWar II (Zarakol, 2010; 2011). Against this background, the Japanese
government fears that the promotion of a politically and historicallybiased perspective on the supposed ‘Massacre’, and China’s historicalnarrative associated with it, will spread across the world through
UNESCO’s heritage program. In addition, it is worried about apossibility that the Korean historical narratives on ‘comfort women’as sex slaves will be disseminated in the same way. Already,Japan has been sensitive to the spread of the comfort womenissues outside East Asia and want to prevent any further
internationalization of what the Japanese government considers
distorted, ahistorical views of this contested issue. (Yamaguchi et al.,2016).
The second type of shame is related to the current international
status of Japan in the world. The very fact that Japan was not able
to prevent UNESCO from inscribing Chinese documents pointed out
the weakness of Japan’s diplomatic, political and cultural power.
The critiques of Japanese bureaucratic institutions such as MEXT and
MOFA reflected the view that Japan has not done enough asa responsible international player. This sentiment was also associatedwith the naïve Japanese expectation for UNESCO and its associatedexperts to take a completely neutral stance. A comparison between
Japan’s weak engagement with the MOW as compared to China’s
further deepened a sense of declining Japanese influence vis-à-vis
China.
The rightwing newspaper and magazines, published by Sankei
media company, and related opinion-makers are powerful in provoking

ASR: CMU Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Special on Heterodoxy in Global Studies (2018) Vol. 5 No.2 109
the second type of shame. They attack the ministries for not doing
their job to defend Japanese national interests and its international
position. This is part of their wide coverage of Rekishi-sen (History Wars)
in East Asia. They discuss what Korea and China have done to shame
Japan, as well as how Japan is unprepared and unable to counterattack
such actions. In their view, inaccurate and exaggerated information
about what Japan did during WWII has spread across the globe
because of the incapability of Japan’s public diplomacy and strategic
communications. The right-wing media and historical revisionists
thus point to Japan’s weak-kneed diplomacy and inability to counteract
the unfair operations of UNESCO.
With the media attacking past administrations and ministries,
the Abe government gained sufficient political leverage to strengthen
the power of the Prime Minister’s office in putting pressure on UNESCO
to change the MOW selection process in favor of Japan. As the Japanese
government may want to claim, the impact of its response may
benefit the legitimacy and transparency of the MOW program. However,it will also work to prevent UNESCO from assessing any documents incontroversy without obtaining an agreement with the related parties
such as was the case with Japan.

CONCLUSION
In this paper, I addressed the puzzle of why UNESCO
functions in the opposite direction to its mission for promotinginternational peace. UNESCO launched a documentary heritage programwith good-will and experts’ initiatives. It was intended to save precious
historical documents from destruction and harness a spirit ofcooperation through developing global archival memories. However,
the act of listing documents and audiovisual records of issues ofcontested historical accuracy as world significant heritage unintentionallycreates controversies and intensifies tensions among nations andstates. Even without the direct naming of targeted actors, the promotionof documents that point to their misconduct under the heading of
heritage is a symbolic act to shame them. Because UNESCO is respected
as an internationally renowned organization, it cannot avoid repercussions
from its members states and people once its actions are recognized
as one-sided. The processes through which UNESCO’s documentary
heritage program caused controversies in Japan were complex. It was notjust the Japanese government but the domestic right-wing media

110 ASR: CMU Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Special on Heterodoxy in Global Studies (2018) Vol.5 No.2
that extensively discussed the importance of taking action. The target ofcriticism was not only China and UNESCO but Japanese ministries andbureaucrats that had been involved in UNESCO’s heritage programs.
Along with the media criticism, the Japanese government gained
political leverage domestically in persistently pressuring UNESCO
to change the selection system. The connection between the Japanese
government and the right-wing media is beyond the scope of this paper.
What I want to emphasize is that UNESCO’s documentary heritage
program came under severe criticism and vigorous scrutiny because
heritage has a socio-political dimension that the organizationcannot
control.
Those observations point back to the film, Three Billboards outside
Ebbing, Missouri, which demonstrates the indirect shaming of a targeted
actor without naming him. Moreover, the concomitant stories after the
release of the film gives an additional lesson: any product of the pastcan be heritage. Inspired by this film, protestors against the authorities
in the US, China, and other places have displayed their messages on
gun controls, health care, as well as domestic violence and educational
policies that discriminate against homosexuals in the style of the threebillboards. Those successive acts suggest that the film itself can be
heritage for those who discover something that can be useful for thepresent and future generations. If UNESCO correctly understands
heritage as a social process rather than an immutable object, it needs
to be more careful about the sociopolitical impact of what it does under
the name of heritage.

REFERENCES
Ara, K. (2015, December). Shukinpei mo shinjinai daigyakusatsu wo
yurushita gaimhusho no taizai [A serious crime of the Ministryof Foreign Affairs that allows the ‘massacre’ that even Xi Jinping
does not believe]. Seiron, 132-139.
DeMeritt, J.H.R. (2012). International organizations and government
killing: Does naming and shaming save lives? International
Interactions, 38(5), 597-621.
Duedahl, P. (2016). A history of UNESCO: Global actions and impacts.
Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.

ASR: CMU Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Special on Heterodoxy in Global Studies (2018) Vol. 5 No.2 111
Flood, A. (2018, September 19). George Orwell archives added toUnesco Memory of the World register. The Guardian. Retrieved fromhttps://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/sep/19/georgeorwell-archives-added-to-unesco-memory-of-the-world-register
Friman, H.R. (2015). The Politics of leverage in international relations: name,shame, and sanction. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fujioka, N. (2015). Toroku shiryo chugokuban anne no nikki jitai ga
daigyakusatu fuzai no shoko da [Chinese version of Anne’s
dairy itself is the evidence that the great massacre did not
happen]. Seiron, 124-131.
Harvey, D.R. (2007). UNESCO’s Memory of the World programme.
Library Trends, 56(1), 259-274.
Hase, H. (2015). Speech at the 38th session. General Conference of
UNESCO. Retrieved from https://www.unesco.emb-japan.go.jp/
pdf/SpeechHase_Eng38GC2015.pdf
Houdek, M. (2016). The rhetorical force of ‘global archival memory‘:(Re)situating archives along the global memoryscape. Journal ofInternational and Intercultural Communication, 9(3), 204-221.
House of Councillors of Japan. (2016). Minutes of the meeting of theCommittee of Foreign Policy and Defense, No. 2, October 20.
Retrieved from http://kokkai.ndl.go.jp/SENTAKU/sangiin/192/
0059/19210200059002a.html
Logan, W., & Reeves, K. (2009). Places of pain and shame: Dealing with
‘ Difficult Heritage’. Milton Park, England: Routledge.
Meskell, L. (2018). A future in ruins: UNESCO, world heritage, and the
dream of peace. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nakano, R. (2018). Heritage soft power in East Asia’s memory contests:
Promoting and objecting to dissonant heritage in UNESCO.
Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, 17(1), 50-67.
Okabe, N. (2017, September 19). Okabe noboru no oshu bunseki [Okabe
Noboru’s Europe watch]. Sankei. Retrieved from https://www.
sankei.com/smp/premium/news/170919/prm1709190002s2.html
Risse, T., Ropp, S.C., & Sikkink, K. (1999). The power of human rights:
International norms and domestic change. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Sakurai, Y. (2016, October 3). Nihon no teki was nihonjin nanoka[Are the enemy of Japanese Japanese?]. Sankei. Retrieved fromhttps://www.sankei.com/premium/news/161003/prm
1610030006-n1.html

112 ASR: CMU Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Special on Heterodoxy in Global Studies (2018) Vol.5 No.2
Sankei. (2015a, October 14). Jiminto no “Chugoku ga shinseishita nankinjiken shiryo no yunesuko kiroku isan toroku ni kansuru ketsugi”
zenbun [Full texts of ‘LDP’s resolution on the inscription ofChina’s nominated the documetns of Nanjing incident’]. Retrieved
from https://www.sankei.com/politics/news/151014/plt151014
0033-n1.html_______. (2016a, August 19). Rekishisen, Ianfu shiryo [History wars,
comfort women documents]. Retrieved from https://www.
sankei.com/premium/news/160819/prm1608190004-n1.html_______. (2016b, November 1). Yunesuko kioku isan, shinsa tomeika eseifukan iinkai secchi wo yobo [UNESCO documentary heritage,
Japan’s demand on the creation of inter-state committee]. Retrieved
from https://www.sankei.com/life/news/161101/lif1611010010n1.html_______. (2016c, June 8). Shucho, seifu no musaku ga nihon no meiyo wosokonatteiru [Argument, the lack of governmental policy damages
Japanese honor]. Retrieved from https://www.sankei.com/
column/news/160608/clm1606080002-n1.html_______. (2017, November 4). Shucho, Yunesuko to nihon [Argument,
UNESCO and Japan]. Retrieved from https://www.sankei.com/
column/news/171104/clm1711040002-n1.html_______. (2019, November 4). Sekai no kioku minaoshi yosei [Demanding
the revision of the Memory of the World]. Retrieved fromhttps://www.sankei.com/politics/news/190219/plt
1902190045-n1.html
Seiron (2015, December). Nankin to ochita yunesuko, kokuren[UNESCO and the UN falling with Nanjing]. Seiron.
Sekai (2016, February). Yunesuko sekai kioku isan wo kangaeru [On
UNESCO’s world documentary heritage]. pp. 225-236.
Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. London and New York: Routledge.
Suga, Y. (2015a, October, 2). Press conference. Prime Minister of Japanand his cabinet. Retrieved from http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/
tyoukanpress/201510/2_p.html_______. (2015b, October 13 ). Press conference. Prime Minister of Japanand his cabinet. Retrieved from http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/
tyoukanpress/201510/13_p.html_______. (2016, September 12). Press conference. Prime Minister of Japanand his cabinet. Retrieved from https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/
tyoukanpress/201709/12_a.html

ASR: CMU Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Special on Heterodoxy in Global Studies (2018) Vol. 5 No.2 113
Takahashi, S. (2015, December). Daigyakusatsu toroku [The inscriptionof great massacre]. Seiron, 118-123.
_______. (2016). Yunesuko kioku isan to joshi sabetsu teppai iinkai e noseifu hokoku ni kansuru ichikosatsu [A study of register of theMemory of the World and reports of Japanese government tothe committee on the elimination of discrimination against women].
Meisei University’s Annual Bulletin of the Graduate School of
Education, 1, 1-16.
UNESCO. (1945). Constitution of the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization: Adopted in London on 16
November 1945. London: Preparatory Commission of the UNESCO.
_______. (1995). General guidelines to safeguard documentary heritage.
CII-95/WS-11. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0010/001051/105132E.pdf_______. (2002). General guidelines to safeguard documentary heritage:
A revised edition 2002, CII-95/WS-1rev. Retrieved from http://
unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001256/125637e.pdf_______. (2017). Executive board, 201 EX/5 Part I (H). Retrieved fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/ulis/cgi-bin/ExtractPDF.pl?
catno=247706&lang=e&from=141&to=149&display=2&ts=
1499006266
University College London. (2016). Nomination form. Retrieved fromhttp://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/
HQ/CI/CI/pdf/mow/nomination_forms/uk_orwell_eng.pdf
Van Dijk, T.A. (2003). The discourse-knowledge interface. In: G. Weiss &R. Wodak (Eds.), Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity (pp. 85-109). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire
and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Yamaguchi, T., Nogawa, M., Suzuki, T.M. & Koyama, E. (2016).
Umi wo wataru ‘ianfu’ mondai [Comfort women’ issue goesoverseas]. Tokyo: Iwanami.
Zarakol, A. (2010). Ontological (in)security and state denial of historicalcrimes: Turkey and Japan. International Relations, 24(1), 3-23.
_______. (2011). After defeat: How the East learned to live with the West.
Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.