Dear Peter,

I have say that I cannot completely agree with your optimistic assessment.
Even though Prime Minister Abe and the government might not be able to influence the process of textbook approval as such, he reportedly has tried to influence publishers directly. In the last months, he has met with representatives of textbook publishers and requested that history textbooks should be more neutral in tone and avoid "controversial issues" (interesting concept...). More recently, an LDP committee on textbooks called for what they consider a 'balanced'
description of historical events in textbooks, complaining that current "descriptions give the impression of a strongly masochistic view of history that does not comply with the spirit of the fundamental law of education." The reference to the law of education indicates that the LDP would not shy away from legal action, if deemed necessary (just as certain mayors and governors took legal action against teachers who rejected to sing the national anthem). During Abe's first stint as PM, the Min. of Education demanded that high school textbook publishers scrap the reference to the role of the Japanese army in 1945 in forcing (or
not) Okinawans to commit collective suicide. The demand was only withdrawn after Okinawa saw unprecedented demonstrations -- and after PM Abe had resigned. So he
*has* a track record of influencing textbook contents, and with the neighboring countries clause gone, there will be much more possibilities to further do so in the future, which he is likely to use.

You are right pointing out the importance of the adoption system in case of middle-school textbooks. The adoption system has massively influenced textbook contents in the past, because publishers adjust the contents of their textbooks to the overall market situation. When the notorious tsukurukai textbook came out, most of the other publishers shortened or scrapped references to war crimes in their textbooks in order to remain "competitive". Those who did not, lost market shares; textbooks that were considered "moderate" (i.e.
void of any political color or message and with few references to war crimes etc.), won market shares, first of all Tokyo Shoseki (more than 50% when I checked last time). This development has not been reversed, although the tsukurukai textbook has failed to win a significant share of the textbook market (and the tsukurukai as an organization is, by now, almost defunct).

The case of Yokohama is similar to that of Suginami before. When the tsukurukai published the first version of its textbook, the only significant "success" for them was the decision of Suginami to adopt their textbook. But the decision was largely the result of the pressure which Mayor Yamada Hiroshi had put on the board of education. After Yamada, a known nationalist, had quit his post, a different textbook was adopted.
Yamada is now a member of the house of representatives for the JRP. Something similar will likely happen in Yokohama. However, as you say, we might have different cities or, rather, adoption districts, voting in favor of the tsukurukai (or its offspring kyoiku saisei kiko) textbook in the future -- and they might be even larger than Yokohama...

But there is one more thing we have to keep in mind when we think about the neighboring countries' clause, namely the fact that is much more than a clause in the framework of textbook screening -- it is a highly symbolic part of Japan's postwar reconciliation policies. It was announced in reaction to the 1982 textbook controversy and has to be seen in the framework of a series of apologies and declarations on historical issues in the 1980s and 1990s. In those years, Japan achieved considerable success in terms of reconciliation, but most of this was undone when PM Koizumi chose to frequently visit the Yasukuni Shrine, which advocates an interpretation of history in stark contrast to the declarations and apologies of the 1980s and 1990s. Abolishing the neighboring countries' clause would be more than a revision of textbook approval process -- it would be signal saying that Japan is not interested in reconciliation anymore.

Changes on the website of MOFA seem to confirm this trend. While there was previously a long list of statements and apologies behind the button "historical issues" (on the main page on the right - interestingly only on the English page), now the button brings you directly to the section "historical issues Q&A". This previously was a sub-section of "historical issues", but at the center of "historical issues" was a long list of apology statements and such. Only few of them are now integrated into Q&A (as far as I can see), but many are gone. While previous governments in the past often emphasized that Japan has apologized for war and colonial rule many times, the present administration is obviously not very much interested in these previous steps of reconciliation and does not even want these apologies etc.
to be seen.

Sven Saaler