Ainu and Ryukyuan activists host public meeting with Japanese academic societies to decolonise ethical guidelines authorised by the Ainu Association of Hokkaido

On 13 April 2024, Kimura Fumio, who has spearheaded the repatriation movement of Ainu human remains following the passing of Ogawa Ryukichi, extended an invitation to three Japanese settler academic societies, including the Anthropological Society of Nippon, the Japanese Society of Cultural Anthropology and the Japanese Archaeological Association, as well as the Ainu Association of Hokkaido, to discuss their draft Ethical Guidelines for Research on the Ainu in public.

Two representatives from each organisation were present, with a total of 90 individuals, including Ainu and Ryukyuan activists, gathering at the venue for the discussion. Prior to the commencement of the discussion, Kimura Fumio delivered his opening remarks*. Then, two professors presented divergent perspectives to the assembled audience. The first presentation was provided by Professor Kato Hirofumi of Hokkaido University, who outlined the Ethical Guidelines. The second presentation was by Professor Emeritus Maruyama Hiroshi of CEMiPoS, who discussed issues** related to the Ethical Guidelines.

The discussion, which was chaired by Ryukyuan activist Tsunachi Takako, prompted the representatives from each academic organisation to address their apparent lack of contrition for past injustices. In essence, the argument put forth was that any further research based on the colonial research ethics guidelines should be preceded by an acknowledgment and address of the historical injustices imposed on the Ainu people in the name of research, as reported by the Tokyo Shimbun (https://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/322683?rct=kihara_i) and Hokkaido Shimbun newspapers. Furthermore, Ainu activists who had previously departed from the Ainu Association of Hokkaido in protest at its alleged collusion with the Japanese government demanded that not only the Ainu Association of Hokkaido, but also other Ainu organisations be included in the formulation of decolonial research ethics guidelines.

* Kimura’s opening remarks:

Today's meeting "Ainu neno an Ainu: Questioning the nature of modern scholarship in Japan from the perspective of Indigenous Peoples" has historical significance in two respects. One is that the Ryukyuan people, who have been unilaterally forced to make great sacrifices and suffer losses during Japan's historical and ongoing colonisation, are standing in solidarity with the Ainu, a similarly subjugated people. The other is that we, the subjugated Ainu and Ryukyuan peoples, are voluntarily hosting this event.

Let me briefly tell you how this came about and what has happened so far: in December 2019, the Anthropological Society of Nippon, the Japanese Archaeological Association, and the Japanese Society of Cultural Anthropology, in coalition with the Ainu Association of Hokkaido, published the Draft Ethical Guidelines for Research on the Ainu People and invited public comments. Many interested parties, including myself, responded and sent in their opinions. However, there was no response to the public comments, and on 20 January 2024, these three academic societies and the Ainu Association of Hokkaido held a symposium titled "Future Initiatives Based on Past Ainu Research". I only heard about this symposium from my colleague the day before it occurred. I made time and went from Biratori Town to the venue, Kadel 27, in Sapporo, expecting that the organizations’ formal response to the public comments would be announced.

On the day of the symposium, each of the three academic societies gave a report on recent developments, but no specifics on the ethical guidelines for research were revealed. A number of questions were asked by the Ainu and non-Ainu citizens who attended the meeting, but the meeting was dispersed due to lack of time. I later heard that the ethical guidelines for research were already in place and that the discussion had reached the point of selecting people for the research ethics review committee. How did this happen? The Ainu's right to self-determination does not lie with the Ainu Association of Hokkaido. We thought it would be a big problem if ethical guidelines for research were formulated without guaranteeing the right to self-determination of the majority of Ainu who do not belong to the Ainu Association of Hokkaido, so we planned today's meeting to reflect the voices of these Ainu people in the ethical guidelines for research.

Looking at today's document, the title is indeed "Ethical Guidelines for Research on the Ainu People," and the draft is missing. The document says these ethical guidelines were drawn up on 20 January. In retrospect, 20 January was the day that the three academic societies held the symposium on "Future Initiatives Based on Past Ainu Research". Why were the ethical guidelines for research not published at that time? Also, why did they draft the Ethical Guidelines for Research without asking the opinions of the majority of Ainu who do not belong to the Ainu Association of Hokkaido? Furthermore, according to information we heard yesterday, the three academic societies and the Ainu Association of Hokkaido will vent at today's meeting and put the Ethical Guidelines for Research on the Ainu Association of Hokkaido’s website. This contradicts the statement in the text "Consultation and Free and Voluntary Consent Prior to the Commencement of Research and Publication". Shouldn't today's document, “Ethical Guidelines for Research”, have been shared with Ainu organisations and individuals who do not belong to the Ainu Association of Hokkaido prior to the meeting? We need firm answers to these questions here.

Historically, in order for the Meiji government to build a ranch for the Emperor, my ancestors were forced to move from Anesaru in Niikap to Kaminukibetsu, a wasteland even deeper in the mountains than Nukibetsu, where I now live. There was no place to cultivate land in Kaminukibetsu, and the original 70 households were reduced to just three, which still stand today. The forced relocation of Ainu people led to the dismantling of their kotans - the foundation of Ainu society - and we lost our connection to the land. On top of that, even the remains of our ancestors have been stolen from our graves, and getting them back requires a lot of time and energy, including the preparation of applications for the return of our ancestral remains to the Japanese authorities concerned. Have you professors ever thought about this?

It has been almost five years since the Ainu remains unjustly kept in 12 universities were forcibly transferred to Upopoy. We Ainu have no idea what happens/will happen to the memorial sites in Upopoy. Despite the fact that the remains of our ancestors have been stolen, these three academic societies are trying to make it a non-issue. In collusion with the Japanese government, they are rushing to establish ethical guidelines so that they can begin their research. Am I the only one who feels indignant about this? Furthermore, the criminal acts of Koganei Yoshikiyo of the University of Tokyo, who spearheaded the theft of Ainu remains, have been severely criticised not only by the Ainu but also by researchers in Japan and abroad. Two years ago, the University of Tokyo trucked the Ainu remains that Koganei had stolen, misappropriated and stored them in the town of Biratori, and returned them to us as if they were property, without a single word of apology. This humiliation cannot be forgotten. Are you professors aware of this reality? The return of human remains, which includes burial, as in other countries, is a ritual, and the university concerned and its officials are expected to be involved in the ritual as parties to it. Until this issue is resolved, I believe that there should be no ethical guidelines for research to give the green light for research, and that academics are not qualified to conduct Ainu research.

** There are four main points. First, it is notable that there has been no self-criticism regarding the promotion of racism, complicity in colonialism, and the theft of Ainu remains and burials by anthropology, cultural anthropology, and archaeology in Japan. Consequently, there has been only reflection and no apology. In particular, the Anthropological Society of Nippon, in its lawsuit for the return of the remains of the Ryukyu Islands, has requested in writing that the defendant, Kyoto University, "take action based on the recognition that ancient human remains are cultural property shared by the people". Thus, the Society has not broken with the past, placing research as its top priority. Conversely, the online report of the American Anthropological Association's Commission for the Ethical Treatment of Human Remains (2023) begins by stating that “anthropology has its roots in settler colonialism, overseas imperialism, slavery and white supremacy... developing hierarchies of humanity that divided the world’s populations into ranked categories and evolutionary schema in which white (Christian) manhood was the epitome of civilization.” In addition, the American Anthropological Association (2022) has already issued a statement of apology to Indigenous communities, stating that “We believe there is no reconciliation without truth, and that part of truth is the acknowledgement of, and apology for, harm. Engagement must follow such an apology”. Apologies are essential for building a new relationship between Indigenous peoples and academics. Second, the value of research and academic freedom is emphasised, with the problematic nature of these concepts discussed as a secondary consideration. This is in stark contrast to the online report from the American Anthropological Association's Committee on the Ethical Treatment of Human Remains (2023), which states that “academic freedom is not synonymous with unrestricted access.” Third, the Ainu Association of Hokkaido is the largest Ainu organisation, yet it is not a representative body, given that it comprises approximately 10% of the Ainu population. The Japanese Ethical Guidelines excludes numerous Ainu and Ainu organisations that do not belong to the Ainu Association of Hokkaido and contravenes the 'free, prior and informed consent' (FPIC) guaranteed to Indigenous peoples under international human rights law. This is because, in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Article 19), states shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the Indigenous peoples concerned, through their representative institutions, in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing any legislative or administrative measures that may affect them. This obligation applies to the three academic societies. Fourth, it is imperative that the data sovereignty of the Ainu and Ryukyuan peoples be acknowledged as a fundamental right of Indigenous peoples to collect, own, manage and utilise their data. It is also recommended that the position of the Ainu and Ryukyuans in research also should be redefined from participants and subjects to meaningful partners and collaborators.