Japanese junior high-school history textbooks, particularly one compiled by a group of nationalist historians, continue to draw angry reactions from South Korea and China. On Monday, the Education Ministry formally rejected almost all of the revision requests from Seoul and Beijing, which claim that the textbooks distort historical facts about Japan's militaristic past.

The ministry admitted only a couple of errors concerning ancient Korean history. But it left intact some 40 items on which revision had been requested -- all items relating to Japanese activities before and during World War II. The ministry said these descriptions in dispute reflect historians' different theories and interpretations and do not represent any "clear mistakes" that are subject to correction.

At the center of the controversy is the textbook edited under the direction of the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform. It was approved in April following an extensive revision recommended by the censors. Given the current censorship rules, the ministry probably has no choice but to reject South Korean and Chinese demands. The "no change" decision is based on studies conducted by a panel of experts under the textbook screening system.

The publisher, meanwhile, has volunteered to rewrite nine other places, including references to Japan's 1910 annexation of Korea. The ministry is expected to approve all these changes. However, the textbook's underlying drawback -- its self-righteous view of history -- remains essentially unchanged. For example, wars waged by Japan are described in overly emotive terms that seem to give them an aura of justification. Such biased descriptions should be critically examined by teachers and others who decide whether to use the textbook.

The censorship system itself stands in need of reform. The fact that factual mistakes have been found in the textbook even after it was censored is proof that the system has its limits. Open discussion, not closed-door censorship, is probably a better way to improve the quality of textbooks. In this sense, Korean and Chinese requests for revision should give a further impetus to the public debate on our own past. They need not be taken as an "interference in domestic affairs."

It is about time that Japan started efforts to develop a new textbook system, one similar to the American and European systems that allow for free publication and free adoption. Censorship often gives the government too much of a say in what teachers should, or should not, tell children in the classroom.

The controversy over history textbooks reflects a deep schism that exists between the historical perceptions of Japan and its two closest neighbors. So it is welcome that executives of the three ruling parties have proposed increasing exchanges of historians between Japan and the two nations. However, the proposal will be taken as lip service if it is intended merely to defuse the current diplomatic tension with Seoul and Beijing.

The exchange program should be used as a means of fostering constructive "history dialogue" so that all three nations can share a common perception of history. That brings to mind a statement issued in 1995, the 50th anniversary of Japan's defeat in World War II, by Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama. He said, "Japan's colonial rule and aggression had caused untold damage and suffering to people in Asian nations," and expressed "deep remorse and heartfelt apologies."

The spirit of the Murayama statement was reaffirmed in a 1998 Japan-South Korea communique stressing the need for the younger generations of the two nations to better understand each other's history. It is doubtful, however, whether Japan has lived up to that milestone statement. For example, the Murayama administration's project to set up an "Asian history center," designed to share a common view of history with Asian nations, has been drastically reduced both in scale and content.

By the same token, the report prepared last year by a Japan-South Korea committee promoting bilateral history studies has received little attention. The report contains a variety of worthy proposals, such as expanding academic exchanges and providing better access to historical documents. But so far none of them has been translated into action.

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's administration has said time and again that it will honor the Murayama statement. But it has yet to prove that it really means what it says. Previous administrations dutifully reminded themselves of the Murayama comment every time the history issue came to a head, but once the storm was over they would shelve it. Japan still faces a test of sincerity in relations with its most important Asian neighbors.