カテゴリー: 論説

Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=2303

Tsukasa Shirakawa
Fellow, International Research Institute of Controversial Histories (iRICH)

On December 20, 2024, the “Expert Panel on the Future of the Science Council of Japan,” established under the Minister of State for Special Missions, submitted its final report. In response, the government plans to approve a cabinet decision in early March to submit a bill to the Diet that would transform the Science Council of Japan (SCJ) into a special corporation.

So far, the proposed changes include increasing the number of members from the current 210 to 250, setting a six-year term for members with the possibility of a single reappointment, and making the selection process for members more transparent. Additionally, the SCJ’s current authority to issue recommendations to the government will be retained even after its incorporation.

■ Background ■

The issue of the Science Council of Japan came to public attention following the 2020 dispute when then-Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga refused to appoint six nominees for membership. Until then, the council's problems had been a concern for only a limited audience. The controversy highlighted that, although the SCJ operates under the Cabinet Office, it has maintained a strong anti-government (specifically, anti-Liberal Democratic Party) stance, frequently opposing national policies.

This antagonistic stance is believed to stem from the council’s origins under the General Headquarters (GHQ) before Japan’s rearmament. The SCJ was initially established by the GHQ as a mechanism to prevent Japan’s remilitarization. This period coincided with the “Purge from Public Office,” which excluded conservative intellectuals from public positions, allowing the SCJ to come under the strong influence of the Japanese Communist Party. As a result, the SCJ became a center of influence of “pacifism”, promoting postwar peace ideologies.

Even as the security environment evolved drastically, the SCJ continued to adhere to postwar pacifism, opposing government policies under the influence of the Japanese Communist Party. Meanwhile, the council failed to provide meaningful recommendations during major crises, such as the Great East Japan Earthquake and the COVID-19 pandemic. The SCJ became preoccupied with political activities, neglecting its primary function of offering policy advice to the government.

The controversy over the appointment refusals exposed these problems to the public. Although the prime minister has the legal authority to decide on appointments and merely exercised that authority by rejecting several candidates, the refusal sparked fierce backlash from opposition parties, such as the Japanese Communist Party and the Constitutional Democratic Party, along with major media outlets like Asahi Shimbun. This backlash itself revealed that the SCJ, despite being a national institution, functioned as a hub for an anti-government, or anti-LDP network.

Additionally, despite being a national academic body, the SCJ exhibited a personnel imbalance, with an overrepresentation of humanities scholars, such as legal experts, and a marked absence of security experts.

Recognizing the gravity of the situation, the administration of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida initiated reforms to restructure the SCJ. The key issues in the reform debate are whether to separate the SCJ from the government and whether the council can transform into a balanced national academy that provides unbiased, politically neutral advice. Another critical challenge is addressing the opacity in the member selection process, which became widely known due to the appointment refusal incident.

Public backlash, especially from conservative circles, has also been fueled by the fact that the SCJ, despite remaining under the influence of the Japanese Communist Party, continues to receive approximately one billion yen in annual public funding.

■ Summary and Evaluation of the Final Report ■

The following are key points from the final report by the expert panel:

- Ensuring Independence and Transparency: The panel concluded that incorporation as an independent administrative corporation is the optimal solution. 

- Need for a National Academy: The report advocated for transitioning to an independent organization that provides scientific advice and engages in dialogue with society. 

- Necessity of Incorporation: The proposal emphasizes maintaining public financial support while strengthening governance and ensuring transparency in member selection. 

- Mission and Purpose: The SCJ should pursue scientific advancement and social contributions, providing medium- to long-term policy recommendations. 

- Transparency in Member Selection: External advisory bodies should be utilized to ensure diversity and accountability. 

- Strengthening Financial and Administrative Bases: The SCJ should maintain public funding while diversifying financial sources and improving organizational capabilities through digitalization and stronger administrative functions. 

The report raises expectations that reforms will address the SCJ’s long-standing issues. The conclusion that the SCJ should become an independent corporation, separate from the government, is a notable and positive outcome. 

However, a December 24, 2024, editorial in the Sankei Shimbun criticized the final report on three points: 

1. Loss of Government Oversight: The transfer of appointment authority from the prime minister to the SCJ itself would mean the government has no say in member selection. 

2. Weak Accountability Measures: Relying solely on an evaluation committee or audits to address inappropriate activities or lack of achievements is insufficient. 

3. Continued Public Funding: Despite being separated from the government, the SCJ would continue to receive public funds. 

Specifically, these criticisms stem from the inherent conflict between two reform goals: ensuring the SCJ’s independence from the government and maintaining its political neutrality. Independence requires the SCJ to manage its own operations without interference, but if it becomes a fully independent corporation, it will be harder for the government to intervene in its governance.

As a result, the reform proposes a halfway measure: a quasi-independent structure where the SCJ receives public funding but remains under external oversight. This solution reflects the difficulty of achieving full independence without sacrificing accountability.

■ The SCJ’s Reaction ■

In a February 11, 2025, interview with the Asahi Shimbun, former SCJ President Takaaki Kajita expressed strong opposition to the final report. 

Kajita argued that the SCJ’s autonomy and independence are paramount. He criticized the proposed appointment system, which allows the government to assign auditors and members of the evaluation committee, calling the incorporation proposal a “reform without vision.” Kajita repeatedly emphasized that the SCJ’s value lies in offering recommendations that may challenge government policies.

While some aspects of Kajita’s argument are understandable, it is evident that his position reflects the postwar pacifist ideology that the Japanese Communist Party has sought to preserve within the SCJ. 

Public resentment towards the SCJ primarily stems from i their commitment to postwar pacifism, which is increasingly out of step with the current security environment. The SCJ’s reluctance to adapt its stance highlights the core problem: its refusal to face reality.

During the interview, when asked, “As a Nobel laureate in physics, do you feel unfairly disregarded?” Kajita replied, “Well, I wouldn’t say there’s none of that feeling. But, if others choose to disregard me, there’s nothing I can do about it.”

In my book, *A Study of the Science Council of Japan*, I argue that the fundamental problem with the SCJ is the attitude of its members—particularly those with strong leftist tendencies—who hold a sense of a perceived disconnect from the practical realities of policymaking. SCJ scholars often regard political activities by elected officials as less intellectually rigorous and continue to criticize them from an ideological pedestal.

However, when unelected scholars show disdain for decisions made by the Diet, which represents the electorate’s will, they effectively show contempt for the public. Rather than scorn the government, they should reflect on their inability to address practical realities. 

I have come to the conclusion that the only way to reform the SCJ is to reduce the number of members who remain ideologically bound to postwar pacifism.

Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=2292

Fujioka Nobukatsu
Senior Researcher, iRICH

Around November 2023, a notice of a strange book to be published in the United States appeared on Amazon’s website. The book is Japan’s Holocaust: History of Imperial Japan’s Mass Murder and Rape during World War II (Knox Press), written by Bryan Mark Rigg.

As known widely, “holocaust” refers to the mass murder planned and committed by Nazi Germany against Jewish people during World War II and has nothing to do with Japan. Daring to mention any comparison between Japan and “holocaust,” it could be said that the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the air raid when Tokyo was carpet-bombed, burning a huge number of Japanese to death, committed by the Allied Forces, were holocausts. But in either case, Japanese people were victims of a “holocaust.”

However, as its subtitle clearly shows, this book’s title reads that Japan was the perpetrator of a holocaust. Japan has never thought of planning to annihilate any nation. This book’s title itself is sheer extravagance and fake. The book was published in paper form in March 2024, and became easily accessible to readers. The contents are culmination of the anti-Japan demagogic propaganda that has been created and promoted for years. The array of cruel photographs allegedly depicting the Nanjing Incident shown in the book, which have been already refuted and proved to be false, clearly indicates this book’s intention.

What effect, then, will the publication of this book possibly have in the United States? This book pretends to be academic and as such contains as many as 1,564 endnotes. We fear most that the American young people, taking this book for an academic history guide, would read it at the very start of their studies and adopt a wrong perception about Japan.

In coping with an anti-Japan propaganda book as this one, what should we do and how should we deal with it? Regarding this point, this author (Fujioka) consulted experts and those concerned in the various fields of history, military, diplomacy and journalism for their opinions. Of course, this was done within this author’s area of knowledge.

Their responses split perfectly. On the one hand, some say that the matter is urgent, and we must totally refute the book or else the extravaganza may be accepted as a solid fact. On the other hand, it is argued that such a sheer propaganda book as this should not be dealt with seriously. This book’s author expectantly waits for the Japanese to respond and responding to this kind of book may help its wide promotion. Roughly speaking, the more professional they are, the more careful they are in dealing with this book. And foreign scholars are more concerned and worried about the impact of the book. Between them, I was totally lost and unable to decide about the course of action I should take, which delayed the start of this project of ours.

Incidentally, regarding the book The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II (Basic Books), written by Iris Chang, published in 1997, this author started a study group immediately after the publication of the book with the cooperation of Mr. Higashinakano Shudo, leading expert on the study of the Nanjing incident. To begin with, we organized a study group of propaganda photographs and started examining the photos shown in the book. Generally, photographs (写真) are thought to reflect（写）the truth (真), but in fact, nothing is more untrustworthy than photographs. At that time, there was no automatic translation machine, and we made up a team to unofficially translate the book for our study work. The Japanese translation of Chang’s book was published in 2007, ten years after the original publication. Our examination triggered the establishment of the Japan “Nanjing” Study Society (Chairman: Higashinakano Shudo) in 2000 and I am proud to mention that our study bore the decisive fruit.

Regarding the current case, it is very unlikely that a translation of this extravagant book would be published, and there is no need to do so at all. So long as things go as they are, this book will hardly have any direct influence on the Japanese society. However, today, information travels instantly around the world and it is possible to manipulate information and quickly change people’s awareness, using the latest technology. This book may gain some influence at any time. We cannot predict exactly when, but we should be prepared for this possibility. So, we have decided to tackle this issue.

I consulted with Mr. Ara Kenichi, the top Nanjing incident scholar, along with Mr. Higashinakano Shudo and Mr. Tanaka Hideaki, with great achievements in history study and translation work related to China, Asia and the United States before and during the Pacific War. On the other hand, with the agreement of President Sugihara Seishiro and Director Yamamoto Yumiko of the International Research Institute of Controversial Histories and the approval by its board of directors, we have decided to start a study group named “War Propaganda Study Group” as a part of the project team under iRICH. The Chairman of the Study Group is Mr. Ara and Mr. Tanaka is Vice-Chairman, and this author is secretary general.

The Study Group has assigned twenty-four “researchers” as of February 15, 2025, five of whom are foreigners with American and Canadian nationalities respectively. The Study Group meets openly on a monthly basis, starting in August last year and is to be terminated with the 8th study meeting this March. The speakers and their topics at the open Study Group meetings are as follows. [  ] indicates the date of group meeting.

[August 18, 2024]

Tanaka Hideo, The fallacy of the theory “Japan’s holocaust with 30 million victims”.

[September 15, 2024]

Mizoguchi Ikuo, The examination of “propaganda photographs” of the Nanjing incident.

Ikeda Haruka, Why the fallacy of the “Nanjing Incident” stays alive—Reveal the evil of the American missionaries, the true writers of the story.

[October 20, 2024]

Ohtaka Miki, Japan’s Holocaust –Kaitai Shinsho (Terhel Anatomia)

Marutani Hajime, Propaganda of “Atrocious Japanese Army” in the Pacific front

[November 17, 2024]

Moteki Hiromichi, Apparent “anti-Japan racism book”

Uyama Takuei, Japan’s history warfare tried by Japan’s Holocaust

[December 15, 2024]

Kasaya Kazuhiko, No more Hiroshima! No more Pearl Harbor!

Jason Morgan, How to make “fake history,” learning from Japan’s Holocaust

[January 26, 2025]

Max von Schuler, America’s war crime—The U.S. military comfort women and air raid.

Miroslav Marinov, What is “holocaust”?

[February 16, 2025]

Nagatani Ryosuke, Reviewing Japan’s Holocaust by the criteria of history study.

Yano Yoshiaki, Correct the error of the theory justifying the atomic bombing—the theory of 30 million victims is its extension.

[March 16, 2025 (slated)]

Fujioka Nobukatsu, Comparison reveals the degree of extravagance of Japan’s Holocaust

Takahashi Shiro, The present situation of Japan under the control of “war propaganda”

Besides those listed above, we are planning to have Mr. Ramseyer of Harvard University, Mr. Robert Eldridge living in Japan and studying security issues and several more Japanese writers. Incidentally, the titles in the book to be published may have different titles from those listed above. These speeches are to be published by the end of this June, and we are now engaged in compiling and editing them. We are planning to sell the completed book by subscription, including a unit of \5,000 donation to cover the expenses for publishing the English translation edition in the United States.

To make it clear once again, the purpose of our book is not to counterargue Japan’s Holocaust. So to speak, it is going to be a book of “revelation” or “revealer.” The concepts and facts revealed in the book will be critical of the current state of the American history research. This year is the 80th anniversary of the end of the Pacific War. We hope the fruit borne out of our study that clears this year’s focal historical controversies will be widely shared among the Japanese people.

Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=2196

Yamamoto Yumiko,
Director, International Research Institute of Controversial Histories (iRICH)

Don’t destroy the country while observing the Recommendations

In October 2024, at the United Nations Headquarters in Geneva, the 89th session of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women was held.　At that session, the issues of Japan were examined after an eight-year pause. I attended the meeting as an NGO member and participated in joint activities with several groups, which have a cooperative relationship with us. After the session was over, the Committee announced the overall statement. In the statement, the Committee mentioned various recommendations, including the one referring to the revision of the Imperial House Law that designates the male member in the male lineage of the Imperial Family as a successor to the throne.

The Committee on the Convention and NGO

The United Nations Committees on human rights treaties, conventions and covenants, are used as venues by various NGOs that are not satisfied with their countries’ current situation to initiate changes in the system or the laws. They appeal to the Committee as a victim or a supporter of a certain human rights issue. The Committee members follow the NGO statements on the premise that in those cases, citizens are oppressed by the State. The task of the human rights experts chosen from all over the world is to save the weak.

Every few years, states that conclude human rights treaties are to be examined by the committee on the treaty as to how the treaty is properly carried out. Everyone that claims to be an NGO member can attend the examination committee and speak at the session held at the United Nations, Geneva. The most active NGOs at the United Nations arena are the so-called leftist liberal civil groups. Particularly, Japan has the overwhelmingly large number of participating NGOs. At the Committee on the Elimination of the Discrimination Against Women, over 40 NGOs had submitted their statements beforehand. Roughly 30 NGO groups spoke at the Geneva session and there were nearly 100 participants at the examination meeting concerning Japan. Among them, the so-called conservative NGOs, including our Institute, were 13, which means that nearly 90% were leftist NGOs and those who are linked with them. Even so, in fact, ten years ago, there were no conservative NGOs among the attendants.

Recommendations announced by the Committee in its overall statement have no legally binding power. However, in Japan, where there has been deep-rooted worship for the United Nations, the U.N. Recommendations have overwhelming effect because many people misunderstand that if the UN Recommendations are to be left unfulfilled, Japan would be left behind by the international community.

First, there is a treaty and then follow up recommendations

It is extremely difficult to refute the issue that has been recommended in the overall statement and to have the recommendations withdrawn. That is because the recommendations follow the treaty. For instance, the Japanese military comfort women issue. However laboriously Japan explains that comfort women were not forcibly abducted nor sexual slaves and that they were licensed prostitutes based on the contract, the Recommendation asking for measures to save former comfort women is not to be changed. This is because in Article 6 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women states: “States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women.” If we make the point that allowing a husband and wife to have a different family name damages the traditional family bond and nullifies the family register system, the U.N. Committee still recommends that a husband and wife should have a different family name, citing Article 16-1 (g) “the same personal rights as husband and wife, including the right to choose a family name.”

In the sixty paragraphs of the overall statement issued this time, various other recommendations were included. For example, under the “sexual reproductive health right, girls aged 16 and older shall have access to birth control, abortion and abortive pills without the consent of their parent or spouse.” This recommendation is along Article 12-1: “...in the field of health care in order to ensure on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health care services, including those related to family planning.”

Recommendation related to the Imperial House Law

Japan concluded the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women in   1985. Prior to the conclusion of the Convention, on May 29 at the 102nd Diplomatic Committee of the House of Representatives, the then Foreign Minister Abe Shinzo stated regarding the relationship between the Convention and the Japanese Imperial House Law, “The succession to the Throne is restricted to a male offspring in the male line belonging to the Imperial Lineage and this does not constitute discrimination against women defined in Article 1 of this Convention.” The Japanese Government was aware of the possibility of raising a question related to the Imperial House Law, prior to the conclusion of this Convention.

In 2001, Princess Aiko was born and two years later, in 2003, Committee member Mr. Enrique A. Manalo from the Philippines during the examination meeting over Japan asked about the Japanese Imperial House for the first time. “Have the Japanese Imperial House and the Japanese Government ever discussed the revision of the Imperial House Law so that Princess Aiko may become female Emperor?” The overall statement that time did not mention the Japanese Imperial Law.

In the 2016 examination over Japan, no mention was made at all about the Imperial House Law. Nevertheless, the overall statement about to be announced after the examination was nearly ready to include a recommendation that “the male succession in the male lineage in the Imperial House Law is discriminatory against women.” To mention in the overall statement an issue which was not discussed during the examination creates a procedural problem. The Japanese Government protested the reference and the part in question was deleted before the public announcement.

Then, a surprise attack occurred. In the advance list of questions to the Japanese Government announced by the Committee dated March 9, 2020, a question was asked about the Imperial House Law, “Explain in detail measures to be taken anticipating that female succession to the Throne can be a possibility.” Japanese NGO, Public Incorporated Association “Jiyu Jinken Kyokai (Free Human Rights Association) had submitted their statement that “The Imperial House Law allows only a male member in the male lineage of the Imperial Family to succeed to the Throne and this is applicable to the definition of discrimination against women in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.” The Committee had taken up their statement for examination.

In response to the advance list of questions, the Japanese Government replied in the ninth Government report in September 2021:

“Our Imperial House system and Royal systems in various countries in the world have been maintained to this day, based on the respective national history and tradition, supported by the people. The method of succession to the Throne should be, as defined in the Imperial House Law, a fundamental matter concerning the foundation of the State. In the light of the objective of this Convention aiming to eliminate discrimination against women, it is not appropriate for the Committee to address Japan’s Imperial House Law.”

It was well anticipated that during the examination over Japan to be held in October 2024 in Geneva, the Committee would deal with the Imperial House Law. Hopefully, the Society of the People’s Union to Preserve the Imperial Lineage (male in the male lineage), led by Chairperson Ms. Katsuragi Nami, was to act against the Committee. They submitted their statement in advance, participated in the meeting, spoke as an NGO at the open session, submitted an additional statement and handed out a brochure to the Committee members. We hope the material and information explaining that the Imperial House Law has nothing to do with the discrimination against women were fully understood by the Committee members.

Against our efforts and expectation, the Committee made the following recommendation to the Japanese Government regarding the Imperial House Law in the overall findings announced after the examination session:

“The Committee recommends the State Party to pay attention to the good examples of other States Parties that have revised the method of succession to the throne to ensure the equality of men and women, revise the Imperial House Law so that the equality of men and women may be guaranteed in the succession to the throne.”

The Committee regarded the Imperial House Law as the issue concerned to Article 1 of the Convention, “equality of men and women in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field,” and Article 2 (a) “To embody the principle of the equality of men and women, in their national constitutions or other appropriate legislation.” Thus, it became clear again that the Committee does not consider the States Parties’ national character, culture, tradition or history.

Don’t destroy the country while observing the Recommendations  

My first visit to the United Nations in Geneva was in 2014 when the examination over Japan of the Committee on the Civil and Political Rights was held. My purpose was to convey our view that comfort women were not sexual slaves to the Committee that was led to hold the view that they were sexual slaves. The Committee members are experts chosen across the world. They had been informed one-sidedly by the Japanese leftist groups. We had expected that if we told them the truth backed by the right arguments, they would have better understanding of the issue. After we acted at several other Committees on the conventions, we came to realize that the real issue was the Convention itself. The Committee members’ work is to issue recommendations following the Convention. The members follow liberal feminist thinking. Under the red convention, members of red experts adopt Japanese red NGOs’ views and issue red recommendations. This is how the Committee works. They listen to the counter arguments but are never persuaded to take them into account. Is it a good idea for Japan to remain a State Party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women? If it is not a State Party, a state is not subject to the examination or recommendation. The recommendation related to the revision of the Imperial House Law this time totally lacks any respect or reverence to the Imperial House. I think it a sufficient reason to rescind the Convention. I have experienced the extremely abnormal atmosphere in the conference room where the examination over Japan was held at the United Nations, Geneva. I hope from the bottom of my heart to absolutely avoid such a situation in which Japan is covered up with that eerie atmosphere and ceases to be Japan.

Japanese https://i-rich.org/?p=2256

Kawahara Shoichiro
Senior Researcher
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories (iRICH)

1.The Trump administration and China-Twaiwan relationship

In the United States, Mr. Trump took the presidential office, and the second Trump administration started. Viewing the members of the Trump administration in terms of the China-Taiwan relationship, Trump picked Mr. Marco Rubio as Secretary of State and Rep. Mike Waltz as National Security Advisor, as well as other senior officials, who are hard-liners on China. In Taiwan, most people expected Mr. Mike Pompeo to be reappointed Secretary of State, but it can be said that the Trump-picked lineup leaves nothing to be desired.

The China-Taiwan policy of the second Trump administration will basically follow the first -term hard line that confronted China with additional tariffs. Mr. Trump invited former Prime Minister Abe’s widow to his home and talked with her, prior to meeting with Prime Minister Ishiba, which has profound significance. One thing can be said that Mr. Trump will respect Mr. Abe’s policy-line on the diplomatic issues including how to deal with China from now on. Abe’s extremely pro-Taiwan policy was detested by the Chinese Communist Party and there was violent protest against it, which is fresh to our memory.

The great characteristic of Mr. Trump’s diplomatic policy is that he often shows little trust toward international organizations and acts unilaterally as a leader of the United States to solve the problem. Certainly, his way of dealing carries significant destructive power and is often very effective. In his first-term administration, he did not participate in the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement) promoted by Mr. Obama, his predecessor, and instead, applied the method of unilaterally sanctioning China according to the US Trade Law. China could do nothing whatsoever to cope with  these measures. Considering these circumstances, some predict that Trump may withdraw from the IPEF (Indo-Pacific Economic Framework) promoted by the Biden administration, of which the United States is a Party.

On the other hand, the China-Taiwan relationships have become increasingly tense. The Chinese Communist Party regards Mr. Lai Ching-te as Taiwan’s independence advocate and has been strengthening the military drill for the siege of Taiwan. In October 2024, in his presidential address marking the Double Tenth holiday (Taiwan’s National Day), President Lai referred to Taiwan as an independent state, which China regarded as totally unacceptable and conducted the largest ever military drill for the siege of Taiwan. CIA Director Burns said in February 2023 that President Xi Jinping ordered the Chinese Army to complete the preparation for invasion of Taiwan by 2027. If this is true, around 2027, China will most likely invade Taiwan.

2.The Chinese Communist Party’s scenario for the unification with Taiwan

The current key factor of the China-Taiwan relationships is the unification with Taiwan planned by the Chinese Communist Party, which has two scenarios, peaceful and military ones. These two scenarios are not to be carried out alone, but reciprocally and accordingly to the respective situation at the time.

The peaceful scenario is basically stated in the “Five-Article Common Recognition (Five Great Hopes)” agreed upon during the top meeting between Lien Chan, Chairman of the Kuomintang (Nationalist Party) and Hu Jin Tao, the general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party in 2005. According to the “Five Great Hopes,” Taiwan is to be economically incorporated and become highly dependent on China and then conclude the peace agreement to complete the unification of Taiwan with China, which is exactly the Chinese Communist Party’s scenario to unify Taiwan. Mr. Ma Ying-jeou, who restored the Kuomintang government in 2008, faithfully carried out the Five Great Hopes. And in 2011, adding the finishing touch to the Five Great Hopes, Mr. Ma proposed the peace agreement across the Taiwan Strait. The Taiwanese most strongly opposed the proposition, and Mr. Ma was obliged to withdraw his proposal immediately.

Later, in 2016, Ms. Tsai Ing-wen of the Democratic Progressive Party became the president, and the peace agreement across the Taiwan Strait was strictly sealed by the revised law that prohibits the peace agreement from being discussed as an agenda. In the following 2024, Mr. Lai Ching-te of the Democratic Progressive Party won the presidential election and succeeded the political position held by the Tsai Ing-wen administration.

Under such circumstances, the military unification scenario came to attract the people’s attention. The Chinese Communist Party, in view of the planned military attack on Taiwan, has been rapidly increasing military strength. Communist China’s military drills expand in scale, every time one takes place, it covers Taiwan wider and wider, threatens the Taiwanese people and incites fear.

3.Mr. Trump and the strategical ambiguity  

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal (digital edition) in October 2024, being asked how he would respond if China should blockade Taiwan, Mr. Trump said that if China should enter Taiwan, he would impose 150% to 200% tariffs on China. Instead of immediately resorting to military force, he would counter by additional tariffs, which would totally destroy the Chinese economy. This would be an effective deterrent. When asked directly if he would employ military force to cope with the siege of Taiwan, he said that there would be no need to use military force, because Mr. Xi respects him and knows that he is extraordinary. This probably means that if the United States should use armed force, that would be far more powerful than an ordinary deployment. Mr. Trump contrasts with Mr. Biden, who immediately answered that he would when asked if he would use military force in carrying out use of force. Mr. Trump thinks it better to leave certain strategical ambiguity at the time of Taiwan emergency.

4.The recognition of Taiwan’s statehood and national security

Like in the first one, in the second Trump administration, the policy of prioritizing Taiwan will be maintained, and arms sales and other measures will be actively conducted. There is one important issue the second Trump administration may possibly face. That is the issue of the recognition of Taiwan’s statehood as former Secretary State Pompeo advocates.

On May 7, 2022, while visiting Taiwan, Mr. Pompeo said that the United States should immediately carry out what it should have carried out much sooner. That is to recognize Taiwan as a free sovereign state. He also said that the recognition of Taiwan’s statehood is the largest security for Taiwan.

Mr. Pompeo has been energetically acting to achieve that goal, lobbying the United States authorities for the recognition of Taiwan’s statehood. During a meeting at the Hudson Institute, Mr. Pompeo said he encourages US officials to visit Taiwan more often, even though doing so would incite threats from the CCP. “I hope more other senior American officials will join me in this, because I think it will create noise,” he said. “There will be angst, the Chinese Communist Party will bluster and threaten, but that clarity will provide the call for the world to accept the fundamental truth, that fundamental reality.”

That “reality” is that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country, he said.

The Chinese Communist Party does not accept Taiwan’s statehood. According to the CCP, the use of armed force against Taiwan is a domestic issue within the state called China. In other words, any use of armed force against Taiwan is a pure domestic matter and other countries should not interfere in a country’s domestic policy.

Looking at the reality of the Taiwan Strait, anyone cannot help but feel that the Chinese Communist Party’s assertion that Taiwan is part of China is a sheer sophistry. According to international law and the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, the criteria for statehood are (a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, (c) government and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. Taiwan satisfies all these qualifications without any problem. Anyone knows Taiwan’s steady and continuous activities over the last thirty years as an independent democracy. It is undeniable that two states exist across the Taiwan Strait. Therefore, the Chinese Communist Pary’s use of force against Taiwan clearly violates the United Nations Charter Article 2-4: All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

However, at present, Taiwan is not permitted to join the United Nations and is disqualified as a member of any United Nations organizations. The rights of the population of 23 million Taiwanese are damaged in many ways.

In reality, any state that intends to recognize Taiwan as a state should be fully prepared for severance of its diplomatic relationship with China as the Chinese Communist Party’s retaliatory measure. Therefore, no state is willing to recognize Taiwan’s statehood for fear of such diplomatic risk. The only state that can risk such a diplomatic disadvantage is the United States. However, the current difficult global circumstances would not allow the United States to take such a risk. It would be either when the China-Taiwan relationships are stressed to the extreme or the use of force becomes reality that the United States will step forward to recognize Taiwan’s statehood. In that case, the United States would be requested to recognize Taiwan’s statehood in view of securing the rightfulness of the use of force under the international law and obtaining due agreement from other countries of the world.

Aside from the prospect of whether the critical situation between China and Taiwan occurs during the second-term Trump administration, the recognition of Taiwan’s statehood is a crucial issue directly affecting the entire world. The United States will further deliberate the Taiwan issue from now on. It is not at all desirable to leave China’s sophistry as it is, which clearly contradicts the reality of the Taiwan Strait and violates the Taiwanese rights. While expecting Mr. Pompeo and his supporters to make further efforts, in Japan, we should promote the awareness of this issue so that the recognition of Taiwan’s statehood may be realized as soon as possible.

Japanese https://i-rich.org/?p=2200

Sugihara Seishiro
President, International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

On September 18, 2024, in Shenzhen, China, a boy pupil of a local Japanese school and his mother were attacked by a 44-years-old Chinese man and the boy was stabbed to death.

The incident was supposedly caused by the patriotic education implemented by Jiang Zemin, who became general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party in 1989, aiming to promote hostility against a particular state. Thus, the tragic incident occurred as the result of anti-Japan education. The anti-Japan education was introduced as means of oppressing the democratization movement like the Tiananmen incident and maintaining the rule of the Chinese Communist Party within China.

At the present time, the rational way for a state to operate is by being a democratic state where those who hold the political power are regularly replaced by the will of the people and the national will is largely formed according to the wishes of the people who constitute the state. In ancient states, the election itself was impossible. Since the election is possible today, it is a right concept in view of the evolution of the law that the will of the state should reflect the choice of the people through election.

Today, however, a type of tyrannical state exists where a certain political body like the communist party or an individual takes hold of the political power and such a group or an individual determines the will of the state. When comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the two political systems, in terms of the deterrent of war, it becomes clear that the democratic state is superior.

In Japan’s history, the Japanese people have been belligerent in certain periods. Now, after having gone through the tragic experiences in World War II and when its battle scenes are conveyed at hand on television and through social media, the people cannot be belligerent in principle. That is because we realize that if a war begins, the people constituting the state will be forced to risk their lives on the battleground. If people feel the danger, naturally, a trend to avoid war emerges among them, which affects the will of the state, leading to deterrence against war.

On the other hand, in a despotic state, the group or individual holding the power never faces the danger of death when a war is started as the will of the state. Consequently, the sense of the necessity to avoid war becomes weaker. Moreover, to maintain its despotic rule, which is not consigned by the people, the ruler may think it necessary to keep the people under stress and possibly resort to waging a war as a means of doing so. Therefore, a despotic state has weaker deterrence against war.

Applying this argument to the antagonistic education against a particular state, it goes without saying that such hostile education against a specific state itself is far from agreeable when it comes to global peace in the 21st century. In a despotic state, the power holding group or individual must establish a policy merely to maintain the despotic rule within the state and exercise the political power for that sake. The ruler may say that it is for the benefit of the state, but, in fact, it is merely for the sake of maintaining the despotic system and for the sake of the ruling group or the individual’s benefit.

Depriving people from their freedoms in a despotic state is an inevitable consequence of the need to maintain the despotic regime and, as a result, the people are oppressed.

While the Chinese people today violently hate Japan, totally affected by the anti-Japan education, at the same time they are robbed of their freedom by the power holding group or the individual and feel desperate under the harsh oppression.

Now, I would like to make a suggestion to the Chinese-origin people all over the world. Presently, there are many people of Chinese background in the United States, Australia and elsewhere who have obtained the nationality in the respective countries and live free from the rule of the Chinese Government. To our surprise, those Chinese-origin people sometimes agitate to promote anti-Japan education in cooperation with the Chinese Government’s overseas propaganda activities or work for the Chinese Government’s “wolf-warrior diplomacy.”

Now, it is time to stop and think. Is it tantamount to leaving the Chinese people in mainland China suffer, unilaterally deprived of their freedom and helping the tyranny go on or even become harsher? If you cooperate with the Chinese Government in this way, that will strip the freedom of the Chinese people in mainland China even further and cause them to suffer in a worse way.

If Chinese-origin people in the world with nationalities other than mainland China criticize the way the Chinese Government is now and resist it, the action will lead to helping the fellow Chinese people and contribute to world peace. I truly want to appeal to the Chinese people with foreign nationalities to take a considerate and brave action.