コンテンツへスキップ

国際歴史論戦研究所
上席研究員 松木國俊

 去る6月3日、韓国では尹錫悦大統領の罷免に伴う大統領選挙が実施され、大方の予想通り「共に民主党」の李在明氏が当選し、政権を掌握した。これから李在明政権はどこに向かうか、そして日本はいかに対応すべきかについて、私の見解を述べてみたい。

李在明独裁政権の誕生

まず確実なことは、韓国においてすべての権力が大統領に集中するということだ。行政府は当然ながら大統領自身が直接取り仕切る。首相以下の閣僚、情報機関である国家情報院のトップもすでに側近で固めた。

立法府については、与党である「共に民主党」が国会議員の絶対多数を占めており、大統領が提示する法案や予算案、さらに人事案もすべてフリーパスだ。

司法面ではどうだろう。最高裁判所に相当する大法院の長官は大統領が指名し、国会の承認を得て就任する。現在の長官は保守系だが2年後の2027年6月で任期切れとなり、次の長官は事実上李在明氏が決めることになる。他の裁判官についても、12人中9人が李在明大統領の任期中に任期満了で交代する。大法院の裁判官は大法院長官の推挙により国会の承認を得て大統領が任命するため、後任は政権寄りの人物が占める確率が高い。

次に憲法裁判所であるが、同裁判所は大統領、国会、大法院長官がそれぞれ三人ずつ選出した計九人の裁判官で構成されている。従って2027年6月の時点で李在明大統領系の大法院長官が就任すれば、ほぼ全員を李在明系の裁判官が占めることになるだろう。

第四の権力といわれるマスコミも状況は同じだ。KBS、ⅯBⅭ等の公共放送局の理事会メンバーは、政府機関である韓国放送通信委員会(KCC)の推薦を受けて大統領によって任命される。結果的に李在明大統領の意向に沿った人物が理事に選ばれることになり、公共放送は政権の宣伝機関以外の何物でもなくなる。李在明政権はブレーキ不在の独裁的政権となる公算が極めて高い。

反日扇動で国民を糾合

韓国内では高止まりした若年失業率や社会的格差の拡大、世界でも並外れた少子化の進行など、深刻な社会問題が蔓延している。さらに輸出依存型の国家経済が行き詰り、今年第一四半期の経済成長率はマイナス0.2%に落ち込んでしまった。すべて構造的問題であり、一朝一夕に解決することは出来ない。先行き不透明感が募る中で、国民の不満は必然的に李在明政権に向かうことになる。

韓国内の保守勢力も黙ってはいない。もともと李在明氏には多くの疑惑がある。京畿道知事時代の北朝鮮への不正送金や城南市長時代の都市開発に関わる不正などをめぐり、現時点で5件の裁判を抱えている。大統領には「不訴追特権」があるが、訴因が大統領就任前に発生したものに対してもこれを適用出来るかは法的にあいまいであり、これから保守勢力は李在明政権のアキレス腱とも言えるこれらの疑惑を徹底的に追及するはずだ。

先の大統領選挙の得票数を見ても40%以上が「反李在明票」であり、保守派が勢力を盛り返して次回2028年の総選挙で圧勝すれば、国会での李在明大統領の弾劾発議もあり得る。憲法裁判所の人事を押さえていても、「反李在明」の世論が盛り上がり、裁判官がこれに迎合すれば弾劾が成立するだろう。

李在明大統領がそのような「危険性」を回避するためには、世論を手なづけ、次の総選挙でも政権与党に勝利させねばならない。だが現政権が短期間で国民が納得する成果を上げるのは極めて困難である。ならばすでに決着している過去の歴史問題を蒸し返し、反日感情を煽って国民の不満を全て「日本への怒り」へと転化させる以外に手はない。

口先で日韓協調路線を唱えてはいても、李在明氏の本性が「親中・反日」であることは過去の言動を見ても明らかである。選挙公約の中でも李在明氏は「元慰安婦の名誉を回復し、補償を最大限引き出す」と明言しており、「公約の実行」を口実に、2015年の日韓合意により最終的かつ不可逆的に解決した「慰安婦問題」を再び持ち出して、「謝罪と賠償」を日本側に求めてくるのではないだろうか。反日感情の強い韓国では、日本に強硬に出れば出るほど大統領の人気は上昇する。これで次の総選挙でも与党勝利は間違いないだろう。

そして彼が次に狙うのは、韓国憲法の改正である。韓国憲法では大統領の任期は五年に限られ再選はない。これまで韓国の歴代大統領の多くが退任後に有罪判決を受け、悲惨な末路を迎えている。李在明氏も大統領を退任すればただの人に過ぎない。叩けば埃のでる体であり、いくつもの罪に問われて破滅するのが目に見えている。

それを避ける道は大統領再選しかない。韓国大統領は憲法改正の提案権を握っており、李在明氏が「アメリカと同じように再選可能にしよう」と提案すればおそらく通るはずだ。彼は自身が築き上げた独裁体制下であらゆる手段を用いて二期目を勝ち取り、最終的に終身大統領への道を開くことさえ考えるかもしれない。

日韓が協力し独裁にストップをかけよう

だがそのような独裁的体制は韓国の「自由と民主主義」に死をもたらすことになる。立法も司法も政権の手中にあり、反政府的な活動が合法的に弾圧されるようになれば、言論の自由はなくなり、共産主義体制と何ら変わらなくなるのだ。

そればかりではない。李在明政権が突き進むであろう「親中・反日」路線は日米韓の連携を弱体化させ、最悪の場合、韓国は国ごと中国に飲み込まれる恐れさえある。

そうなれば日本は中国という覇権国家と直接対峙せざるを得ず、日本の自主独立が脅かされる事態となる。ならば日韓の国民は協力して李在明独裁体制に何としてもストップをかけなければならない。

李在明氏が韓国民を糾合するために「反日感情」を利用するであろうことはすでに述べた通りである。だがその「反日感情」とは歴史を歪曲した反日教育によって刷り込まれた「逆恨み」(unjustified resentment)に過ぎない。幸い、韓国においても少数ではあるが、このことを指摘する研究者が現れた。元ソウル大学教授である李栄薫氏が執筆・編集した『反日種族主義』は、反日教育における歴史歪曲を具体的に論破しており韓国内でベストセラーとなった。

反日教育で「性奴隷」と教えられた慰安婦が、実は単なる売春婦だった事実も多くの韓国の人々が知るところとなり、各地に建てられている慰安婦像の撤去を求める韓国人による市民運動も拡大している。さらに若い人々の中にはSNSなどで多くの情報に接し、反日教育の内容に疑問を抱く人も増加している。

日本がやるべきことは、このような新しい波が韓国中に拡大するように援護射撃をすることである。李在明政権が両国間ですでに解決済の歴史問題を蒸し返してくるならば、日本は真実をもって逐一反論しなければならない。李在明氏の主張する反日的歴史観が嘘であることを白日の下に晒さらせば、「反日感情」を土台とする彼の権威は失墜し、韓国保守派の巻き返しのための道が開ける。李在明氏の弾劾もあり得るかもしれない。

日韓両国民の未来のために、私は国際歴史論戦研究所の一員として韓国の同志と共にこれからも全力を尽くす所存である。合わせて日本国政府が国益を守る覚悟を決め、毅然として李在明政権に向き合い、その重大な責任を果たして行くことを願ってやまない。

Japanese: https://i-rich.org/?p=2349

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

Forty years or so after an incident occurred, when few survivors remain, fake information is spread, and sometimes the utter fabrication may be perceived as a ‘fact.’ “During World War II, the Japanese Army abducted young girls and women in the occupied regions, made them sexual slaves called comfort women, abused them, and when the war was over, most of them were killed.” The lie conceived about the so called comfort women issue is such an example.

And now, another type of fake information is being spread. It is the crash accident of Japan Airlines Flight 123 at Mt. Osutaka in 1985. The comfort women issue and the JAL’s accident may appear completely unrelated, but the common aspect of fake information is the anti-Japanese smear of the Japanese Army and Self Defense Forces.

Fake information linking the suspect to Japan Self Defense Forces

JAL’s flight 123 crashed down on Mt. Osutaka on August 12, 1985, killing 520 people on board, the worst airplane accident in history. The airplane accident investigation committee reportedly ascribed the cause of the crash to improper repair on the rear pressure bulkhead, which led the bulkhead to break down during the flight. The Japan Self-Defense Forces sent about fifty thousand troops for the disaster rescue mission. They accomplished the difficult task of rescuing survivors and retrieving victims’ bodies at a very inhospitable location.

Already at that time, there was a conspiracy-theory type of criticism against the Japan Self-Defense Forces participating in the rescue mission. However, now, forty years after the incident, fake information that the crash was perpetrated by the Self-Defense Forces is being spread again.

The theory of the JSDF as a perpetrator can be summed up as follows:

1)Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force’s escort ship in Sagami Bay during missile launching drill accidentally destroyed part of the JAL aircraft’s vertical tail. 2) Then, two Phantom II jet interceptors followed the JAL plane and shot it down with a missile. 3) After the plane crashed on Mt. Osutaka, the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force burned survivors and bodies, using flame throwers, to conceal evidence. 4) For that operation, they intentionally delayed the identification of the crash site and sending of an airborne brigade for the rescue mission. 5) Since the JAL’s pilot who once belonged to the Maritime Self-Defense Force knew about this plan and possessed materials related to the secret mission, a member of the Self-Defense Forces stripped the pilot’s body found on August 14 of his uniform and destroyed the material evidence.

    The theory was too absurd for any member of the Self-Defense Forces or those concerned to believe or refute at that time. However, in the Internet sphere, this kind of fake information attracts many viewers and not a few people believe in the theory. Also, books promoting the theory of the Self-Defense Forces being the perpetrator sold hundreds of thousands of copies. Three books among them were selected for recommendation by the National School Libraries Association and were displayed at school libraries. At Mt. Osutaka, a memorial monument, inscribed with the statement that Passengers, Victims were intentionally killed by the Self-Defense Forces, was installed by bereaved families.

    Refute fake information with facts

    Deeply worried about this situation, former Self-Defense Forces members and former Japan Airlines employees testified at a symposium held at the House of Councilors Hall on April 16, 2025.

    There, the theory of JSDF being the perpetrator was refuted:

    1. The escort ship Matuyuki at Sagami Bay was in fact handed to the Maritime Defense Force in March of the following year (1985). At the time of the accident, the ship belonged to Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. and the person in charge of the ship was the captain appointed by Ishikawajima-Harima and many of the crew were civilians. As such, no missile was installed aboard the ship. In the first place, a missile launching drill was never conducted in Sagami Bay. If such a drill had been held, many people would have seen flames.
    2. Two Phantom II jets of the Air Self-Defense Force scrambled from Hyakuri base in Ibaraki Prefecture at 19:01, four minutes after the JAL plane disappeared from the radar. There was no scrambling before the two Phantoms. Therefore, no Phantom pursued the JAL plane. After the Phantoms returned to the base, it was also confirmed that no missile was launched. Within the Self-Defense Forces, the management and handling of weapons is very strictly conducted. If a plane should return, missing a single missile, it would certainly raise hell.   
    3. Immediately after the accident, it is physically impossible to carry portable flame throwers and fuel to the site. According to one book, flame throwers burned the area of 3.3 hectares. However, to burn the area of 3.3 hectares, it will require 220 sets of portable flame throwers, which is equivalent to the total number of portable flame throwers that the Ground Self-Defense Force possesses and 16 to 17 steel drums each containing 200 liters of fuel. In addition, to produce gelled oil, it usually takes one full day or at least five to six hours. To conduct such a huge-scale mission in a little time in secret is totally impossible.
    4. As to the identification of the crash site, they tried to identify the accurate location from airplanes. The area burning around the crash site stretched like a long band and using the TACAN (tactical air navigation system) at that time was not free from errors. A little error makes a big difference in the steep mountain ridges. At that time, there was no GPS (global positioning system) available, and it was difficult to specify the location by the ground map. Another book writes that the rescue dispatch order to the First Airbourne Brigade on the day of the accident was changed, and they were ordered to stand by until the next morning, allegedly to intentionally delay the rescue dispatch. This is a sheer lie. In the first place, there was no standby order, and it was the next morning after the crash that the First Airbourne Brigade received the mission order.
    5. During the work of retrieving bodies on August 14, there were already many people concerned and media people at the site. If a dead pilot wearing his uniform had been found, everybody would have seen it. It would have been impossible to remove the uniform from the pilot’s body. Aboard a helicopter, bodies were covered with blankets and tightly laid side by side. It was impossible to strip the body of the uniform. As a matter of fact, the pilot body was found on August 29, only the lower jaw and several teeth remaining.

    Never repeat the tragedy of the comfort women issue

    It is argued that the comfort women in wartime were sexual slaves. People at that time would have laughed off such a story as a lie. However, Yoshida Seiji’s book was published, the Asahi Newspaper reported it in the 1990s, and leftist lawyers and civil groups acted overseas. Consequently, the concept of “comfort women being Japanese military sexual slaves” spread through the international community, and comfort woman statues were installed across the world. If somebody dared to refute the sexual slavery theory, they were harshly criticized as “history revisionist.”

    If a member of the Self-Defense Forces refutes the fake information asserting the theory of the Self-Defense Forces being the perpetrator, the Internet speech sphere criticizes it as the perpetrator’s excuse and speech control by the State. Those who delight at the spread of anti-Self Defense Forces information are leftist groups in Japan and South Korea, as well as North Korea and China. Both the comfort women issue and fake information over the JAL crash incident are wars of intelligence and history. They are also wars of recognition, streaming fake or biased information, using information media such as Social Network Services and Internet, and influencing receiver’s thinking and judgement. To protect the honor of the members of Japan Self-Defense Forces and to convey the correct history to the next generation, we must not leave fake information as it is but must patiently keep disseminating the truth.

    Japanese: https://i-rich.org/?p=2359

    Seishiro Sugihara
    President
    International Research Institute of Controversial Histories (iRICH)

    The political feud this time was caused by shortcomings in the current constitution

    In the South Korean presidential election held on June 3, 2025, as expected, Lee Jae-myung of the “Together Democratic Party” won and became the South Korean President on the next day.

    Plainly speaking, the political chaos this time triggered by the former President Yoon Suk Yeol declaring martial law was solely due to shortcomings in the current Constitution of the Republic of Korea.

    On December 4, the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea resolved to demand the lift of the martial law and President Yoon immediately cancelled the martial law. Later, on December 14, the National Assembly resolved to follow up with impeachment proceedings to purge the president. If the Korean impeachment proceedings were the same as the non-trust resolution cited in the Japanese Constitution, the President could have authorized the dissolution of the National Assembly and then called a general election. If the newly elected members of the National Assembly would vote in favor of the President, he would be able to resume the presidency, and if voted otherwise, he would lose the presidency. If this had been the case, the political feud this time would have been settled orderly by the people’s consensus.

    From this perspective, the Korean Constitution has a peculiar stipulation, albeit it has some advanced stipulations when it comes to human rights. For example, Article 84 stipulates the crime of insurrection by the President and conflicts with other countries. Article 76 authorizes the President to issue emergency orders against domestic and foreign insurrections, and Article 77 authorizes the President to declare martial law in case of national emergencies. Why, then, is the crime of insurrection stipulated? Is it that the crime of insurrection means act committed to cause insurgence with the purpose to replace the government? How is it possible that the President authorized to issue emergency orders and martial law could be charged with the crime of insurrection? As the issue of insurgence was raised this time, the police investigated the President on the charge of inciting a riot, which seems quite odd in view of the rule-of-law principle.

    Under the Yoon Suk Yeol administration, the “Together Democratic Party” made impeachment proposals 31 times, following the Constitution. Before that, impeachment proposals were made 18 times in 38 years since the Constitution was proclaimed in 1987. Comparing these numbers, we can see how often the impeachment was proposed under President Yoon Suk Yeol. Although it was legally and politically improper that President Yoon declared the martial law as a warning, I would rather emotionally sympathize with him to a certain extent.

    The birth of the current South Korean Constitution emphasizing judiciary power

    In South Korea, after the military administrations by Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan, in June 1987, democratization was declared on July 12, and on October 29, the tenth-revised Constitution came into effect as the current one, after nine revisions since the Constitution of the Republic of Korea was proclaimed on July 12, 1948. And in December,1987, presidential election was held and Roh Tae-woo became President. Since then, presidents elected by the people ensued.

    In such political historical background, President Yoon declared martial law and naturally, the Korean people could not agree to the martial law.

    However, the Constitution, seemingly over-conscious of the military administrations, is too dependent on judicial power and in that respect is somewhat inappropriate. Beyond the principle of separation of the three powers in the rule of law, it is too dependent on the work of judiciary power, deviating from the principle of separation of the three powers. Principally, political issues to be dealt with based on the political intention of the people are intended to be addressed by the judiciary power, whose task should be to carry out judicial justice and provide a correct interpretation of laws. Such attempts ultimately lead to the division of the people.

    In the end, under the current constitution, President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law on December 3 last year and on the 14th, the National Assembly voted for impeachment, suspending the presidential office and on April 4, this year, the Constitution Court ruled that the President be dismissed. Following the decision, the presidential election was held on June 3.

    On the other hand, as for Lee Jae-myung of the “Together Democratic Party,” who had been charged with violation of the “Public Offices Election Act,” the South Korean Supreme Court overturned the verdict of the original court citing not guilty and ruled otherwise, and Lee Jae-myung was on the verge of being non-qualifier for the presidential run. The High Court, on being remanded the verdict, decided that the court hearing be held on June 18, after the presidential election, postponing the original court date of May 15. By this decision, Lee Jae-myung was able to run for President and was consequently elected President. After all, the appointment of the new President Lee Jae-myung and the impeachment of the former President Yoon Suk Yeol were realized by the hands of judges who are not chosen by the people.

    The Korean people want to reform the Constitution, focusing on the judicial issue

    Fortunately, the people of the Republic of Korea are wise and most of them want constitutional reform. They have a strong interest in courts and want a reform of the judicial system. During the presidential election this time, both the ruling “People Power Party” and the opposition “Together Democratic Party” cited constitutional reform among their policies. Responding to the people’s intention, they should address the issue of constitutional reform, focusing on the reform of the judicial system.

    What is judiciary, then? I would like to consider what the role of law is in terms of the separation of the three powers under the “rule of law” or “nomocracy.” It goes without saying that in terms of written law, judiciary’s ultimate role is to faithfully follow law, and in case of non-written law, through court procedures, judiciary exercises the final interpretation and judgement of the matter in question. And it is presumed that the interpretation thus made shall be applied in the same manner when dealing with any case of the same nature.

    Such a judiciary act is not an act of the government but interpretation of law, conducted by judges who are selected from individuals with the required qualifications. Through lawsuits, in order to exercise the same judgement regarding the same issue, there is the system of the three stages of courts, namely, district court, high court and the supreme court.

    The judiciary follows the Constitution, the highest written law. Therefore, when the legislative body makes a law against the Constitution, the judiciary is authorized to nullify the law in question. This is principally done through lawsuits. Article 13 of the current South Korean Constitution stipulates that the retroactive legislation shall not be applied to suffrage and property right. If such a retroactive law is made, those who are to lose their rights can file a lawsuit. During the court process, it is clarified that such legislation is against the Constitution and thus the law’s effectiveness is halted. Thus, it is made clear that the judiciary exercises the final interpretation regarding the Constitution and law.

    In this sense, the judiciary is opposite to the government. However, the current Korean constitution so easily designates to court decision matters that should be dealt with by the government.

    In discussing what judicial power is, we must look at the “theory of governing act.” The executive branch in charge of administrative power is authorized to declare martial law or something similar in the case of national emergency, without grounds written in the law. For example, when North Korea militarily invades South Korea or huge earthquake hits most parts of the country, the government should immediately cope with the dire situation, and emergency orders, including martial law, can be issued. This is the right concept under the “rule of law” or “nomocracy.”

    Article 76 of the current South Korean Constitution stipulates that in the case of domestic insurgence, foreign raid or natural disaster, emergency orders shall be issued, and Article 77 stipulates that martial law shall be declared in case of a national emergency.

    Regarding former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s declaration of martial law on December 3 last year, there are different views as to whether his act was constitutional based on the article of the constitution or not. Strictly speaking, it looks like both. There was no such emergency as to require martial law and his act was unconstitutional. On the other hand, he immediately cancelled the martial law, following the disapproval of the National Assembly and on December 14, he followed the Assembly’s resolution of impeachment and purge from the office. This shows that he acted according to the Constitution. Then, even if the martial law was issued politically in a wrong manner, the case should have been dealt with by the Assembly’s disapproval. Therefore, it can be interpreted that the act was formally constitutional. However, former President Yoon reportedly tried to hold Assembly members in custody, and in this sense, former his declaration of martial law could partially have been unconstitutional.

    When we think about the role of judiciary, we must take the concept of “theory of act of government” into account. Regardless of the existence of written-law grounds, the administration has a special role when it comes to government. This theory is so important that we cannot eliminate this way of thinking.

    This theory was strongly advocated in Japan in December 1959 by Tanaka Koutaro, the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Japan and jurist, in connection with the verdict of the case called the “Sunagawa incident.” In the Japanese Constitution, interpreted literally, Article 9 stipulates that Japan shall possess no armed forces. In a further literal interpretation, it is also unconstitutional to have foreign armed forces stationed in Japan. Therefore, it can be concluded that it is unconstitutional to have the United States forces stationed in Japan because it is tantamount to having “armed forces” in Japan. How did Justice Tanaka judge in this situation?

    Justice Tanaka did not say either constitutional or unconstitutional because judging whether it is constitutional or not is not within the jurisdiction of the judicial court. That is, a highly political state act related to the foundation of the state government is an issue beyond the jurisdiction of the court, even when it is possible to judge through court proceedings whether it is constitutional or not.

    In gist, the role of judiciary is to carry out the final interpretation of law through lawsuits. Even so, there are matters related to government that are outside the jurisdiction of the court. We must say this was an extremely important judgement regarding the role of the judiciary.

    In case of the current Korean Constitution, it is highly respectable that democratization was declared in June 1987 and efforts were made to protect democracy under “rule of law” or “nomocracy.” However, when it comes to the role of the judiciary under the Constitution under “rule of law” or “nomocracy,” it was made to play inappropriate role, including the case of “theory of governmental act.” Plainly speaking, what should be politically resolved based on the people’s intention has been entrusted to the judiciary, whose task is to pursue the rightful interpretation of law.

    Through the presidential election campaign this time, both the then ruling “People Power Party” and the then opposition “Together Democratic Party” held up the policy of constitutional reform. However, there were few reform plans advocating judicial issues. There are many reforms to be made, such as the regulation of the one five-year-term only presidential office. The worst fault of the South Korean Constitution is that what should be solved politically is entrusted to judicial judgement. Unless this fault is overcome, there will be no stability of the South Korean government.

    From this viewpoint, speaking of South Korean principles of order of law and constitution, further consideration of viewpoints is necessary, regarding the prohibition of legislation of exclusively specified matter and prohibition of retroactivity.

    When there is only “rule of law” worthy of the name of rule, under “rule of law” and “nomocracy,” no legislation applicable solely to specific individuals is permissible. The premise of general law must be constantly observed. Moreover, legislation that can be disadvantageous to specific individuals must be strictly adherent to the rule of non-retroactivity. That is, legislation related to individual disadvantage must strictly follow the principle of non-retroactivity, which means that such legislation should be strictly applied to cases that occur after the legislation. Unless this principle is observed, such a state cannot be said to be a state worshiping “rule of law” and “nomocracy.” In South Korea, as a leading state in the world, those who are engaged in law-related legislation, administration and judiciary must seriously recognize this idea and work to make South Korea one of the most excellent modern states in the world.

    Bi-partizan structure in South Korea

    Article 8 of the current South Korean Constitution stipulates that when a political party’s purpose or activity is judged to violate fundamental domestic order, such party shall be possibly dissolved. This judgement is made by the constitutional court. In the case of South Korea, in the north sits the communist brother state and constant vigilance is unavoidable, so a pro-North Korea and communist-admiring political party is impermissible. It is understandable that its Constitution holds such stipulation. Consequently, however, what kind of political structure may come into existence? Under the political structure void of communism, after all, bi-partisan system, like that of the United States, with a slight difference between conservatives and non-conservatives or liberals and non-liberals will be practically established. In addition, in Japan before the war, when the communist party was illegal, Seiyu Party and Minsei Party became two major parties and entered into one battle after another only to fail to establish a sound political party government. One of the reasons was that since the communist party was illegal and communist activities were strictly suppressed by the special police, placing the party out of the public sight, the political world did not have to worry about the communist party.

    In the postwar Japanese political world, the communist party is legal as long as it does not plot a violent revolution. Political abilities of many parties are to be judged by the distance they keep from the communist party. In this respect, vigilance regarding communist activities now is an everyday concern   and as a result, the Liberal Democratic Party upholding the conservative political line has long held the administration.

    In South Korea, there will be no alternative but to maintain stability through bipartisanship. 

    Then, the legislators should stop abusing the previous administration and degrading those involved in the former administration every time the government changes hands. In this respect, Lee Jae-myung, who became President with the help of the judiciary, said in his inauguration speech on June 4 that he would “stop the division.” To this end, he should pardon the declaration of martial law by former President Yoon Suk Yeol as a kind of constitutional act. Considering this unthinkable declaration of martial law was an error committed by the opponent and a deplorable selfish goal, it is important for him to leniently cope with it. While in the presidential office, it may be permissible for him to make a law favorable to him such as exempting him from the lawsuit and suspending the trial, but he should not promote legislation which is impermissible under the “rule of law” or “nomocracy.”

    Then I want him to work on a constitutional reform so that the division may be removed. To realize this goal, it is necessary to constantly reflect the people’s intention and make adjustments accordingly like the United States with the four-year presidential term, where half of the Congress members are elected through the mid-term election so that the President’s government may be judged by the people.

    Expectations from Japan

    Allow me to repeat that during his inauguration speech on June 4, the newly elected President   Lee Jae-myung said that he would eliminate the domestic division and internationally make practical diplomatic efforts, valuing the relationship of South Korea, Japan and the United States and Japan-South Korea relationship. This may be realized. In Japan during the time of the Meiji Restoration, before the great cause of national unification, severely conflicting Satsuma and Choshu domains came to unite and form an alliance. Just like what happened in Japan, President Lee Jae-myung may drastically change and stop the long history of ill vengeance on the previous administration, become a truly great president and dissolve the conflict within the country. President Lee himself is to deal with five criminal charges against him. However, he may be possibly pardoned and exempted from the charges forever as a great president by the next president.

    However, at the base supporting President Lee Jae-mung lies the magma-like dormant power about to erupt with anti-Japan issues of mobilized workers and comfort women. There may be chances at any moment of the magma erupting and freeze Japan-South Korea relationships like ice. If so, Japan must be fully prepared for any symptom of the Lee Jae-myung administration using the anti-Japan card and if such action becomes imminent, Japan should immediately freeze economic and diplomatic friendship and keep President Lee Jae-myung from making any little steps toward such action. This may turn beneficial for the future decisions that President Lee Jae-myung could make.

    At present, both Japan and South Korea suffer declines in the number of births. However, in the global perspective, both countries are ranked among the most advanced in the world. In the average lifespan, Japan ranks first and South Korea third. It is extremely regrettable that between the most advanced countries in the world, a groundless anti-Japan policy is implemented, and anti-Japan sentiment swallows up people’s minds. It may be permissible as historical recognition of the South Korean people that Japan’s annexation of Korea in 1910 was colonization of Korea by Japan, but it was not unilateral exploitation on the part of Japan.

    When World War II was over and Korea was revived as one nation, many systems established under Japan’s rule of Korea were preserved. Among those that remained were the police system and the grand and competent bureaucratic system. Looking today at a country that became modernized and one of the most advanced countries in the world, one can understand how valuable the positive heritage of Japan’s rule is. Apart from the emotional aspect, the people must have come to the stage where they can objectively recognize it.

    Besides, the anti-Japan feelings in postwar South Korea were purposefully promoted by consecutive governments through anti-Japan education. Present-day South Koreans seems to recognize already that the anti-Japan sentiment was partly brought about by the anti-Japan education. They are now at the stage where they must get rid of anti-Japan feelings for the sake of the honor of South Korea.

    Geopolitically, at present, South Korea is in a position where it has to confront the despotic nuclear powers of North Korea, China and Russia. South Korea, Japan, the United States and Taiwan are in the relationship of mutual assistance as universal democracies. If so, there is no room or time for anti-Japan claims under the current circumstances. At any hint of an anti-Japan movement, Japan must immediately freeze the policy of promoting the Japan-South Korea friendship. It is naturally good for Japan to freeze the friendship at the hint of an anti-Japan action on the part of the Lee Jae-myung administration. It is also indispensable, necessary and good for South Korea and the newly elected Lee Jae-myung. In this way, we can help President Lee Jae-myung become the greatest and best president in Korean history.

    What I have said so far is not meant to be a patronizing message from Japan. In Japan, too, the judiciary has become abnormal. The Supreme Court of Japan has deteriorated extremely when it comes to judging ability and competence. I am concerned about the judiciary world in Japan and want to have Japanese Constitution reformed as well.

    Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=1996

    Sawada Kenichi
    Senior Researcher of International Research Institute

    Introduction

    Some people say, “The Ainu are a northern people,” “The Aine are not the descendants of the Jomon people,” or “The Ainu are not a Japanese people.” However, these are misunderstood conceptions which may shake the foundation of Japan, and any assertion based on such false recognitions can be extremely dangerous. I will now correct the false recognitions and explain how fallacies put Japan into a crisis.

    Mr. Matoba Mitsuaki of Hokkaido is regarded as the leader of the conservative view regarding Hokkaido, and I pay due respect to him for his work. However, when it comes to the issue of Ainu, his view is utterly misleading, and I cannot help condemning him for the dangerous direction to which he may be leading Japan. Let me explain why so.

    The fault of Mr. Matoba’s assertion

    Once I received a text message from a friend asking if I had seen YouTube video titled “Matoba Class #60: History tells of the Ainu’s genetic element of the Jomon people.”[i] I did not see the video and so immediately checked it. The part of the video about 37 minutes into it, which my friend described as totally astounding, was the most extraordinary explanation that “Ainu are not the descendants of Jomon people, using a chart (Chart 1) of the pedigree which shows Ainu in Hokkaido, Okinawans and the mainlanders derive from the same branch.

    If you read this chart correctly, the Ainu, Okinawans and mainlanders derive from the same genetic branch and are all descendants of the Jomon people. Nevertheless, in the video, a completely opposite explanation is calmly being made, which made me totally astounded.

    Then, other people contacted me to point out the video is wrong. This video mostly explains the segregated people. Why is it about the segregated people? That is because Mr. Matoba explains that during the Edo period, a large number of segregated people moved from Honshu in mainland to Hokkaido and mixed with Ainu people. Even if it is true that there were certain cases of mixing with the segregated, it is hardly thinkable that all of them were mixed. Even so, this conclusion is clearly wrong.

    Chart 1 The Formation Model of people of the Japanese archipelago from the book Japanese People Seen from DNA, written by Saito Naruya, Chikuma Shinsho, 2015.

    According to Mr. Matoba’s explanation, “the Ainu people are northern tribe having nothing to do with the Jomon people.” That is, the original Ainu did not have Jomon people’s genes, but the segregated people came and mixed with Ainu, through which Jomon people’s genes entered Ainu people. However, the present-day mainlanders possess about 10% of the genes deriving from the Jomon people. Against this percentage, today’s Ainu people possess about 70% of genes deriving from the Jomon people.[ii] [iii] Should all Ainu people have genetically become segregated people, the ratio of their genes could never reach 70%. It would have been 10% at most.

    Using the segregated people up front in a manner like this is extremely inappropriate and poses a serious human rights issue. An academic mistake can be corrected, but a statement made concerning human rights cannot be corrected academically.

    Mr. Matoba’s view has many other faults. Let me mention just one more. Thirty-six minutes into the video in question, immediately after Mr. Saito Naruya said, “Ainu are the direct descendants of Jomon people,” Mr. Saito said, “It’s not true,” and this scene is repeatedly quoted. By doing so, it is explained as if Mr. Saito said, “Ainu are not Jomon people’s descendants.”

    In fact, I had seen Mr. Saito’s video “Ethnical relationship in East Asia seen from genetic analysis”[iv] before and felt great sense of disparity at the above-mentioned scene, because Mr. Saito squarely explains that Ainu are descendants of the Jomon people in his books. So, I directly called Mr. Saito on the phone to confirm it. Mr. Saito said what Mr. Saito meant in the video was “they were not 100% Jomon people.” I would like Mr. Matoba to read Mr. Saito Naruya’s books once again.

    To sum up, what the chart means in Mr. Matoba’s video in question is explained in the context which is opposite to the author’s intention, and this is an academic problem. At the same time, he lightly uses the segregated people in his explanation, which can be said to include a serious human rights issue. It can be concluded that the assertion in the video “Matoba school series #60: History tells the Ainu people’s genetic element of the Jomon people” is inadequate and misleads public opinion.

    The danger in Mr. Matoba’s assertion with respect to the relationship with Russia   

    Academic errors will occur. Those errors are to be corrected through academic controversies over time. However, when it comes to the issue related to the Ainu, we cannot be so slow and time-consuming. I will explain the reason for quick action now.

    Mr. Matoba says that Ainu are a northern tribe who used to live along the Amur River. Then, the Ainu people would become Russian, of which Russian President Putin promptly took advantage. The Hokkaido Shimbun dated December 19, 2018, reported that Russian President Putin showed his intention to acknowledge Ainu people as indigenous Russians. Along this line, J-cast News of April 7, 2022, reported: Russian political science scholar Sergei Chernyakhovsky asserts, “Tokyo (the Japanese Government) inappropriately owns Hokkaido, which was politically Russian territory. As one of the grounds for the assertion it was mentioned that the Ainu people living in Hokkaido are one of Russian peoples. On the next day, April 8, 2022, Vice-Chairman Sergei Mironof of the Russian Lower House reportedly said, “According to experts, the entire hegemony of Hokkaido rests on Russia,” according to zakzak, the official website of Evening Fuji, published by the Sankei Shimbun Company.

    Surprisingly, the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology has followed this trend. It instructed that since Hokkaido was inhabited by more populations of other peoples than Japanese up to the Edo period, Hokkaido before the Meiji era did not belong to Japan. In the school textbook accreditation of geology, it was instructed that Hokkaido be shown in white while other parts south of Hokkaido be colored. Thus, logically, Hokkaido is no longer called Japan’s inherent territory.

    Under such circumstances, Japan is in the extremely disadvantageous position when it comes to the northern territorial issue. Etorofu and Kunashiri will be no longer Japanese people’s inherent islands. People lived there were Ainu and should Ainu be regarded as Russian people, Japan’s claim to the region will be completely toppled. Let alone, Russia is already claiming its territorial right to Hokkaido, as mentioned above

    Should Japan leave these situations as they are, fearfully Japan may become a second Ukraine. In fact, The Newsweek Japan of November 25, 2022, reported, “Russia had been prepared for attack against Japan, not against Ukraine.” This was revealed by email text of an insider of FSB (Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation, formerly KGB). We don’t know how trustworthy this peace of information was, but whether true or not, we must not overlook it nor underestimate Russia.

    Ainu seen from genome

    According to the study jointly announced in August 2020 by The University of Tokyo, The University of Tokyo Graduate School and Kanazawa University, “Ancient Jomon genome sequence analysis sheds light on migration patterns of early East Asian populations[v], “Ainu are the oldest lineage as inhabitants of Japanese Archipelago and at the same time, highly probably one of the direct descendants of original East Eurasian groups and the lineage of Jomon people is “so old as to compose the “root” of East Eurasians (East Asians, Northeast Asians) and one of the direct descendants of the original East Eurasian populations.”

    In gist, Ainu are descendants of Jomon people and therefore genuine Japanese people and more detailedly the oldest inhabitants of the Japanese Archipelago. Ever since recorded history, Hokkaido and Chishima Islands have been inhabited by none but the Japanese people. There is no room for ethnic issues whatsoever. On the contrary, the Japanese people advanced to East Eurasian Continent. In archaeology, in Siberia of the Eurasian Continent, no other ruins are older than those in Japan. Jomon potteries unearthed along the middle and lower Amur are much newer than those found in Japan. The ancient people most certainly came to settle in Siberia, advancing from Japan. If this was the case, Siberia surely belongs to Japan after Putin’s argument.

    Certainly, “Ebisu people” and “Emishi people” in the north conflicted with the central government and in order to conquer them, the Barbarian Quelling Generalissimo was appointed and became leader of the Japanese government as “Bakuhu”. The “Bakufu” government and “Ebisu” were key players in Japan’s history, like two sides of the same coin. There is no room at all for Russia to intervene in such history. We must not be trapped into a plot aiming to divide the Japanese people and the conservative parties must duly cope with Russia, sharing this historical view. For that cause, no one should make the wrong assertion related to the Ainu people. 


    [i] Matoba Mitsuaski, YouTube “Matoba Intensive Course No. 8 Jomon people’s DNA mixed with the modern Ainu people” (February, 2024) Since this study of mine aims to directly criticize this video of Mr. Matoba, I would like to post this video as below. This video is in Japanese and those who read this “study” in English translation may not fully understand it. I apologize for the inconvenience in advance.

    Scholars and researchers cannot speak about the Jomon people’s DNA mixed with Ainu [Matoba...] Accessed by the author as latest as April 27, 2024.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?V=B7cc9OtqPo4

    [ii] The Nihon Keizai Shimbun of May 13, 2019 “The origin of the Jomon people probably dates back to 20,000 ~40,000 ago, the National Museum of Nature and Science analyses genomes.

    [iii] Hideaki Kanzawa-Kiriyama, Timothy A. Jinam, Yosuke Kawai, Takehiro Sato, Kazuyoshi Hosomichi, Atsuhi Tajima, Noboru Adachi, Hirofumi Matsumura, Kirill Kryukov, Naruya Saito, Ken-ichi Shinoda, Late Jomon male and female genome sequences from the Funadomari site in Hokkaido, Japan, Anthropological Science, Essay ID 190415, publication date 2019/05/29

    [iv] Saito Naruya’s YouTube video “The ethnical relationship seen from generic analysis,” (June 2021). This video is also in Japanese. Those who read my paper in English may not fully understand it. The part of this video (twenty minutes into it) is cut out and used in Mr. Matoba’s video of Note 1. But this explanation is introduced in the opposite context to what Mr. Saito means. By the way, Mr. Saito’s books of the same effect are The DNA tells the root of the Japanese people (Bessatsu Takarajima, 2016) and The Origin of the Japanese people traced through nuclear DNA analysis (Kawade shobo, 2017). The author’s latest access to the video: April 27, 2024. https://youtu.be/nb5eunteGa0

    [v] Takashi Gakuhari, Shigeki Nokagome, Simon Rasmussen, Morten E. Allentoft, Takehiro Sato, Thorfinn Kornelliussen, Blanaid Ni Chuinneagain, Hiromi Matsumae, Kae Koganebuchi, Ryan Schmidt, Souichiro Mizushima, Osamu Kondo, Nobuo Shigehara, Minoru Yoneda, Ryosuke Kimura, Hajime Ishida, Tadayuki Masuyama, Yasuhiro Yamada, Atsushi Tajima, Hiroki Shibata, Atsushi Toyoda, Toshiyuki Tsurumoto, Tetsuaki Wakebe, Hiromi Shitara, Tsunehiro Hanihara, Eske Willerslev, Martin Sikora, Hiroki Oota, Ancient Jomon genome sequence analysis sheds light on migration patterns of early East Asian populations, Communications Biology 2020

    Chart:

    Okhotsk Culture people   Hokkaido (Ainu people)  Okinawans  Japan Archipelago mainlanders    Continental Chinese   Korean Peninsula people

    10,000 years ago   3,000 years ago  1,000 years ago  present

    Japanese :

    Sugihara Seishiro
    President
    International Research Institute for Controversial Histories

    It was in early 1970s that I visited South Korea for the first time. Then I had just begun teaching at a university. At that time the compulsory education in South Korea was up to the elementary school. As evening neared, I saw children of junior high school ages vending newspapers in the street. I felt the scene very strange because I had never seen children working in the street in Japan. I enjoyed walking down the street lined with art dealer stores selling excellent ink paintings, unlike these days, for I like ink paintings and felt familiar there. On the way from Seoul to Busan by train, I saw houses with sharp roof tops and felt a kind of nostalgy as the train neared Busan passing the Japanese-like scenery. I visited Bulguksa, a large temple in Gyeongju to the north of Busan and saw many stone Buddha statues in the neighborhood and realized that Buddhism in Japan would have never prospered without its passage through Korea. At the time of my first visit to South Korea, Koreans over the age of fifty spoke Japanese. Even those Koreans who pretended not to speak Japanese began talking to me in Japanese when we were twosome.

    I specialize in education and once I studied the moral education in South Korea. During the time of Prime Minister Abe Shinzo’s cabinet, Japan had included limited moral education in the school curriculum and created moral education textbooks. Throughout the post-war years, moral education was entirely excluded from the curriculum and there were no moral education textbooks in Japan. On the other hand, in South Korea, moral education was a required subject and there were moral education textbooks. Studying Korean moral education textbooks, I found that Korean moral education textbooks have inherited the tradition of “shushin” (moral training) during the Imperial Japanese rule and that they are very good textbooks. In Japan during the period of occupation after the War, “shushin” was abolished by the Allied Occupation Forces (in fact by those Japanese who have benefited from the war defeat), the subject of moral education was no longer taught at school and no moral education textbooks were available anymore. However, the heritage of pre-war Japanese “moral training” has been passed on to South Korea in the form of “moral education.”

    As a scholar on education, I published a book entitled nihon no dotoku kyoiku wa kankoku ni manabe—dotoku kyoiku he no shishin [Learn from South Korea in Japanese Moral Education—Guideline for making moral education a school subject] (published by Bunka Shobo Hakubun-sha, 2007).

    Now, South Korea, which I dearly remember, and Japan, my home country, are conflicting with each other over various issues. Above all, the most serious is the issue of mobilized workers. On October 30, 2018, the South Korean Supreme Court ruled that Japanese companies had to compensate their former workers and seized the companies’ properties. It is feared that the seized properties will be cashed shortly.

    In terms of international law, the issue was completely settled between the two countries by the Agreement made in 1965 regarding the Korean claims. Nevertheless, the South Korean Supreme Court overturned the agreement and made it an issue of conflict between Japan and South Korea. We cannot help but question the legal sense of the South Korean Supreme Court. Under the rule of law, South Korea, as a civilized nation, should duly understand that the issue caused by the South Korean Supreme Court’s decision is a purely domestic issue within South Korea and the Korean Government as the executive organ should be fully responsible to resolve the issue. Should the Japanese companies’ properties be cashed following this court decision, Japan and South Korea would surely enter a serious conflict.

    As for the Japanese Government, at this time, it does not show any sign of concession, having been bitterly betrayed and let down over and over again in the past by South Korea. The conflict between Japan and South Korea may further lead to the worst consequences, such as severance of diplomatic relations. However, as always, it is feared that the Japanese Government may come up with the last-minute compromise and bring up an extraordinary solution.

    What I really want to say here is that I would like to suggest that it is better for both Japan and South Korea to confront each other as close as possible to the severance of their diplomatic relations.

    Since World War II was over and Korea became independent as the Republic of Korea, South Korea seems to have been too emotionally dependent on Japan. In order to unite the people as a new nation, South Korea intentionally implemented fanatic anti-Japanese education as a policy since Syngman Rhee. This was nothing but emotional dependence on Japan. On the presumption that Japan never fights back, whatever South Korea attempts to do against Japan, has been used for the sake of the Korean national unification. Clearly, this is emotional dependence on Japan.

    On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of the Japanese people have been indifferent to South Korea. The Japanese people have hardly any knowledge regarding South Korea and remain uninterested in that country. Together with this indifference, the self-deprecating view of history which has been deeply imprinted on the Japanese mind throughout the postwar years, the Japanese tend to think that Japan has done the Koreans totally wrong things and in consequence, Japan has tried to settle everything peacefully by immediately apologizing for whatever happened between the two countries and succumbing to whatever unreasonable demand may come from South Korea and thus resolving the situation. This can be said to be somewhat insulting to South Korea.

    After all, such flattering or catering responses on the part of the Japanese Government have been the biggest cause of the twisted relationship between Japan and South Korea. If Japan had known South Korea well enough and been interested in it, Japan should have dealt reasonably with what South Korea demanded, clearly stating what is right and what is wrong and have gotten angry when the anger was the right answer. In fact, however, Japan has been ignorant of South Korea and indifferent to it and influenced by the self-deprecating historical view which the post-war Japanese have been imbued with. Thus, Japan always tried to solve whatever issues it may be confronted with, by immediately apologizing and responding with a temporary solution.

    I think that South Korean anti-Japanese actions have become massive, group-like, social, national and common trait of the South Korean people and when it comes to national characteristics, the Korean people will surely participate in anti-Japanese movements, through the anti-Japanese education implemented since the establishment of the Republic of Korea. However, when it comes to simple, emotional daily life, they are rather sympathetic and friendly toward the Japanese people and not at all anti-Japanese. Otherwise, South Koreans would not enjoy Japanese songs and animations so much, or so many South Korean tourists would not visit Japan for sightseeing. Anti-Japanese education has forced South Koreans to participate in anti-Japanese activities under certain circumstances.

    Recently, anti-Korean sentiments began to arise among Japanese people due to one problem after another that South Korea inflicts upon Japan. This situation is exactly what we fear should never have happened.

    Therefore, here is my proposition in addressing the issue of the mobilized workers. Japan and South Korea need to confront each other to an extreme until there is nowhere to go. When both sides come to such a desperate point, South Korea will realize that it should stop the anti-Japanese education, and Japan will realize that it should stop being indifferent to South Korea and should not look at that country based on the self-deprecating view of history.

    When it comes to national security, South Korea and Japan share a common destiny. No South Korean hopes to fall under the military control of China ruled by the Communist Party. On the verge of the national crisis of collapsing diplomatic relations, South Korea should learn what has been wrong with its inadequate response against Japan so far and find a new, effective way to deal with Japan. Japan should learn how to deal seriously with South Korea, determined to genuinely get angry at the right thing at the right time and sincerely apologize that Japan has apologized to South Korea unreasonably. Then, both sides will develop in a better way and be able to establish a sound mutual relationship.

    Bear in mind that this time, the conflict over the mobilized workers should be thoroughly addressed by both countries. Especially, on the part of the Japanese Government, I suggest that Japan should be fully determined and prepared to implement a firm policy toward South Korea in resolving this issue.  

    【英語版】https://i-rich.org/?p=2388

    国際歴史論戦研究所
    会長 杉原誠四郎

    今回の政争は韓国の現行憲法の欠陥に基いて起こった

    2025年6月3日に行われた韓国大統領選挙では、大方の予想どおり、共に民主党の李在明が当選し、翌日韓国大統領に就任した。

    思うに端的に言って、2024年12月3日に尹錫悦前大統領の戒厳令を宣布したことによって端を発した今回の政治騒動は、偏に、現行の「大韓民国憲法」の欠陥に基づくものだった。

    4日、国会で戒厳令解除を要求する決議がなされ、尹大統領は直ちに戒厳令の解除を行ったが、その後14日、国会で弾劾訴追の決議が行われた。もしこの弾劾訴追が、日本の「日本国憲法」における不信任決議と同じようなもので、大統領側に国会の解散権があって、国会を解散させ、そのうえで総選挙が行われ、そして新しく選ばれた国会議員によって大統領として信任されれば大統領を続けるし、再度不信任が突きつけられれば大統領として失職するという制度であれば、今回の政争は、国民の意思によって整然と解決していたはずである。

    このように見れば現行憲法には奇妙な規定がある。韓国の現行憲法にはいわゆる人権規定などでは進んでいると見える規定も多々あるが、例えば、第84条に大統領の内乱罪、外患罪の規定がある。大統領に、第76条で内乱と外患に対して緊急命令を発し、第77条では国家非常事態に対して戒厳令を宣布する権限を与えているとすれば、何ゆえに内乱罪の規定があるのか。内乱罪とは政権を奪取する目的を持って国内に争乱を起こす罪のことをいうのではないか。政治権力の掌握者であり、緊急命令や戒厳令を発する権限を有する大統領が、どうして内乱罪で追及されなければならないのか。今回の戒厳令に発する争乱で、警察が騒乱罪で大統領を取り調べているが、本来、法治主義の原理からしておかしいのではないか。

    もともと、この憲法に従って、共に民主党が発議した弾劾訴追案は尹大統領下で31回に達する。1987年この憲法が施行されて38年間で、尹大統領以前に発議された回数18回と比べると、尹大統領の下でいかに弾劾訴追案が発議されたかが分かる。そのため尹大統領が警告のためとして戒厳令を宣告したのは、法的にも政治的にも不適ではあったが、心情的には分かりうるものがある。

    司法重視の韓国の現行憲法の誕生

    韓国では朴正煕大統領、全斗煥大統領と、軍事政権を経て、1987年6月民主化宣言を行い、1948年7月12日に制定の「大韓民国憲法」以来、9次にわたる改正を経て1987年10月29日、10度目の憲法として現行憲法ができた。そして12月、大統領選を行い盧泰愚大統領が誕生し、以後、今日まで選挙で選ばれた大統領が続いていた。

    そのような政治的な歴史のもと、尹大統領が戒厳令を宣告したのであるから、韓国国民がこの戒厳令に賛意を寄せなかったのは当然といえる。

    が、この憲法は、軍事政権を警戒しすぎてか、あまりにも司法に頼りすぎ、不適切な憲法であった。法治主義の三権分立の原則を超えてあまりにも司法の采配に頼りすぎ、三権分立の原則から逸脱してしまっていたのだ。本来、国民の政治意思に基づいて政治的に解決しなければならない問題を、法の正義、法の正しい解釈を行うことを使命とする司法に頼って解決しようとして、逆に国民の分裂を招いたのだ。

    結局、現行憲法のもと、尹錫悦前大統領は昨年12月3日戒厳令を宣布し、14日に国会が弾劾訴追を可決し職務停止となり、4月4日、憲法裁判所が罷免を決定し、そのために6月3日に大統領選挙となった。

    他方、野党「共に民主党」の李在明はといえば、公職選挙法違反容疑に対して、大法院(最高裁)は5月1日、無罪を宣告した原審を有罪であるとして破棄したので、李在明は大統領選に出られなくなりかけたが、差し戻された高裁は7日、公判期日を5月15日の大統領選の終わった後の6月18日に延期した。そのことによって李在明新大統領は大統領選に出ることができるようになり、そのことによって大統領になることができた。結局、李在明新大統領の誕生も、尹錫悦前大統領の大統領罷免も、国民によって選ばれたわけではない裁判官の手によって決定したことになる。

    韓国国民は司法問題を中心に憲法改正を望んでいる

    幸いにして、韓国国民は賢明にして、大半が憲法改正を望んでいる。裁判所に対する不信感は強く、司法制度の改革を中心に憲法改正を望んでいる。今回の大統領選で、与党「国民の力」も野党「共に民主党」も憲法改正を政策に掲げているが、国民のこのような意向を受け入れて司法制度の改革を中心に憲法改正に臨んでいただきたい。

    そこで司法とは何か。「法の支配」「法治主義」の下における三権分立としての司法の役割は何かを考えておきたい。その究極の役割りは、成文法は成文に従うのは当然であるが不文法にあっても、訴訟を通じて法の最終解釈権を行使することにある。そしてその解釈権に基づく解釈は同種の案件に対しては実質的に同一の判決を出すものという前提がある。

    そうした司法行為は政治ではなく法の解釈であるから、裁判官は選挙によって選ばれるのではなく一定の資格を有する者に委ねられるのである。そして訴訟を通じて同一の案件には同一の判決を下すために、地方裁判所から最高裁判所へと三審制度を取るのである。

    司法には成文の最高法規たる憲法に従うが、そのために立法機関が違憲の法律を制定した場合、違憲立法であることを宣し、当該法律の効力を否定する権限が与えられているが、それも原則的には、訴訟による。韓国の現行憲法第13条には遡及立法により参政権と財産権は遡及されて剥奪されないとあるが、もしそのような法律が制定されれば、それによって利益を奪われる者が訴訟を起こし、その訴訟によってその立法を違憲立法として効力を停止し、憲法及び法律の解釈につき最終解釈権を行使していることを明かすのである。

    このように見れば、司法は、政治の対極にあるものなのであることが分かる。しかるに現行の韓国憲法は、政治的に解決すべきことにいともたやすく裁判所の判断にゆだねたのである。

    司法権とは何かについて、もう一点、「統治行為論」なるものを見ておかなければならない。行政を担当する行政府には、たとえ成文法に根拠がなくても、国家の緊急事態において戒厳令ないしそれに類するものを発する権限がある。例えば、韓国で北朝鮮から軍隊が侵入してきた時とか、韓国の領土の大半で地震が起きてそれに対処しなければならない時とか、戒厳令を含むこうした命令は出しうると考えるのが、「法の支配」「法治主義」の下での正しい考え方である。

    韓国の現行憲法では、第76条で内憂・外患天災・地変等に対して緊急命令を出してよい規定があるし、第77条では国家非常事態において戒厳令を出すことができるようになっている。

    今回の尹錫悦前大統領の昨年12月3日の戒厳令の宣布は、この条文による合憲行為か、違憲行為かは見解の分かれやすいところだが、厳密に見れば両方に見える。戒厳令を布くに値する状態はなかったことで、その点で実質的に違憲行為と見なされうる。が、国会の不同意によって直ちに戒厳を取消し、12月14日には国会の弾劾訴追の決定によって職務停止に従ったのであるから、形式的には憲法に従って行動したということになる。とすれば政治的に不適切な戒厳宣布であるとしても、それは国会の不承認によって処理されるべきものともいえる。したがって形式的には合憲行為だったとも解釈できるのだ。もっとも、尹前大統領は国会議員も拘束しようとしていたようだから、その点で尹前大統領の戒厳令宣布には違憲行為の部分もあったといえなくはない。

    司法の役割を考えるとき、もうひとつ、「統治行為論」という考え方を取り入れておかなければならない。成文法に根拠があるなしに関わらず、行政には統治に関して特別な役割があるというのが「統治行為論」の考え方がある。いわれてみれば決して否定できない考え方である。

    日本では1959年12月、いわゆる砂川事件という事件の判決に関わって当時の最高裁判所長官で法学者の田中耕太郎が強く唱えたものだ。日本の憲法では文理的に解釈すれば第9条によって「戦力」を持たないことになっているが、さらに文理解釈を推し進めれば、それは外国の軍隊を駐留させることも違憲となる。したがって日米安保条約を結んでアメリカの軍隊を駐留させていることも、それは「戦力」を国内に置くことになるから違憲だということになる。このとき田中耕太郎はどのように判示したか。

    田中はこの件についての合憲か合憲でないかのかの判断は司法裁判所の判断になじまないものであるとして、合憲とも違憲とも示さなかった。すなわち国家統治の基本に関する高度に政治性のある国家行為のごときは、それが訴訟となり合憲か合憲でないか判断可能な場合であっても、そうした問題は裁判所の審査権の外にあるとしたのである。

    つまりは司法の役割は、訴訟を通じて法の最終解釈権を行使するのが役割であるが、それでもまだ政治に関することで司法の判断の外にあるものがある、と判示したのである。司法に関する極めて重要な判断といわなければならない。

    韓国の現行憲法の場合、1987年6月民主化宣言を行い、民主主義を守ろうとしたのは敬すべきであるが、「法の支配」「法治主義」の下の憲法として司法の役割について、「統治行為論」の場合も含めて不適切な役割を担わせていたのである。つまり簡潔に言えば、国民の意思に基づいて、政治的に解決しなければならないことを、法の正しい解釈を求める司法に委ねていたのだ。

    今回の選挙戦を通じて与党「国民の力」も、現在は与党となった選挙戦中の野党「共に民主党」も憲法改正を政策に掲げている。が、司法の問題を掲げる改正案は少なかった。大統領の5年任期の1期制の規定など、他にも改正すべきところは多数ある。が、韓国憲法の最も誤っているところは国民の意思に基づいて政治的に解決しなければならないところを、司法によって解決しようとしているところだ。そこのところを解決しなければ、韓国の政治の安定は生まれてこないであろう。

    憲法改正に当たっては「法の支配」「法治主義」の下で法とはどうあらねばならないか。そこから憲法はどうあらなければならないかの視点が必要だ。

    その観点から見ると、韓国の法秩序、憲法秩序には、さらに、特定事項限定の立法の禁止の原則、遡及禁止の原則に関わる観点が必要だ。

    「支配」の名に値する支配とは「法の支配」しかないというときの「法の支配」「法治主義」の下では、特定個人に適用するためだけの立法は許されない。絶えず一般法の建前を守っていなければならない。まして特定個人の不利益になるような立法は「遡及禁止の原則」が厳しく適用されていなければならない。つまり、個人の不利益に関わる立法は、立法以降に生じた案件にしか適用できないという「遡及禁止の原則」が守られていなければならない。この原則が守られていなければ、「法の支配」「法治主義」を崇めている国家とはいえない。韓国にあって、まさに世界をリードする国家として、法に関わる立法、行政、司法の関係者は、このことを厳しく認識し、韓国をして世界で最も優れた近代国家の1つにしていかなければならない。

    韓国の政界の2党構造

    韓国の現行憲法第8条には、政党の目的や活動が民主的基本秩序に反すると判断されるとき解散させることができるという規定がある。判断するのは憲法裁判所である。韓国の場合、北に共産主義の同胞国家が控えており、それへの警戒が避けられず、親北で共産主義を信奉する政党は許されないことになるから、このような規定が憲法にあるのはいちおう仕方がないということになるだろう。が、その結果、政界の構造にどのような結果が生まれるであろうか。共産主義政党が存在しないという政界構造では、結局、アメリカのように保守と非保守、リベラルと非リベラルというようなわずかな違い有しながらの2大政党制が事実上定着するのではないか。日本でも、戦前、共産党が非合法であったとき、政界は政友会と民政党とが主要2大政党となり、バトルを繰り返し、健全な政党政治を打ち立てることができなかった。その一つの理由は、共産党が非合法で、共産党的な動きは高等警察など世間で見えないところで弾圧していたので、政界で共産党に対する緊張をする必要がなかったからである。

    戦後の日本の政界は、共産党も暴力革命を期さないかぎり、合法であり、多くの政党は共産党との距離で、政権担当能力が問われることになり、その点で共産主義への警戒が日ごろから政界にあり、結果として1つの保守系の現実路線の自由民主党が長期にわたって政権を担うという結果になっている。

    韓国にあっては、結局は2大政党で安定する以外にはないであろう。とすれば政権交代のたびに前政権を罵倒し、政権を担ったものを貶めるのは止めた方がよいであろう。その点で、司法の手助けによって大統領となった李在明は、6月4日の大統領就任演説で「分裂を終わらせる」と言っている。そのためには尹錫悦前大統領の戒厳令を宣布は、Ⅰ種の憲法行為として許すべきであろう。この通常では考えられない戒厳令宣布が、李在明新大統領にとって敵失であり、オウンゴールであったことも考慮して寛容に対応するのが肝要であろう。大統領在任中は起訴されず裁判は停止するなどの自己に有利な立法は許されてよいが、「法の支配」「法治主義」のもと、許されない立法は進めてはならないであろう。

    そして分裂を解消させるための憲法改正に取り組んで欲しい。そのためには大統領の任期が4年任期の大統領制であっても、米国のように、国会の議員の半数が中間選挙で選ばれ、大統領の政治が、たえず国民の意思で調整されるようにしておく必要がある。

    日本から見た期待

    繰り返すが、李在明新大統領は、6月4日の大統領就任演説で、国内では対立を解消すると言い、そして対国外に向かっては実用的な外交を展開し、日米韓及び日韓の関係を重視すると言った。もしかすれば、本当にこのようになるかもしれない。日本にあって明治維新の時だが、大義の前に、厳しく対立していた薩長による薩長同盟ができたように、李在明大統領は大化けして、韓国の政治史で繰り返されてきた前政権への報復というのを止め、真に偉大な大統領となり、韓国国内の対立を解消する大統領になっているかもしてない。本人も5件の刑事事件を抱えている大統領であるが、韓国の国内の対立を解消した偉大な大統領として、次期大統領によってこれらの刑は永遠に不起訴にするという恩赦を受けるようになるかもしれない。

    が、李在明大統領の支持基盤には、対日問題で、徴用工、慰安婦問題を持ち出して再び反日カードを切ろうとする勢力がマグマのように存潜在している。何かの拍子にそれが噴出して、再び日韓関係は氷のように凍結してしまうことも予想される。だとしたら、日本としては、李在明政権で、いささかでもその反日カードを切るような兆候が見られたら、直ちに経済や外交の友好関係を凍結し、李在明大統領にそのカードをほんのわずかであっても切らさないようにしなければならない。それは結果としては李在明大統領自身のためにもなることだ。

    現在、日韓はともに出生数の減少に苦しんでいるが、世界的にはある意味で、お互いに最先端の国になっているのだ。平均寿命は日本がいちばんで韓国は3番となっている。そのように互いに世界の最先端を行っている国が、さしたる根拠もなく反日政策を取り、反日感情に溺れてしまうのは極めて残念なことである。1910年の日韓併合が韓国の植民地化であったというのは、韓国国民にとって、1つの歴史認識として許されようが、それは日本による一方的搾取ではなかった。第2次世界大戦が終わって、韓国が1つの国家として再生となったとき、韓国には日本統治の下で日本が残したさまざまな制度が残っていた。警察機構も含めて、壮大なる官僚機構が残っていた。今日の近代化し世界の最先端の国になったことを見てみれば、こうした日本統治の正の遺産がどれほど貴重なものであったかということになる。そのことを感情から離れれば容易に客観的に認識できる段階に至っているはずである。

    それに戦後の韓国における反日感情は、歴代政府があえて反日教育で育んだ故のところもある。現在の韓国はその反日教育からもたらされた反日感情の部分もあることを認識できる段階に至っている。韓国の名誉としても反日感情からは脱皮していかなければならない段階に至っている。

    現在、韓国は、北朝鮮、中国、ロシアと、核保有の専制国家と対面する関係に地政学上なっている。韓国、日本、米国、そして台湾という民主主義国家は人類普遍の民主主義国家として助け合わなければならない関係にある。とすれば、もはや反日カードなど持ち出す状況ではない。版一カードを少しでも切り出せば、日本は直ちに友好促進政策を凍結するようにしていかなければならない。李在明政権に少しでも反日カードを切る兆候が見えたら、直ちに友好関係を凍結するように出ることは、日本にとっては当然よいことだが、韓国、そして李在明新大統領自身にとってもかけがえのない必要なことであり、よいことなのだ。そして李在明大統領をして韓国の歴史に残る最上の大統領になるのを手助けしていくのだ。

    以上のことは決して日本から上から目線で語っているのではない。日本でも司法がおかしくなっている。最高裁も判断能力の劣化が著しく進んでいる。私は日本の司法界にも憂いを抱いており、また「日本国憲法」の改正も望んでいる者である。

    【英語版】https://i-rich.org/?p=2391

    国際歴史論戦研究所
    所長 山本優美子

    ある出来事から40年ほど経ち、当事者が少なくなったころにフェイク情報が拡散され、捏造が「事実」にすり替わることがある。「第二次世界大戦中の日本軍は、占領地の女性と少女20万人を拉致し、慰安婦と呼ぶ性奴隷にして虐待し、戦争が終わるとその殆どを殺した」という嘘、いわゆる慰安婦問題がそうである。

    今、もう一つのフェイク情報が拡散されている。1985年の御巣鷹山日航機123便事故だ。慰安婦問題と日航機事故、この二つは全く別のようだがフェイクの共通点は反日本軍と反自衛隊だ。

    ◆自衛隊犯人説のフェイク情報

    1985年8月12日に御巣鷹山に墜落した日航機123便の事故は、犠牲者520人の史上最悪の航空機事故であった。事故原因は、航空事故調査委員会の調査によって後部圧力隔壁の不適切な修理が原因となって、飛行中に隔壁が破損したことによるものと報告されている。自衛隊は人員約5万人となる大規模な災害救助派遣に出動。険しい地形の中で生存者の救助と遺体の収容という困難な任務を成し遂げた。

    当時から、自衛隊の救助活動に対して机上の空論のような批判はあった。ところが40年経った今になって、事故は自衛隊が犯人の事件であったというフェイク情報が拡散されている。

    その自衛隊犯人説は、纏めるとこういうものだ。

    ①相模湾にいた海上自衛隊の護衛艦がミサイル発射訓練で、日航機の垂直尾翼の一部を破壊。②その後、航空自衛隊のファントム二機が日航機を追尾してミサイルで撃ち落とした。③御巣鷹山に墜落した直後、陸上自衛隊が証拠隠滅のために火炎放射器で生存者や遺体を焼いた。④そのための時間稼ぎにわざと、現場の特定と空挺団の救助派遣を遅らせた。⑤元海上自衛官の機長はこの計画を知っていて、その秘密に関する資料を所持していたため、8月14日に発見された機長の遺体から自衛官が制服を剥ぎ取って証拠隠滅した。」

    自衛官や当時の関係者にとってはあまりにも荒唐無稽な説で、反論もしてこなかった。ところが、SNS上ではこういった情報に多くのアクセスがあり、少なからずの人たちが信じている。自衛隊犯人説の書籍が何十万部も売れ、そのうちの三書籍が全国学校図書館協議会選定図書にも選定され、学校の図書館に並んだ。そして御巣鷹山には「自衛隊が意図的に殺害した乗客・犠牲者」と記された遺族による慰霊碑も設置されたのだ。

    ◆フェイクは事実で論破

    この状況に危機感を持ち、当時の災害派遣に関わった陸海空の元自衛官と元日航社員が証言したシンポジウムが2025年4月16日に参議院議員会館で開催された。

    そこで自衛隊犯人説は次のように論破された。

    1. 相模湾にいたという護衛艦「まつゆき」が海上自衛隊に引き渡されたのは翌年の3月。事故時は石川島播磨重工の船で、指揮を執っていたのは石川島播磨の船長、乗組員の多くも民間人であった。よってミサイルは搭載されていない。そもそも相模湾ではミサイル訓練はしない。したとしたら炎が衆人の目に入る。
    2. 航空自衛隊のファントムは、日航機がレーダーから消えた4分後の19:01に百里基地から2機発進したもので、それより前に発進はない。よって日航機を追尾したファントムは無い。基地帰投後もミサイルは発射されていないことを確認している。自衛隊は武器関係の管理が厳重である。ミサイルが一本無い状態で戻ったら一大事になる。
    3. 事故直後、現場に携行放射器(火炎放射器)とその燃料を現場に運び込むのは物理的に不可能。ある書籍には、火炎放射器で3.3ヘクタールを燃焼させたと書いているが、3.3ヘクタールを焼くには、携帯放射器が陸自保有の総数に相当する220セット、燃料ドラム缶(200L)が16~17本が必要である。また、ゲル化油を作成するのに通常は一昼夜、最低でも5~6時間は必要となる。これだけ大掛かりなことを短時間で隠密に実行できるわけがない。
    4. 現場の特定は、航空機からの測定は正確な位置を掴むもうと試みたが、墜落現場の燃えている範囲が帯状に長く、当時のTACAN(tactical air navigation system戦術航法装置)での位置測定では誤差が生じた。少しの誤差でも険しい山では尾根が違う。当時はGPSがなく、地上から向かう地図上の特定は難しかった。ある書籍には、事故当日に出た第一空挺団の(ヘリコプター)災害派遣命令が変更され、翌朝まで待機命令にして、意図的に派遣を遅らせたとある。これは全く嘘で、そもそも待機命令は出ておらず、第一空挺団に派遣命令が出たのが事故の翌朝であった。
    5. 8月14日の遺体収容作業時には既に多くの関係者とメディアが現場にいた。機長の制服を着ている遺体が発見されていたら、誰の目にも止まっただろう。その中で、遺体から制服を剥ぎ取るなどは不可能。またヘリコプター内では遺体は毛布にくるんで横に隙間なく並べたので、そこで制服を剥ぎ取る作業も不可能である。実際は、機長の遺体は8月29日に発見され、下顎部と歯牙数本だけであった。

    ◆慰安婦問題の二の舞にならぬよう

    戦時中の慰安婦が性奴隷だったなどという話は、当時の人は嘘だと笑い飛ばしただろう。ところが、吉田清治の本が出版され、1990年代に朝日新聞が報道し、左派弁護士や市民団体が海外で活動した結果、「慰安婦は日本軍の性奴隷」が国際社会に広まり、慰安婦碑が世界各地に設置された。性奴隷説に反論すると「歴史修正主義者」と激しく非難されるようになった。

    自衛隊犯人説のフェイク情報に対して自衛官が反論すると、加害者の言い訳、国家による言論統制、と批判するSNS上の言論空間がある。反自衛隊の情報が拡散されて喜ぶのは、日本と韓国の左派、北朝鮮と中国だろう。慰安婦問題も日航機事故のフェイク情報も情報戦、歴史戦だ。SNSやインターネットなどの情報媒体を利用して偽情報や偏った情報を流し、相手の思考や判断に影響を与えようとする認知戦でもある。自衛官の名誉を護り、次世代に正しい歴史を繋ぐために、フェイク情報は放置せずに真実は粘り強く発信し続けねばならない。

    By Takahashi Shiro, Guest Fellow, International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

    Japanese https://i-rich.org/?p=2329

    Among the papers that China submitted additionally after the registration subcommittee, under the International Advisory Committee of UNESCO Memory of the World, pointed out the insufficiency of the previously submitted papers, there are sources (the record of verbal testimonies by comfort women) held at the Chinese Comfort Women Study Center headed by Professor Su Zhi-liang of Shanghai Normal University, who was sent by China to the International Advisory Committee meeting held at Abu Dhabi on October 6, 2015. China also added “Statements by 1,000 Japanese war criminals,” the result of the brainwashing education conducted against Japanese prisoners of war by the Chinese Eighth Route Army under the command of the Chinese Communist Party for application to Memory of the World. The application paper China submitted states that the submitted source is the proof of “forced abduction” of comfort women. However, after examining the source, we found that there are several problems.

    First, as a typical statement by former Japanese soldiers, it is mentioned that Lieutenant General Sasa Shinnosuke and Lieutenant Colonel Hirose Saburo raped women, but apparently comfort women were at the comfort station for economic reasons due to poverty and they were paid due fees. Therefore, either incident does not prove that comfort women were “forcibly abducted” or made “sexual slaves.” As to how those women were investigated or whether they were legally protected if court trials were held, there should have been court records, but they have not been made public.

    Second, “Record of Japanese Military Comfort Women” (twenty-five items) kept at Jilin Province Dang-an Hall which China additionally submitted for Memory of the World Register does not verify the claim of “forced abduction” or “sexual slaves.”

    Third, one of the twenty-five items is “Nanjing Military Police Examination Report on the Situation of Recovered Security within the Jurisdiction of Nanjing Military Police,” recording the numbers of Japanese soldiers and that of comfort women and how the Japanese Army treated sick or injured Chinese citizens free of charge. According to the record, there were 25,000 Japanese soldiers and 141 comfort women. However, 141 comfort women did not serve the entire Japanese soldiers and there are no descriptions verifying that comfort women were “forcibly abducted” or made to work as “sexual slaves.”

    Fourth, the report made by the Shanghai City Police in 1938 writes that Japan-friendly Chinese were involved in “forcibly abducting” comfort women. But the source did not back up the “Japanese-friendly” description or there was no mention of the word Japan. This source only indicates that Chinese forcibly made Chinese women prostitutes.

    Among the “Military Comfort Women” sources China additionally submitted is “Statements by 1,000 Japanese war criminals examined by the Chinese Communist Party,” which says, “From 1952 to 1956, more than 1,000 Japanese war criminals were investigated by the Chinese Communist Party Government, about 8.5% of which admitted to “setting up comfort stations,” and 61% stated that they had sexually related with comfort women.” However, no sources exist, verifying China’s allegation that comfort women were “forcibly abducted” or treated as “sexual slaves.”

    At the beginning of the “military comfort women” paper China additionally submitted for Memory of the World Register, it is stated, “Comfort women refer to women who were put into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army. Most of these women were forcibly made sexual slaves.” However, comfort women were not “forcibly abducted,” but they were engaged in “prostitution business under legal protection,” and at war times, many belligerents set up similar institutions and it is not at all true that the Japanese comfort women system was a sheer rarity.

    As we have just seen, the problem is that China strongly promotes its points, while putting together pieces incapable of verifying “forced abduction” or “sexual slavery.” We must say that China’s application is nothing short of political propaganda.

    I attended as an observer the Memory of the World International Advisory Committee, held on October 4 through 6, 2015 at Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates, and submitted an opinion paper to the Committee, asserting the following three points as basic concerns.

    First, UNESCO clearly states in General Guidelines to Safeguard Documentary Heritage 2.5.4: “The rule of law is respected...copyright legislation...are consistently observed and maintained with dignity and transparency.” China used a photograph of Yangjia-zhai comfort station without its owner’s consent in the application process, falsely alleging that China possesses copyright, which violates Guidelines.

    Second, Guidelines states (4.4.3), “The IAC will also require that documentary heritage be accessible.” However, China made only a part of the application sources accessible. If China’s unilateral application denying accessibility of its materials and objective examination by others were to be registered, UNESCO’s international trust and authority will be surely damaged.

    Third, among materials China submitted for nomination, some have been partially extracted from the entire context, which makes it impossible to evaluate the source in the full perspective and to judge the authenticity of the content.

    Based on these fundamental problems, I explained in detail to Chairperson Dr. Reyes the memorandum submitted to the United States Congress by Lary Niksch, researcher at the Congressional Service titled “The system of “comfort women” organized by the Japanese military during the 1930s and 1940s,” which then became the basis for the anti-Japan resolution concerning comfort women, held at the United States House of Representatives on July 30, 2007. I also emphasized that by the IWG (United States Interdepartmental Working Group) report, it was clearly verified that no historical sources exist to prove “forced abduction” of comfort women.

    The revised IWG report of April 3, 2007, deleted Yoshida statement and mentioning the book written by Tanaka Yuki, clearly stated that The Asahi Newspaper’s false report of January 11, 1992 was “the greatest impact.”

    I also reported that the Japanese Government refuted at the United Nations Human Rights Council held on September 15, 2014 and at the United Nations International Committee on Civil and Political Rights held on August 31, 2015, regarding the fact that The Asahi Newspaper’s false reporting influenced the United Nations Coomaraswamy Report and became the basis for the global misunderstanding that “200,000” comfort women were “forcibly abducted.”

    Chairperson Reyes and Advisors from the United States and Canada showed particular interest in my explanation demonstrating Tanaka Yuki’s book in English and primary sources including IWG reports, which I believe decisively helped Chairperson Reyes understand Japan’s position. At present, after receiving the recommendation of dialogue, China is negotiating over the conditions of dialogue. This will be one of the major focal points of dialogue.    

    Note: Related Documents is provided in Japanese Site.

    国際歴史論戦研究所 ゲストフェロー 髙橋史朗

    【英語版】https://i-rich.org/?p=2343

    中国がユネスコ「世界の記憶」国際諮問委員会の下部機関である登録小委員会から資料の不備を指摘されて追加申請した文書には、2015年10月6日にアブダビで開催された国際諮問委員会に中国が派遣した上海師範大学の蘇智良教授がセンター長を務める中国慰安婦研究センターの所収資料(慰安婦の口述記録)が含まれており、中国八路軍の日本人捕虜洗脳教育の成果である「日本人戦犯1000人の供述書」も追加申請された。

    中国側の登録申請書には、提出した資料が慰安婦「強制連行」の証拠だと書かれているが、資料を検証した結果、以下の問題点があることが判明した。

    第一に、元日本兵の代表的な供述として、佐々真之助中将と広瀬三郎中佐が女性を強姦したとする供述が挙げられているが、慰安婦は生活苦という経済的理由で慰安所にいたことを示しており、料金も支払われていた。いずれの供述も慰安婦を「強制連行」して「性奴隷」にしたことを示すものではない。彼らはどのような状況で尋問され、法的保護を受けていたのか、裁判にかけられたとすれば、その議事録があるはずであるが、それも公開されていない。

    第二に、中国が追加申請した吉林省档案館所蔵の「日本軍の慰安婦記録」(25件)も慰安婦の「強制連行」「性奴隷」を立証するものではない。

    第三に、その25件の資料の一つに、南京周辺にいた日本兵と慰安婦の数を記した、1938年に憲兵によって書かれた『南京憲兵隊管轄区域の治安回復状況の調査報告書』には、日本軍が中国人市民に無料で病気やけがを治療する様子が記されており、2万5千人の日本兵と、141人の慰安婦がいたと記録されている。しかし、141人の慰安婦が日本兵全員の相手をしていたわけではなく、慰安婦が「強制連行」され、「性奴隷」として働かされたことを立証する記述はない。

    第四に、1938年に上海市警察が作成した報告書には、親日中国人が慰安婦の「強制連行」に携わっていたと書かれているが、資料には「親日」を裏付ける証拠はなく、日本という言葉すらない。この資料には、中国人が中国人女性を強制的に売春婦にしたことしか書かれていない。

    中国が追加申請した「従軍慰安婦」資料の一つに、「中国共産党が調査した、戦犯日本兵1000人の供述書」があり、「1000人以上の日本の戦争犯罪者たちが、1952年から1956年にかけて、中国共産党政府の調査を受けた。その内、約8,5%が『慰安所を設立した』と認め、61%が「慰安婦と性的関係を持った』と供述した」と書かれている。しかし、中国側が主張する慰安婦の「強制連行」や「性奴隷」として扱われたことを立証する資料は皆無である。

    中国が追加申請した「従軍慰安婦」文書の冒頭には、「『慰安婦』とは、日本帝国軍によって性的に隷属させられた女性のことである。これらのほとんどが、日本軍によって強制的に性奴隷にされた」と書かれている。しかし、慰安婦は「強制連行」されたのではなく、「法的保護を受けた風俗業」であり、戦時中、多くの交戦国が同様の施設を設置しており、日本の慰安婦制度のみが特別であったという事実はない。

    このように、中国は「強制連行」や「性奴隷」を立証するものではない断片的な資料を繋ぎ合わせて強弁していること自体に問題があり、中国の申請は政治的プロパガンダと言わざるを得ない。

    私は2015年10月4日から6日までアラブ首長国連邦の首都アブダビで開催されたユネスコ「世界の記憶」国際諮問委員会にオブザーバーとして参加し、オピニオンペーパーを同委員会に提出し、基本的問題点として、以下の3点を主張した。

    第一に、ユネスコは「記憶遺産保護のための一般指針」で、「『法の支配』を尊重すること…著作権法…は遵守・維持される」と明記しており、中国が上海の楊家宅慰安所の写真を所有者に無断で申請し、著作権を持っていると虚偽申請していることは、同指針に違反する。

    第二に、同指針は、国際諮問委員会は「記憶遺産へのアクセスを可能とすることを要求する」と定めているにもかかわらず、中国は申請史料の一部しか公開していない。史料公開並びに客観的検証を拒否する中国の一方的な主張に基づいて登録が決定されれば、ユネスコの国際的な信頼と権威を著しく損ねることになる。

    第三に、中国が登録申請した史料の中には、史料のごく一部のみを抜き出したものがあり、史料全体の中での位置付けや評価ができないために、内容の真正性について判断することができない。

    この基本的問題点を踏まえて、国際諮問委員会のレイエス議長に、2007年7月30日に米下院で行われた慰安婦に関する対日非難決議のベースになった米議会調査局のラニー・ニクシュ調査員が同議会に提出した「日本軍の『慰安婦』制度」と題する報告書について詳細に説明し、IWG報告書によって、慰安婦の「強制連行」を立証する史料は皆無であることが明確になった点を強調した。

    2007年4月3日付けの同修正報告書では吉田清治証言を削除し、「強制性」の主要な論拠として田中ユキの著書を挙げた上で、1992年1月11日の朝日新聞の誤報を「最大の根拠」と明記した。

    この朝日新聞の誤報が、国連のクマラスワミ報告書に影響を与え、慰安婦「20万人」「強制連行」という国際誤解の根拠になったことを、日本政府は2014年9月15日の国連人権理事会と2015年8月31日の国連自由権規約委員会で反論していることも報告した。

    レイエス議長のアメリカとカナダ出身のアドバイザーが特に強い関心を示し、田中ユキの英文著書とIWG報告書などの原史料を提示しながら実証的に解説したことが、レイエス議長が日本の立場に理解を示すようになった決定的な契機となった。現在、ユネスコからの対話勧告を受けて、対話の条件をめぐって協議が行われているが、対話のポイントの焦点の一つになると思われる。

     資料 中国が「世界の記憶」に追加申請した「中国人慰安婦」関連文書

    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.