コンテンツへスキップ

国際歴史論戦研究所
顧問 阿羅健一

 昭和五十七年、近隣諸国条項により南京事件が教科書に記述されだしたとき、日本政府の中国に対することなかれ主義から来るものとみられていたが、いまや南京事件は中国人が中国にいる日本人を襲う大義名分として用いられ、台湾有事の前哨戦ともいうべき情報戦で重要な武器に使われている。

 昨年十二月十三日、中国にある日本人学校が休校かオンライン授業となるなか、日本にある中国大使館は南京事件の犠牲者への追悼を呼びかけ、中国にいる日本人児童が心配された。今年七月二十五日に中国で公開された映画「南京写真館」は記録的大当たりとなり、赤ん坊を叩きつけ、磔の中国兵を銃剣で突き刺す場面が流れ、日本人を憎悪する中国人が激増、心配はいっそう増した。

 昨年十二月十三日、琉球新報は第一面と第二面に南京戦へ従軍した兵士の軍隊手帳を掲載した。沖縄県の若者も支那事変とともに動員され南京戦に参加した。だれでも知っていることで、その事実が軍隊手帳に記されていることが、虐殺を見聞したかのような大きい記事となり、琉球新報の社説はいつまた虐殺が行われるかわからないとし、さらに、「ひるがえって現在。日米軍事演習で民間港湾や空港、公道を大っぴらに使用する。『有事』に備えるためとして自衛隊基地も拡大する」と訓練反対の主張をした。今年九月二十六日のTBSラジオ「萩上チキ・Session」では、ジャーナリストの青木理が「沖縄戦と南京事件」と題して語り、南京事件は国のため中国人を殺し、沖縄戦は自国民を守るという名分で自国民を虐殺した、と語った。沖縄が標的にされているのは明らかである。

 中国による南京事件を使っての情報戦はここまで浸透し、日本を圧倒している。それだけでなく、九月十七日には日本にある中国大使館が「南京写真館」の試写会に百五十人を招いた。招待客から日本の残虐性が漏れ、東京でも大っぴらに情報戦が繰り広げられている。「南京写真館」はアメリカやカナダなど世界各地で上映され、アメリカ人も涙をながし、「レイプオブ南京」を知らない世代が日本人はきわめて残虐であるという偏見を抱き、日本以外でも展開されている。

 戦前は宣伝戦いまでいう情報戦がきわめて重要であると一般誌上で毎月のように説かれた。負けたことにより軍備がタブー視され、宣伝戦そのものは忘れさられた。そのこともあって日本は攪乱工作されるがままである。 南京事件に関するここ数年の日本政府の動きを見ると、令和五年四月三日、参議院決算委員会で和田政宗議員が南京事件を記述する外務省ホームページについて「根拠となる文書は外務省内に存在するんでしょうか」と質問すると、林芳正外務大臣は「この資料ですが、外務省が作成したものは確認できておりません」と答えた。

 そのさい林芳正外務大臣は政府機関で作成した「戦史叢書 支那事変陸軍作戦(1)」に該当する記事があると答弁したため、和田議員が「私、関連文書を全部読みましたけれども、意図的に日本軍が殺害したとの明確な記述はない状況でありました」と厳しく反論した。四月二十四日にも再度質問して念を押した。

 外務大臣が言い訳を繰り返すので、令和六年一月二十六日に神谷宗幣議員が質問主意書を出し、「戦史叢書 支那事変陸軍作戦(1)」が根拠とするならホームページの根拠は欠けている、と質問すると、政府は戦史叢書に限らず総合的に判断したものだと答える。神谷議員は二月二十八日にもあらためて質問主意書を出した。令和七年五月十三日には浜田聡議員が「日本軍が非戦闘員の殺害や略奪行為等を指示したことを示す公文書は存在するか」と質問主意書を出すが、政府は答えず、六月十七日に再度質問主意書を出すと、やはり「具体的に意味するところが明らかではないため、お尋ねについてお答えすることは困難である」と逃げた。

 もともと近隣諸国条項は南京事件の根拠があって定められたのでなく、そのため自由社の教科書のように南京事件を記述しなくとも検定に合格するようになり、いまではホームページが根拠あって記述されたわけでないことが明らかになった。それにもかかわらず外務省はホームページを抹消しようとせず、南京事件を認めたままである。

 「南京写真館」の製作情報が流れてきたとき、虐殺現場を写した日本軍のネガを南京市民が持ち出すというあらすじから、昭和二十二年の南京軍事裁判に提出された十六枚の写真を主題とした映画とわかる。十六枚のネガは南京市民が持ちだしたとして南京軍事法廷に提出され、法廷は証拠として認めたが、厳冬の南京でありえない写真があり、日本軍が撮影した記録もなく、つくり話であることが明らかである。七十年経ち中国が十六枚の写真をユネスコ世界遺産の資料として登録したさいも否定された。中国で封切られるころネットでは疑問点が指摘され、八月六日付け産経新聞の「サンデー正論」は問題点を浮き彫りにした。それでも外務省はなんら手を打たない。

 外務省が南京事件を強制したのは四十年以上まえのことである。南京事件は、天安門事件に対する制裁解除や天皇陛下御訪中のような誤判断でなく、根拠もなく中国のいうまま認めたものである。当時の関係者はいまではひとりもいない。アジア局もアジア大洋州局と変わった。外務省は過去にとらわれる必要はない。中国にいる日本人を保護しなければならないし、中国が仕掛ける情報戦に対処しなければならない。事実に即し、ただちに南京事件の方針を変えるべきである。躊躇する余裕はない。

国際歴史論戦研究所 所長
山本優美子

米国のトランプ大統領自ら、日韓の「慰安婦」問題について大韓民国の首相(大統領)に語った。2025年8月25日ホワイトハウスにて、大韓民国の李在明大統領との初の米韓首脳会談の席でのことだ。小一時間の会談の中で慰安婦についての発言は最後の4分程度であったが、正に故安倍晋三氏がトランプ大統領に話したであろう内容そのままをトランプ大統領が韓国大統領に伝えている。我々はトランプ大統領に感謝しつつ、日韓の友好関係について安倍氏が遺した言葉として心に留めておくべきだと思う。

トランプ大統領自ら切り出した「慰安婦」

切っ掛けは、韓国の記者がトランプ大統領に「訪米前に、李大統領は日本を訪問したが、韓米日の協力関係について議論するべきことはあるか」との質問だった。

トランプ大統領は自ら「慰安婦」について述べた。

「(日韓)両国をまとめるのは(束ねるのは)少し大変でした。というのは、あなた方はまだ「慰安婦」にこだわっているからです。そうですよね? 慰安婦です。慰安婦のことばかりが話題にしたがってました。私は、この問題はこの数十年間で何度も解決されたと思っていました。」

「韓国にとって非常に大きな問題でしたが、日本にとってはそうではありませんでした。日本は前に進もうとしていました。仲良くやっていきたいと。でも、韓国はこの問題にとても固執していました。」

続けて日韓関係についての次のような見解を語った。

「日本は韓国と良い関係を築きたいと思っています。もちろん、私は日本国民は素晴らしく、素晴らしい国であると考えています。そして日本はぜひ韓国と良い関係を築きたいのです。両国には共通点があります。北朝鮮問題を解決したいということです。

日本は韓国との良い関係を強く望んでいるし、また、私も必ずそうなると確信します。私が接(接触)した日本の人々は素晴らしい人たちで、韓国のあなたたちに対しても同じでしょう。」

最後に故安倍首相の名前を挙げ、日韓は素晴らしい関係になると結んだ。

「安倍首相は偉大な人物であり、私の偉大な友人でした。彼は暗殺されました。しかし、彼はあなたの国に非常に温かい感情を抱いていました。それは確かです。現在の首相も、私は非常によく知っていますが、同じように感じています。ですから、あなた方は日本と素晴らしい関係を築くでしょう。」

安倍・トランプと慰安婦問題

安倍首相が初めてトランプと会ったのは大統領就任前の2016年11月、ニューヨークのトランプタワーを訪問した時だ。2017年1月にトランブ大統領が就任してから、2020年9月安倍首相の辞任までのおよそ3年8か月間は日本国首相と米国大統領という関係だった。安倍氏が亡くなった2022年7月8日までを考えると6年近い交流があったことになる。

この間、韓国では2017年5月に文在寅政権が発足。2015年12月の日韓外相会談合意によって、慰安婦問題は「最終的かつ不可逆的」に解決されたにも関わらず、これを反故にする動きが続いた。

2018年1月、当時の康京和外交部長官が、2015年合意は真の問題解決とならないとする韓国政府の立場を発表。同年11月には韓国女性家族部が、日本の拠出金10億円で設立した「和解・癒やし財団」の解散を発表した。

2021年1月、元慰安婦等が日本国政府に対して提起した訴訟にで、韓国ソウル中央地方裁判所は、国際法上の主権免除の原則の適用を否定し、日本国政府に対して原告への損害賠償の支払などを命じる判決を出した。

海外では韓国系団体が慰安婦像・碑の設置運動を主導した。2017年以降も、海外の公有地だけでも米国のブルックヘブン(ジョージア州)、サンフランシスコ(カルフォルニア州)、フォートリー(ニュージャージー州)、独ベルリン、伊スティンティーノに像や碑が設置されている。

トランプ大統領にとっては、2017年11月の訪韓時、青瓦台(大統領府)で開かれた国賓晩餐で抱擁した高齢の女性が、自称元慰安婦被害者の李容洙氏であった事実を後に知ることになった一件も、もしかしたら「慰安婦」問題について関心を持つきっかけになったかもしれない。

国のトップの絆と歴史戦

トランプ大統領と安倍首相は日米首脳会談などの公式会談、電話会談だけでなく、一緒にゴルフをプレーするなど、親密な関係があったのは多くに人が知るところだ。在任中の会談回数は少なくとも30回から40回以上ともいわれている。

そういった関係にあっても、「慰安婦」と日韓関係をトランプ大統領に説明するのは、簡単ではなかっただろうと察する。海外では特に「慰安婦」は歴史問題ではなく女性の人権問題としてとらえられる。被害者と称する女性には同情せねばならず、彼女らの発言を否定することは許されないという圧力がある。慰安婦の雇用契約について歴史事実の(を記述した)論文を発表して世界中からバッシングをうけたハーバード大学ロースクールのマーク・ラムザイヤー教授がその例だ。

今回の米韓首脳会談でトランプ大統領が自ら「慰安婦」を切り出し、韓国大統領に話したのは、トランプ大統領が故安倍首相を深く信頼し、その意味を充分理解していたからであろう。

安倍首相が亡き今、今回のトランプ大統領の発言は、日米両国トップの絆が遺してくれた我々日本と韓国へのメッセージといえよう。安倍晋三氏は天国から「トランプ大統領、ありがとう」と微笑んでいるのではないだろうか。

以上

=====================

【 資料 】

米国トランプ大統領と大韓民国李大統領との首脳会談(2025年8月25日)から慰安婦についての箇所発言の英語文字起こしと日本語訳

<出典>

The White House 公式ウェブサイト

President Trump Participates in a Bilateral Meeting with the President of the Republic of Korea  August 25, 2025

https://www.whitehouse.gov/videos/president-trump-participates-in-a-bilateral-meeting-with-the-president-of-the-republic-of-korea

The White House公式youtube

49分06秒~52分42秒

<日本語訳> 

記者: 李大統領は、この首脳会談の前に日本の首相と会われました。

トランプ 大統領: それはよいことでした。

記者:そこで、韓国、米国、日本の協力に関して議論することは何かありますか?

トランプ大統領:あると思います。そう、日本は我々にとって偉大な同盟国です。ただ、両国をまとめるのは少し大変でした。というのは、あなた方はまだ「慰安婦」にこだわっているからです。そうですよね? 慰安婦です。慰安婦のことばかりが話題にしたがってました。私は、この問題はこの数十年間で何度も解決されたと思っていました。

でも、まだ重なり合う問題が残っています。私が言うのは間違っているのかもしれないし、適当でないかもしれません。しかし、この――女性の、慰安婦の問題につて我々は特に具体的に話し合いました。これは韓国にとって非常に大きな問題でしたが、日本にとってはそうではありませんでした。日本は前に進もうとしていました。仲良くやっていきたいと。でも、韓国はこの問題にとても固執していました。お分かりになりるでしょうか?(李大統領から)お答えいただけると良いと思います。良い質問なので。過去に起きたことのために、日本と韓国を一緒にまとめるのは難しかったのです。でも、日本は前進を望んでいると言えます。韓国はやや慎重なようですね。どうぞ。

李大統領:(韓国語で発言)

通訳:韓国、米国、日本の三国間協力は非常に重要であり、また韓日関係の改善は韓米関係にとっても重要です。

李大統領:(韓国語で発言)

通訳:トランプ大統領が三国間協力を重視されていることを知っておりましたので、私は米国に来る前に日本を訪問し、我々が抱える困難な問題を解決しようとしました。

大統領:それはいいですね。日本は韓国と良い関係を築きたいと思っています。もちろん、私は日本国民は素晴らしく、素晴らしい国であると考えています。そして日本はぜひ韓国と良い関係を築きたいのです。両国には共通点があります。北朝鮮問題を解決したいということです。

日本は韓国との良い関係を強く望んでいるし、また、私も必ずそうなると確信します。私が接した日本の人々は素晴らしい人たちで、韓国のあなたたちに対しても同じでしょう。

李大統領:(韓国語で発言)

通訳: そこで、私が日本訪問した際、石破首相と会談しました。両国間にあった多くの障害は今取り除かれていることを実感しました。

大統領:そうですね。私の任期中に、我々はそういった障害を取り除いたのです。少し残ってはいましたが、でも私の任期中に多くを取り除きました。

そして、ご存じのとおり、安倍首相ですが、彼は偉大な人物であり、私の偉大な友人でした。彼は暗殺されました。しかし、彼はあなたの国に非常に温かい感情を抱いていました。それは確かです。現在の首相も、私は非常によく知っていますが、同じように感じています。ですから、あなた方は日本と素晴らしい関係を築くでしょう。

<発言 英語 文字起こし>

The Press: President Lee met with the Japanese Prime Minister before this summit.

The President: That’s good.

The Press: So is there something to discuss regarding the cooperation among South Korea, U.S. and Japan?

The President: I think so. Look, Japan is a great ally of us. And I had a little bit of a hard time getting you two together because you're still thinking about comfort women. Right? Comfort women. That's all they wanted to talk about, was comfort women. And I thought that was settled a few times over the decades.

But there is an overlapping problem with that.

Perhaps I'm wrong in saying it. Perhaps this isn't right. But the whole -- issue of the women, comfort women, very specifically, we talked. And it was a very big problem for Korea, not for Japan. Japan was,,, wanted to go. They want to get on.

But Korea was very stuck on that. You understand? So, I don't know, perhaps you'd like to answer.

It's a good question. It was hard getting Japan and Korea together because of what took place a long time ago. But Japan wants to do it, I can say.

Korea is a little bit more tenuous.

Please.

President Lee: (speaking Korean)

Translator: The trilateral cooperation among Korea, the U.S. and Japan is very important. And better Korea-Japan relations is also important for the Korea-U.S. relationship as well.

President Lee: (speaking Korean)

Translator: Because I know that, President Trump, that you put emphasis on trilateral cooperation, I made a visit to Japan before coming to the U.S. to settle the difficult issues that we have.

The President: Good. Well, Japan wants to get along very well with you.

And I find them to be great people, great country, obviously, and they want very much to get along with South Korea.

And you have something in common. You know, you want to solve the North Korea problem.

But Japan very much wants to get along with you, and I'm sure they will.

I find the people that I deal with to be wonderful people, as they do with you.

President Lee: (speaking Korean)

Translator: So when I visited Japan and met with Prime Minister Ishiba, I realized that many of the obstacles that existed between our two countries have now been removed.

The President: True. During my term, we removed them during my term.

There was an overlay a little bit, but we removed many of those obstacles during my term.

And, you know, if you look at Prime Minister Abe, who was a great man, he was a great friend of mine, and he was assassinated. But he felt very warmly toward your country, I can tell you that. And the current Prime Minister, who I've gotten to know very well, feels the same way. So I think you're going to have a great relationship with Japan.

=====================

国際歴史論戦研究所
研究員 池田 悠

1989年8月15日、江藤淳は『閉された言語空間:占領軍の検閲と戦後日本』(文藝春秋)を上梓し、敗戦後日本の言論空間がどのようにGHQ統治下で制限され歪められたかを明かし、そしてその影響が当時も続いていることを指摘した。

それから36年、残念ながら現在も江藤の問題提起は過去のものとなっていない。

実は南京事件に関しても、江藤の指摘は当てはまる。今年6月17日石破内閣により「日本軍による南京入城後、非戦闘員の殺害又は略奪行為があったことは否定できないと考えている」とする答弁書の閣議決定があった。

これは、外務省のHPに掲載されていた従来の政府見解を追認したものであるが、2023年4月3日、同24日の参議院決算委員会で、この見解の根拠文書について問われた林芳正外相(当時)は、「総合的に判断したもので、特定の資料の記述のみを根拠とするものではない」と、根拠文書を示すことができなかった。

つまり石破内閣は根拠に欠けることが既に明らかになっているのに、閣議決定までして従来の見解を護持したのである。研究の進展を無視した重大なる国民への裏切りである。

南京事件は東京裁判で裁かれた重大犯罪の一つである。つまりこれは、東京裁判を批判してはならぬという、GHQ統治下の検閲方針を未だに引きずっていることの証左といえよう。1952年のサンフランシスコ講和条約締結による占領終了、独立回復とともに当然検閲は終わっているはずであるが、江藤によると、行われたのは事前検閲でありさらに検閲の存在自体を明かしてはならぬものであったため、検閲にそって自ら修正するという検閲協力がなされた。そしてこの自己検閲による自己破壊によって、さらなる自己検閲を受容し続けることになったとのことだ。それは制度としての検閲が終わっても、である。

 また、南京事件に関しては、真相究明につながる重要な資料に関しても、和訳という作業を通しての自己検閲が存在する。

私は拙著、『一次史料が明かす南京事件の真実―アメリカ宣教師史観の呪縛を解く』(展転社)2020年 で、旧来の南京事件史観を覆す根拠資料を初めて和訳して掲載した(※正確には一部は雑誌『正論』にて先行紹介)。主なものは以下である。

①安全区設置を主導したアメリカ宣教師による中国軍支援意向を示す発言

②安全区設置についての日本側による拒否

③難民が帰宅し、いわゆる安全区の消滅後、南京の治安が回復したとの証言

私が問題と感じているのは、これらの証拠となる原資料(英文・独文)の、周辺部分を和訳したものは既に出版されているのに、南京事件の真相に迫る、つまりアメリカ・東京裁判史観にとって都合の悪い部分は省かれているのである。①~③を具体的に説明しよう。

①は、南京に残留したヴォートリン宣教師の日記にある、リーダー格の宣教師による、中国軍を支援しようという発言である。しかも中立のはずの安全区において支援しようというのである。。一方で、ヴォートリン日記は『南京事件の日々』(大月書店)1999年 として和訳されているが、当該部分は採録されず、また訳者説明でも言及されていない。これでは、南京事件を証言した南京残留アメリカ人宣教師たちは中立の第三者で無いことが分からない。

②については、当時の資料を収集することで南京事件の解明を目指した『南京事件資料集』(青木書店)1992年で、安全区設置の経緯について、イエール大学の保存資料を多く採録しているが、同じく同大学に保存されている、日本軍が明確に安全区設置提案拒否を返答した資料は省かれている。結果、南京安全区は上海安全区と異なり明らかに非公認、つまり虚構の存在であったという事実がうやむやにされてきたのである。

③は、いわゆる安全区の消滅から一か月後の南京治安回復をドイツ大使館事務長が報告したものである。これはラーベの日記を編集したE・ヴィッケルトの独語原著『Der gute Deutsche von Nanking』、英訳版『The Good German of Nanking』には収録されている。しかし和訳版『南京の真実』(講談社)1997年ではなぜか割愛されている。結果、和訳版だけ読んでいると、市民を保護していたはずのいわゆる安全区が消滅すると治安が回復するという不可解な事実を知ることが出来ない。そのため、通説と逆に虚構の安全区の存在こそが治安不安の癌であったということが分からないのである。

これら資料が日本語にならなかった結果、拙著で欧米の一次史料を基に導いた単純な結論、「虚構の安全区での宣教師たちの中国軍支援こそが、宣教師たちの南京事件創作の主因である」ということに辿り着かなかった。日本人に、東京裁判批判・アメリカ批判となり得る資料を隠すことで、日本での真相究明を妨げたのである。その結果、南京事件は戦後長きにわたる反日プロパガンダの中心であり続けた。かつてのアイリス・チャンの『The Rape of Nanking』、最近ではブライアン・リッグの『Japan’s Holocaust』しかりである。

さてここまで著書『閉された言語空間』を通じて江藤が投げかけた問題提起を、南京事件を例に分析したが、この問題もようやく解決の緒に就いたように思う。それは、既存言論人の反省の賜物というよりは、情報通信技術の進歩、そして一般の情報開示意識の高まりにより、閉ざされた言論空間に抜け穴ができたことによる。

先に取り上げた南京事件研究の和訳問題を例にとれば、インターネットを通じたアクセスの容易化により、翻訳書を挟まず欧米原典に一般人でも直接触れることが出来るようになった。拙著もその恩恵の賜物である。

また国内での情報の発信に関しても、今や自己検閲に侵された旧来のメディアの独壇場ではなくなり、SNS他、より自由な新チャネルの登場により、かつてのタブーでも公開の場での議論が可能となった。それは当然、既存のメディアへも影響を与える。また、既存メディアに縛られていた人々の意識・政治行動にも影響を与える。それが最近の国政選挙の結果が示唆する、未来への兆しであると私は考えている。

Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=2395

Kunitoshi Matsuki
Senior Researcher
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

On the past June 3, in South Korea, the presidential election following the dismissal of President Yoon Suk Yeol was held and as mostly expected, Mr. Lee Jae-myung won and took the presidential office. I would like to state my view as to where the Lee Jae-myung Administration will head and how Japan should cope with his administration.

The birth of the despotic Lee Jae-myung Administration

One thing is certain: in South Korea, the President takes hold of all powers. Naturally, the President himself directly controls the administrative branch. President Lee appointed his men to all the important posts, such as the prime minister and the director of the top intelligence organ of the National Intelligence Service. As for the legislative body, since the ruling “Together Democratic Party” occupies the absolute majority of seats in the national legislature, bills and budget proposals and personnel proposals will easily pass the Assembly without much opposition.

How about the judicial aspect? The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Korea is appointed by the president and takes office after the approval by the National Assembly. The incumbent chief justice is conservative, but his term of office expires in June 2027, two years from now, and the next chief justice will be practically appointed by President Lee Jae-myung. Regarding the rest of the justices, nine out of the twelve justices are to be replaced due to the expiration of their terms while President Lee Jae-myung is in office. The justices of the Supreme Court are appointed by the president, following the recommendation by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the approval by the National Assembly. Therefore, newly appointed justices are most likely to be those close to the administration.

As for the Constitutional Court, the Court is composed of nine justices, three of whom are selected respectively by the president, the National Assembly and the Supreme Court Chief Justice. Consequently, if as of June 2027, pro-president Supreme Court Chief Justice is to take office, almost all the Constitutional Court justices will be pro-President Lee Jae-myung.

The mass media, the so-called fourth power, are in the same political situation. The board members of the Korean public broadcasting stations, such as KBS and MBC, are appointed by the President on the recommendation by the governmental organ of the Korean Communications Commission (KCC). Consequently, those who align with President Lee Jae-myung’s intentions are to be elected board members, rendering the public broadcasting nothing but the advertising organ for the government. It is highly probable that the Lee Jae-myung administration will become a despotic one without any brakes.

Uniting the people through anti-Japan agitation

Serious social problems permeate South Korea, such as lingering high-unemployment rates among young people, expanding social inequality, and sharply declining birthrate rarely seen elsewhere in the world. Moreover, the national economy came to impasse, due to its heavy dependence on exports, and the economic growth rate for the first quarter of this year fell to minus 0.2 %. All these problems derive from structural failures and cannot be resolved overnight. Amid rising concerns over a fuzzy future, the people’s frustration will be directed against the Lee Jae-myung’s government.

The conservative powers within South Korea will never remain silent. In the first place, Mr. Lee Jae-myung evokes much suspicion because of his own dubious acts. Presently, he faces five lawsuits over the money he illegally sent to North Korea while in the gubernatorial office of Gyeonggi Province, and inappropriate conduct over the city development while he was a mayor of Seongnam City. Although the president has a privileged immunity from lawsuits, it is legally ambiguous whether the immunity can be applied to the cases which occurred before he became president. From now on, the conservative power will thoroughly hold the president accountable for these suspicious deeds, which have become the Achilles’ heel of the Lee Jae-myung’s government.

In the previous presidential election, over 40% of the votes were against Lee Jae-myung and if the conservative powers gain momentum and win decisively the next 2028 general election, it may be possible for the National Assembly to make a proposal to impeach President Lee Jae-myung. Although the president holds the personnel control over the Constitutional Court, if the anti-Lee Jae-myung public opinion becomes strong and the justices cater to it, the impeachment may become reality.

If President Lee Jae-myung is to avoid such “threat,” he must win the public opinion and have the ruling party dominate in the next general election. However, it is extremely difficult for the current government to achieve satisfactory results for the people in little time. Under such circumstances, there is no alternative but to turn the people’s dissatisfaction into “anger against Japan” by bringing back the historical issues, already settled in the past, inciting the anti-Japan sentiment.

Even if he voices the friendly Japan-South Korea cooperative policy line, the true nature of Mr. Lee Jae-myung is “China-friendly and anti-Japan” as seen from his past words and conduct. In his campaign promises, he clearly stated that he would “recover the honor of the former comfort women and bring about compensation as much as possible.” On the pretext of “realizing the campaign promise,” he may bring back the “comfort women issue,” which had been finally and irreversibly resolved and ask Japan for “apology and compensation.” In South Korea, a country strongly affected by anti-Japan sentiment, the more aggressively the president reacts against Japan, the more popular he becomes. And the ruling party will surely win in the next election.

His next target is the revision of the South Korean Constitution. In the Korean Constitution, the presidential term is limited to five years, without reelection. In the past, many of the consecutive presidents were judged guilty by the court after the expiration of the presidential term and met disastrous fate. Mr. Lee Jae-myung will be an ordinary person when he retires from the presidency. He is very suspicious, and it is easily foreseeable that he will be ruined, after being held accountable for several criminal deeds. To avoid such dire destiny, the only way is to become re-elected president. The South Korean president holds the right to propose constitutional revision and if Mr. Lee Jae-myung proposes, “Let us make it possible for the president to be re-elected, just like in the United States,” the proposal will probably pass. He will win the second term, resorting to every possible means under the despotic system he himself builds up and may even think of the way to the lifetime presidency.

Let’s stop the despotism through Japan-South Korea cooperation

If the government holds both legislative and judicial powers and anti-government activities are legally oppressed, there will be no freedom of speech, and the society will become no different from a socialistic regime. The danger does not stop here. The “China-friendly, and anti-Japan” political line the Lee Jae-myung administration plans to pursue will weaken the U.S.-Japan-South Korea alliance and in the worst scenario, it is feared that South Korea will be entirely swallowed up by China. If this becomes a reality, Japan would be obliged to directly face the hegemonic state of China, and Japan’s autonomy and independence may be threatened. To avoid such situation, the peoples of Japan and South Korea must cooperate and stop the despotic Lee Jae-myung regime, using all means.

I already mentioned that Mr. Lee Jae-myung will use “anti-Japan sentiment” to bring the Korean people together. However, this “anti-Japan sentiment” is nothing but “unjustified resentment” imprinted by anti-Japan education that distorts history. Fortunately, despite their small numbers, in South Korea, some scholars raised their voices to point out this fact. The book Anti-Japanese Tribalism written by the former professor at Seoul University Lee Younghoon concretely refutes the historical distortion in the anti-Japan education; it became a best seller in South Korea.

The claim that comfort women were “sexual slaves” taught in the anti-Japan education turned out to be not true and instead, the fact that they were simply prostitutes came to be known by many South Korean people. Civilian movements by South Koreans for the withdrawal of comfort woman statues built everywhere are expanding. In addition, more and more people gain access to various information through the Internet and come to doubt the credibility of what has been taught through the anti-Japan education.

What Japan should do is to provide an active support, so that these new waves may spread across South Korea. If South Korea wants to bring back again the historical issue, which has been resolved between the two countries, Japan must refute the claims one by one, truth by truth. If the anti-Japan historical view asserted by Mr. Lee Jae-myung is revealed to be a lie, his authority based on “anti-Japan sentiment” will fall, opening the way for the Korean conservative forces to come back. Mr. Lee Jae-myung may be impeached.

For the future of both peoples of Japan and South Korea, I, as a member of the International Research Institute of Controversial Histories, will continue to do my best. In addition, I ardently hope that the Japanese Government is determined to protect Japan’s national interest and undauntedly cope with the Lee Jae-myung administration and carry out its important responsibilities.

【英語版】https://i-rich.org/?p=2404

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。