カテゴリー: 論説

China’s complex legal warfare and Japan’s unified defense strategy ~ Before 2026 deadline, urgent proposal to sustain national sovereignty

Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=2565

Nakamura Satoru
Senior Researcher
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

Introduction: the narratives as an “invisible battleground”

The primary principle of this proposal is to reconfirm the fact that “in China’s strategy, narratives stand above military power.” The greatest crisis facing present Japan is that Japan is helpless and defenseless against the “complex legal warfare” waged by China attempting to rob Japan of sovereignty legally and ethically, which is more threatening than physical military invasion. Without decerning this strategy, it is impossible to defend Japan’s sovereignty.

1. October and November 2025: the truth about the silent declaration of war

From October to November 2025, the Japanese society was totally exposed to harsh diplomatic and verbal attacks by China. According to general reporting, these attacks were interpreted as “unilateral anger” or “emotional repulsion” on the part of China against specific incidents such as the so-called Prime Minister Takaichi’s statement. However, the truth is completely different.

What happened during this period was the start of a planned war or “silent declaration of war”. China has been preparing over several decades for the operation to deprive Japan of its sovereignty over Okinawa. China used the specific statement only as a “convenient trigger” and the true nature of China’s reaction was not emotional panic but the start of an extremely cool-minded, calculated and legally and ethically structured attack. While Japan has been attempting to “calm down through dialogue,” China has been steadily moving the process to deny Japan’s right to rule Okinawa in the international community.

2.Heavily layered logic of “deprivation of sovereignty” plotted by China

China’s invasion in the form of narratives aims to dissolve Japan’s sovereignty from within by pursuing the following three levels of logical structure.

(1) “Historical weapon” as the basis (the existence of the Ryukyu Kingdom)

The lowest level of logic is the distortion of history and emotional narratives. The narrative that the former independent state of the Ryukyu Kingdom was annexed by military power, deprived of its culture and during World War II was deserted as mere means to an end is disseminated to the world. By emphasizing such “historic tragedy,” China defines present Japan’ rule in Okinawa as “continuous and illegal colonial rule.”

(2) “Ethical weapon” as apparatus (United Nations human rights mechanism)

It is the United Nations human rights mechanism that changes the historic narrative into international “justice.” In the United Nations, China has made the narrative that the Okinawan people are indigenous people an established fact and switched the issue of the United States base in Okinawa with the ethical cause of “violation of human rights against the indigenous people.” Using this “human rights” weapon, China aims to deprive the Japanese Government of credibility in the international community and lead the global opinion in favor of China.

(3) “Legal weapon” as the conclusion (the theory of the superiority of the Potsdam Declaration)

After cementing the outer moat with history and ethics, China inflicts the final blow of legality. Its core is the assertion that “San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) was an illegal secret pact intended to conceal human rights violation, and the Potsdam Declaration is the supreme law.”

• The nullification of the SFPT: to deny the SFPT as the hindrance to the “liquidation of colonialism” which the Potsdam Declaration upheld.

• The fulfilment of the Cairo Declaration: Based on the Cairo Declaration as quoted in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration “The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine,” China claims that the territorial position of Okinawa is not yet defined and therefore Japan has no territorial right to Okinawa. China imposes this new interpretation in terms of international law.

Along this logic, activities of the Japan Self-Defense Forces are to be regarded as “challenge to the new post-war order” and Japan’s national defense itself can be branded as “violation of international law.”

3. Historical trap of “2014 Agreement”

China has been elaborately promoting its long-term plans since 2012. Among them, the 2014 Four-article Agreement between Japan and China was a fatal point in which Japan willingly recognized “the existence of conflict” and gave China a “permission” for international maneuvering on the part of China. Japan had “different views” on the concept of “crisis management” but China interpreted it as “official recognition of the territorial conflict” and posted it on its digital museum and elsewhere as historical outcome. On the leverage of this agreement, China has completed the syllogism in which it justifies Chinese Coast Guards expelling activities around the Senkaku islands belonging to Okinawa as legitimate official duty based on the agreement.

4. March 2026 -- The final time limit for the defense of sovereignty (deadline)

The plot to deprive Japan of sovereignty over Okinawa has entered the final countdown.

• Phase 1 (now to March 2026): In the United Nations Human Rights Council, China condemns Japan as a human rights violator and continuous colonial ruler. If Japan fails to clearly refute China’s claim and passes this period without taking any action, “Acquiescence” in terms of international law comes into effect and the legal ground for defending Japanese sovereignty over Okinawa will be lost forever.
• Phase 2~3 (2027 and thereafter); in the case of Okinawa emergency, China will demand “Ryukyu’s neutrality,” backed by the United Nations resolution and the U.S.-Japan deterrent power is legally numbed. This is the moment of “check mate” when China will take hold of the hegemony over East Asia.

5. Counterstrategy: Integrated defense policy led by NSC (National Security Committee) 

Given that the enemy attacks using historical, ethical and legal narratives, Japan needs integrated defense, getting rid of the ineffective “vertical administration.”

Operation A (International front): legal and diplomatic attack

Clearly declare to the international community that “the final determinant of the postwar order is not the Potsdam Declaration but the San Francisco Peace Treaty.” Completely destroy China’s legal interpretation based on “piecemeal history” from the root and let the world re-recognize the legitimacy of Japan’s territorial right in terms of international law.

Operation B (Domestic front): development of national unification narrative

• Reform of ceremonial events: change the role of memorial days to the symbol of “national unity,” not “division.”
• Use of the authority of the Royal Ryukyu Family: The head of the Royal Ryukyu Family should make a historically and culturally significant statement that “The Okinawan people are Japanese,” which will be distributed and officially used by the Japanese Government. Through the message, the false historical structure of the narrative “Ryukyu versus Japan” which China depends on will be destroyed from within.

Conclusion: Sovereignty should not be lost without fighting

The United Nations examination in March 2026 will be the last turning point to defend Japan’s sovereignty. Here, representatives from Okinawa will directly refute China’s demands by stating, “We are not an indigenous people but Japanese.” This simple and yet powerful statement of the truth is the only means to stop China’s invasion steadily under way through the silent declaration of war. Now, we must fully recognize that we are in the middle of a war fought with weapons called words.   

Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=2553

SUGIHARA, Seishiro
President
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

Last year marked the eightieth anniversary of the end of the War. While overviewing this historical period, I feel it necessary to point out that sometime during the postwar years, Japan was ruled by “those who benefitted from the lost war“ and ceased to be the country it used to be. In 2025, eighty years after the War ended, there seem to be some indications that the rule by “benefiters from the lost war” is fading away, but today it appears that Japan still remains in the mire of serious distortions brought by that horrible rule.

“Lost-war benefiters” are literally those who have benefitted from the lost war. In addition, the term also includes those who should have been expelled from public office but evaded the dire fate and remained in their positions by skillfully behaving and catering to the Allied Occupation Forces.

On December 7 (U.S. calendar), 1941, the Japanese Navy attacked Pearl Harbor and on the following day, December 8, President Roosevelt stated in the United States Congress of both Houses that without any warning Japan suddenly attacked while negotiations were going on, which was an impermissible act deliberately planned over a long time. He bitterly cited Japan’s despicable act and all the lawmakers, except one female member, agreed to declare war against Japan. The American people who had been reluctant to start a war until then instantly cried out, “Remember Pearl Harbor” and swore, in unison, to totally defeat Japan.

Based on such nation-wide anger, when Roosevelt met British Prime Minister Churchill at Casablanca in January 1943, he declared, at a press conference, pretending as if it was a slip of tongue that Germany, Japan and Italy shall surrender “unconditionally.” Then, in February 1945 at Yalta, Roosevelt concluded a secret pact with Stalin that the Soviet Union would start a war with Japan in two to three months after the war between Germany and the Soviet Union was over. On the next day, Churchill said, learning about this secret pact, “If they tell Japan about the secret pact and urge Japan to surrender, Japan will surrender, leading to the earlier end of the war with Japan.” However, Roosevelt flatly rejected Churchill’s suggestion.

Regarding Japan, Roosevelt probably thought that just as what happened in Germany later, the U.S. Forces would completely occupy mainland Japan and annihilate the nation totally. At that point of time, the atomic bomb was not yet completed. and it was undecided how to deal with it in the war with Japan. Supposedly, Roosevelt was thinking of imposing more cruel fate on Japan than dropping an atomic bomb. Fortunately, Roosevelt died suddenly on April 12 and after his death, through the efforts of Joseph Grew, who served as U.S. Ambassador to Japan at the time when the war between Japan the United States broke out, the Potsdam Declaration was issued and Japan accepted it to end the war, avoiding the fate of total annihilation that Roosevelt supposedly had in mind.

Immediately after Roosevelt’s sudden death, Vice President Truman became President. Truman promptly declared that he would firmly follow Roosevelt’s political line and said that the United States would demand the unconditional surrender of Japan. On June 18, Truman convened a meeting to make the final military decision on the war with Japan, calling the military brass to the White House. A view that insisting on “unconditional surrender” would incur larger casualties was presented by the military. However, Truman said that accepting the American people’s anger, he could not manage to change the national opinion regarding this issue and declared that he would continue the policy line of demanding Japan’s unconditional surrender. Although it was already clear that Japan lost the war, they officially decided to carry out the plan then under way of landing operation on mainland Japan.

And as mentioned above, on account of efforts made by Grew and others, the Potsdam Declaration was issued and the landing operation on mainland Japan was never to be carried out. However, the dropping of atomic bombs was not avoided. Why couldn’t the United States put down the flag of unconditional surrender? That was because at the start of the war between Japan and the United States, the United State believed that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in a despicable surprise attack. It was assumed that since Japan did not send any message prior to the attack, it was nothing but “a surprise attack.”

However, fact is that the Japanese Government was to hand the ultimatum to Secretary of State Hull thirty minutes prior to the start of the attack on Pearl Harbor. But a last-minute blunder took place in the Japanese Embassy in Washington D.C., and the ultimatum was not handed within the designated time. Although the Japanese Ministry at home sent the directive to Washington as an emergency alert, the officer in charge did not follow the direction and the person responsible for typing the telegram in cipher was out of the Embassy to play in town, so the typing was not completed within the designated hour. Thus, the ultimatum failed to be handed to the United States on time.

Since Roosevelt and the senior military officers had decoded and read all the Japanese diplomatic telegrams, they clearly knew the delay in handing the ultimatum was due to the clerical blunder within the Japanese Embassy. However, they did not reveal this fact to the Congress or the people. After Roosevelt’s sudden death, when Truman became President, Truman did not know the fact about the failure of handing the ultimatum in advance and believed that a despicable “surprise attack” took place, as the American people did. Therefore, he could not put down the flag of “unconditional surrender.” When the atomic bomb was dropped over Hiroshima on August 6 and over Nagasaki on August 9, Truman said that they accomplished the well-done revenge for the “surprise attack.” Such were the facts. Then, it follows that the delay in handing the “ultimatum” was used by Roosevelt’s government, which forced Japan to enter the cruel and disastrous war. As mentioned before, the Potsdam Declaration was issued and Japan was able to surrender before the Soviet invaded mainland Japan, but the dropping of atomic bombs could not be avoided.

How was the issue of “surprise attack,” which led to such devastating war, treated in Japan?

In the middle of the war, all the Japanese Embassy staff in Washington D.C. came home to Japan aboard the exchange and repatriation ship. The two officials who were directly responsible for the delay in handing the “ultimatum” were among the returnees. The delay in handing the “ultimatum” was a serious matter, but amid the raging war, there was no time for dealing with it and it was left unattended. Once the war was over, the occupation started. But it remained a mystery to the Occupation Forces why Japan launched the surprise attack without any advance notice. They did not understand why Japan staged a surprise attack which could be useful only to incite American anger.

On September 26, 1945, the Emperor and MacArthur met for the first time. Regarding the fact that the war between Japan and the United States started by the “surprise attack,” the Emperor said to the effect that he was betrayed by Tojo. The Emperor just said what the Foreign Ministry had prepared for him to say. That was the plot devised by Yoshida Shigeru, who then was the Foreign Minister.

Such a grave issue as where the responsibility rested cannot have been left unquestioned within the Foreign Ministry. Around April 1944, within the Foreign Ministry, an investigation started with the purpose to completely clarify how the “ultimatum” failed to be handed to Secretary Hull in time. However, as soon as the probe started, Yoshida Shigeru ordered to halt the investigation.

Yoshida’s attempt to conceal the responsibility regarding the “surprise attack” did not stop here. When the occupation period was over, he promoted the member of the personnel who had failed to follow the order from the Ministry at home to be on emergency alert on the night before the war broke out and should have been duly dismissed disciplinarily, but instead he was promoted to Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs. Moreover, after Japan restored its sovereignty, the other officer who had been responsible for typing the telegram but had gone out of the Embassy to play in town was also promoted to Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Yoshida Shigeru concealed not only the responsibility for the “surprise attack” but also the responsibility of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs related to the War by surprisingly managing personnel affairs of the Ministry. He fortified the Foreign Ministry with personnel who had been at the Japanese Embassy in Washington D.C., the most responsible for the war between Japan and the United States and personnel at the Embassy in Berlin, Germany. By doing so, Yoshida made the Embassy staff keep silence about the war and perfectly covered up the entire responsibility of the Foreign Ministry related to the U.S.-Japanese War.

Yoshida Shigeru’s concealment of the war responsibility on the part of the Foreign Ministry was further-reaching and on larger scale. After Japan’s sovereignty was restored on April 28, 1952, Yoshida remained Prime Minister. After the restoration of Japan’s sovereignty, the foremost task was to resume the work of the “war investigation committee,” which had been disbanded under the occupation. However, Yoshida did not resume it.

One of the tasks of the Shidehara Kijuro cabinet, established on October 9, 1945, was to clarify the cause and course of the previous war by the Japanese themselves and the “war investigation committee” was established by cabinet decision. However, speaking of investigation of war, it is essential to seek the truth about the war and that was inconvenient to the Allied Forces whose agenda was based on lies. It was particularly inconvenient to the Soviet Union, which invaded Japan, violating the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact. Therefore, the Soviet Union led the proposition against the “war investigation committee” and it was ordered to disband by the Occupation Forces.

Under such circumstances, to Yoshida Shigeru, who remained Prime Minister after the restoration of Japan’s sovereignty, the foremost task was to resume the activities of the “war investigation committee.” However, Yoshida did not restore the committee or rather could not do so. That was because it would become compulsory to account for the role and responsibility the Foreign Ministry should have borne in the previous war.

Then, the negative influence of Yoshida’s failure to reopen the “war investigation committee” is not at all slight. If the work of the “war investigation committee” had been resumed, it must have referred to the issue of how Japan had fared under the occupation. If so, it would have been made clear at that point that under the stringent censorship during the occupation, the Japanese people were deprived of freedom of speech and trapped in the “closed speech sphere.”

If the “war investigation committee” had been held, it would have become clear that the Japanese people were silenced in the “closed speech sphere” under the occupation and then may have gained the opportunity to escape from the “closed speech sphere.” However, without the “war investigation committee” in action, the “closed speech sphere” was so cunningly created by the Occupation Forces under their occupation that the Japanese people in general did not realize its presence and the “closed speech sphere” would go on existing unnoticed and unrecognized.

In other words, the “closed speech sphere” created by the Occupation Forces in Japan under their occupation would come to be maintained by the Japanese people themselves after Japan restored its sovereignty.

More can be said. In such “closed speech sphere,” the self-defamatory view of history which the Occupation Forces tried to imprint on the Japanese people during occupation will continue to flourish.

Furthermore, this “self-degrading” view of history is extremely convenient to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that hid the war responsibility. The self-defamatory view of history imposed by the Occupation Forces is, plainly speaking, that the previous war was an aggressive war the Japanese military waged, deceiving the people. Here, the Foreign Ministry is not to be blamed, which is convenient to the Foreign Ministry. After all, quite reversibly, the Foreign Ministry is a governmental organ to keep the “self-degrading view of history” intact.

The negative consequences became more serious as time passed. At the time of the restoration of Japan’s sovereignty in 1952, very few Japanese people believed in the Nanjing Incident, which was condemned during the Tokyo Trials under occupation regime. Nevertheless, confined in the closed speech sphere, more Japanese people gradually came to say that the Nanjing incident did take place. As a result of censorship of historical discourse for the most of the eighty-year post-war period, the perception that the Nanjing incident was real found wider support. The alleged forced abduction of comfort women was at one time believed to be factual within the “closed speech sphere.”

Yoshida Shigeru remained Prime Minister after Japan restored her sovereignty and notoriously contributed to the perpetuation of the negative assets of the occupation by the Occupation Forces. Among them, especially serious was the issue of Japan’s self-defense right over Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan. Even today, Japan remains in fetters.

Yoshida introduced the official interpretation that Article 9 grants Japan self-defense right, but Japan shall not possess military power or the right of belligerency. This interpretation may have made certain sense under occupation in relation with MacArthur’s military force present in Japan, but after Japan restored her sovereignty, such interpretation is not adequate and should have been revised simultaneously after the restoration of sovereignty. If they thought the change of interpretation was impossible, they should have immediately started working to revise the Constitution.

Fundamentally, however, Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan refers to the issue of self-defense right as State and it must be interpreted rationally. According to the rational interpretation, within the limit of defense war, both “military strength” and “the right of belligerency” shall be possessed, which is right in terms of constitutional law. If not, Article 9 is not literally consistent with the civilian clause of Article 66-2) “The Prime Minister and other Ministers of State must be civilians.”

Regarding this point, Koyama Tsunemi, the chief author of New Civics Textbook, by Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform, mentioned a respectable view in the book On Constitution and Imperial House Law co-authored by Sugihara (Jiyu-sha, 2017). He maintains that partly because the Constitution was made forcibly under the occupation by the Occupation Forces, it contains essentially invalid parts. Therefore, the entire Constitution should be declared invalid and then those parts which realistically stand valid should be declared valid, retrospectively at the time of enactment. Then, it is against natural law to deny the “military power” and “the right of belligerency.” To make Article 9 valid, it must be interpreted that “military power” and “right of belligerency” are retained in case of war of self-defense. I think all constitutional scholars and lawmakers should listen to his assertion.

However, when it comes to Article 9, Japan’s constitutional studies roughly match the present Government’s official interpretation. And the official interpretation of the Constitution is close to the one established by the jurists of the University of Tokyo, the Faculty of Law during the occupation period. The University of Tokyo’s constitutional studies were created by Miyazawa Toshiyoshi, who is a typical “benefiter from the lost war.” Immediately after Japan lost the war, he bravely stated that there was no need to revise the Constitution of the Empire of Japan. However, once “Memorandum on the Elimination of Undesirable Persons from Public Office” was issued by the Allied Occupation Forces, Miyazawa came to develop overnight constitutional studies flattering the Occupation Forces.

Then, the constitutional studies of the Faculty of Law of the University of Tokyo, which have great impact on the Government today and is the mainstream of Japan’s constitutional studies can be termed “lost-war benefiters’ constitutional studies created by “lost-war benefiters.” These concepts were created during the occupation period and have been handed down to this day as the constitutional studies of the Faculty of Law, the University of Tokyo. The scholars’ world is dominated by something like grand-master system. Once the constitutional studies were established, even though they turn out to be false, only a person that acknowledges and maintains them can succeed to the chair of professorship. Japan’s constitutional studies remain the same as the constitutional studies of the lost-war benefiters, maintained through the grand-master system. As it is, there is no chance for genuine constitutional studies to be revived within the University of Tokyo’s Faculty of Law. To escape from it, the only hope is for the Government to get free from this scholarly interpretation and declare the essential constitutional interpretation. And it is the power of the people that can make the Government follow the genuine constitutional studies.

You may wonder how dubious the constitutional studies of the University of Tokyo’s Faculty of Law are. During the occupation period, when it was not known that MacArthur forced Japan to make its Constitution, stating that the Emperor is Head of State, Miyazawa Toshiyuki at the Faculty of Law, the University of Tokyo presented an interpretation that the Emperor is not Head of State, catering to the Occupation Forces. Having been impacted by this, the present Japanese Government does not clearly say that the Emperor is Head of State. The Japanese people must know that it is easy for the Japanese government to establish the interpretation that the Emperor is the Head of State of Japan at the request of the Japanese people. Incidentally, regarding this issue, there is a book Brainwashing named the University of Tokyo, Faculty of Law (Business-sha, 2019), written by Kurayama Mitsuru.

During the period when “lost-war benefiters” controlled the state and society, some evaluated Yoshida Shigeru as a significant contributor to the economic growth in postwar Japan. This is utterly groundless evaluation.

The grand design of postwar Japan’s economic development was already made by the Occupation Forces. As the Cold War was progressing, the Occupation Forces clearly presented a policy for Japan to become economically rich, and as early as in 1948, Joseph Dodge came to Japan from the United States and forcibly presented the nine economic growth principles to Japan. In addition, he allowed Japan to conduct unlimited trade with the United States. Furthermore, he prevented the U.S. capital from invading Japan lest the Japanese people should bear a grudge against America.

Others think that Yoshida contributed to economic growth because he limited the arming of Japan by spending less for national defense. However, this is another groundless evaluation fabricated by “lost-war benefiters.” South Korea was totally devastated by the Korean War and desperately needed a huge amount of compensation from Japan to stimulate country’s economic growth. However, despite the huge spending for national defense, amounting to around 7% of its national budget at one time, South Korea has become a highly prosperous economy today.

It can be stated to certain extent that Yoshida Shigeru built a smooth relationship with MacArthur during the occupation period, but other than that, he left only damage. In the society where “lost-war benefiters” had their way, totally extravagant things happened. For example, in 1964, Curtis LeMay, who led the Tokyo Air Raids that claimed 100, 000 lives in 1945, was decorated with Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun, to our utter dismay.

When Yoshida Shigeru died on October 20, 1967, Japan’s state and society at the time bid farewell to the deceased in the form of state funeral. It was natural that state funeral was held for Yoshida Shigeru because it was the time when the Japanese state and society were totally controlled by the “lost-war benefiters” and Yoshida was the supreme ringleader of them all.

The existence of the “closed speech sphere” was revealed by Eto Jun from 1979 to 1980, and present-day Japan is getting considerably free from that “closed speech sphere.” Trapped in the middle of “closed speech sphere,” speaking of peace, one must pretend not to notice soldiers who had fought and died for the sake of country or ignore their sacrifices. Today, however, people can freely and dearly remember those victims of the war and speak of “peace.” The period dominated by the lost-war benefiters” is clearly over.

Anyhow, eighty years after the War, we must clearly recognize that there was a period when the “lost-war benefiters” dominated Japan. Otherwise, we cannot return to Japan as it originally had been.

Quite regrettably, Yoshida Shigeru’s evaluation as the greatest Prime Minister by far in the postwar years has been profoundly settled in Japan and Japanese society, despite the tremendous damage he brought to postwar Japan. And in the field of constitutional studies, which are the theoretical core of the state, one of the negative assets the “lost-war benefiters” left is the “lost-war benefiters’ constitutional studies” created under the occupation and handed down through the grand-master system to this day that have been reigning unwaveringly even in today’s Japan. The shaffles of negative assets created by the “lost-war benefiters” and imposed on Japan, have not been completely shattered yet, as in the case of constitutional studies. That is why we Japanese people living today must clearly realize that over the eighty years after the end of the War, there was a period dominated by “lost-war benefiters,” and when Japan recovered her sovereignty, Japan failed to liquidate the negative assets which should have been done at that time, but instead they had been expanded and inherited to this day, strictly binding present-day Japan.

On December 8, 1941, Japan entered a war against the United States with no reasonable expectations of winning and was completely defeated, which led to the occupation and quite unavoidably ended up in the forever lasting relationship of superior United States and inferior Japan or the relationship of the ruler and the ruled. This may be unavoidable fate after waging a war, but Japan carried it to the extent even the United States did not anticipate or expect, inheriting all of what the Occupation Forces did, including the negative part of the occupation policy which could have been liquidated at the time when Japan recovered her sovereignty, but rather reversely had been expanded. And all this was done by “lost-war benefiters,” headed by Yoshida Shigeru. As of eighty years after the War, the Japanese people should recognize and bear this fact in mind.

Precisely, on April 28, 1952, when Japan restored its sovereignty, Yoshida Shigeru decided to start Japan by completely covering up the war responsibility of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by clearly and respectfully holding up the “self-degrading view of history”, as a semi-state without having the clear theory of defending our country on our own over Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan. When he died on October 20, 1967, without any objective grounds, state funeral was held in honor of the Prime Minister who allegedly led the remarkable recovery of Japan with the policy of light armament and hefty economy. On the 80th anniversary of the end of the War we the Japanese should be aware that there was a period in Japan when “lost-war benefiters” dominated, ran rampant and ruled, as these incidents indicate.   

Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=2405

International Research Institute of Controversial Histries
Researcher Haruka Ikeda

On August 15, 1989, Eto Jun wrote a book titled Closed Narrative World: Censorship by the Occupation Forces and Postwar Japan (published by Bungei Shunju) and clearly explained how the postwar Japanese narrative world was restricted and distorted under the GHQ control and pointed out that the negative influence was still evident at the time of the publication.

Thirty-six years after the publication of his book, regrettably, the issue presented by Eto has not become a thing of the past.

To tell the truth, what Eto pointed out equally applies to the Nanjing Incident. On June 17 this year, the Ishiba Cabinet issued a written statement concerning the Nanjing Incident affirming that it’s not undeniable that after the Japanese troops entered the walled city of Nanjing, cases of slaughter and plunder against non-combatants may have occurred.

This statement is the follow-up of the government’s point of view posted on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. During the House of Councilors Audit Committee held on April 3 and 24, 2024, the then Foreign Minister Hayashi Yoshimasa, being asked about the documental grounds for the government’s view, answered, “It was made based on general perspective, not on the specific description of the particular source.” Thus, he failed to show the evidential papers.

In other words, the Ishiba Cabinet, despite the obvious lack of evidence, supported the conventional view by making a cabinet decision. This is an act of a grave betrayal of the people, which ignores the progress of academic study on this issue.

The Nanjing Incident was one of the felonies put on trial at the Tokyo Tribunal. The cabinet decision is the proof that Japan still lingers over the censorship policy established under the GHQ’s rule that the Tokyo Trials should not be criticized. The censorship should have been terminated after the end of occupation marked by the conclusion of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1952 and the restoration of Japan’s national independence. According to Eto, since what was practiced under the occupation was pre-censorship and the existence of such censorship was a strictly guarded secret, self-modification was made in a cooperative manner to continue the censorship policies. Self-destruction through this self-censorship was further practiced. It went on even after the system of censorship was terminated.

In addition, regarding the Nanjing Incident, when it comes to important sources which may lead to the truth, self-censorship exists through the process of translation into Japanese.

In my book Primary Historical Sources Reveal the Truth about the Nanjing Incident—Unravelling the Curse of American Missionaries’ View of History (published by Tendensha, 2020), I introduced for the first time evidential sources to refute the customary view of the Nanjing Incident translated into Japanese. (To be precise, part of them was introduced in advance in the magazine Seiron.) The major points are as follows:

(1) Remarks made by American missionaries who led the establishment of the Nanjing Safety Zone, indicating their intention to support the Chinese Army.

• Refusal on the part of the Japanese side regarding the establishment of the Safety Zone.
• Witness that refugees returned to their homes and that after the dissolution of the so-called safety zone, peace and order were restored in Nanjing.

My question is that regarding the primary sources of evidence for these matters (in English and in German), while surrounding parts are already translated and published, the core part which may lead to the truth of the Nanjing Incident, which is disadvantageous to the American and Tokyo Trials views of history, is omitted. Let me elaborate specifically on points (1) to (3).

As to (1), it refers to the remark made by the presumed leader among the missionaries, written in Missionary Vautrin’s diary to support the Chinese Army in the safety zone, which was supposed to be neutral. While Vautrin’s diary was translated into Japanese as Days of the Nanjing Incident (Ohtsuki Shoten, 1999), the part in question is not included, or the translator’s note does not refer to it. So, readers have no idea that American missionaries who remained in Nanjing and testified about the Nanjing Incident were not a neutral third party.

As to (2), in the book Collection of Sources of the Nanjing Incident (Aoki Shoten, 1992) aiming to unravel the Nanjing Incident through collecting contemporary sources about how the safety zone came to be established, many documents kept at Yale University were introduced but the sources regarding the fact that the Japanese Army clearly rejected the plan to establish the safety zone, also kept at the university, were omitted. As a result, the fact that the Nanjing Safety Zone was clearly unauthorized and fictitious, unlike the officially authorized Shanghai Safety Zone, was obviously obfuscated.

As to (3), it is a report made by the Chancellor of the German Embassy about the recovery of peace and order in Nanjing one month after the dissolution of the safety zone. This part was included in the original German edition of the book Der gute Deutsche von Nanking, edited from John Rabe’s diary by E. Wickert and in the translated English version The Good Man of Nanking by John E. Woods. However, in the Japanese translation The Truth of Nanking (Kodan-sha, 1997), this part was excluded for unknown reason. Consequently, if you read only the Japanese translation version, you cannot understand the mysterious fact that after the dissolution of the safety zone, which was supposed to protect the citizens, peace and order returned to Nanjing. Therefore, contrary to the conventional theory, it is not known that the existence of the fictitious safety zone was the very cause of the unrest and disorder.

The vital sources were not translated into Japanese. As a result, the simple conclusion I reached in my book based on American and European primary sources that “the support for the Chinese Army given by the American missionaries in the fictitious safety zone was the very reason why those missionaries created the Nanjing Incident”. But this information did not reach Japan. By hiding from the Japanese people the vital sources, which may have enabled them to criticize the Tokyo Trials and America, they prevented the truth from being found in Japan. Consequently, the Nanjing Incident has continued to be the center of anti-Japan propaganda for such a long time after the war. So was formerly The Rape of Nanking by Iris Chang and so is currently Japan’s Holocaust by Bryan Mark Rigg.

So far, I have tried to analyze the issue presented by Eto through his book Closed Narrative World, using the Nanjing Incident. Now, this issue is finally on its way to be resolved. This owes not much to the reflection on the part of the existing researchers, but to the progress made in information and communication technologies and as people become more aware of information disclosure, an escape hole appeared in the closed narrative world.

As to the afore-mentioned translation issue in the Nanjing Incident study, it has become much easier to gain access to original European and American sources through the Internet without depending on translated books. My book is exactly the gift of such advantage.

As for domestic dissemination of information, the conventional media, plagued with self-censorship, is no longer the central player. Instead, with the advent of social networks and freer new information channels, it has become possible to discuss in the public sphere what has been sealed as a taboo. This trend naturally influences the existing media. It also affects people bound by the existing media in their thinking and political activities. I hope this is the forerunner of a future trend, as has been just shown by the result of the recent national political elections.  

Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=2484

Shoichiro Kawahara
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories
Senior Researcher

1. Lai Ching-te’s value diplomacy

Here, “value diplomacy” refers to the diplomacy that regards democracy as the universal human truth and appreciates the value of democracy in dealing with the national diplomacy and security. Ever since he took the presidential office, President Lai Ching-te of Taiwan has thoroughly held the diplomatic policy of defending Taiwan as a democracy, in cooperation and alliance with other democracies in the world. President Lai Ching-te’s fundamental diplomatic principle can be termed “value diplomacy.”

Let us examine Lai Ching-te’s concept of “value diplomacy,” following his speeches and other sources.

First, in his inaugural address in May 2024, he stated, “As the vital nodal point of the global democratic alliance, the era of glorious Taiwanese democracy has dawned,” positioning Taiwan as the nodal point of a democratic alliance. He went on mentioning that Taiwan’s democracy will defend the country from China’s threat.

Then, in his speech on the National Day of the Republic of China in October last year, he said, “In the land of Taiwan, democracy and freedom of our choice have grown and been prospering while People’s Republic of China has no right to represent Taiwan, which has thus rooted in this land.”

Additionally, in his National Day speech in October this year, he said, “Democracy and freedom obtained through democratization efforts is a shared national memory of the Taiwanese people and Taiwan is the lighthouse for democracy in Asia.”

Lai Ching-te recognizes democracy’s special value in diplomacy and national security and sets the foundation of the State of Taiwan on democracy. Lai Ching-te places Taiwan among democracies in the world by implementing and spreading democracy in the country and thoroughly carrying out “value diplomacy” to firmly establish Taiwan’s national security.

2, Value diplomacy of the first-term Trump administration and the Biden administration

The United States administrations up to the Biden administration, including Trump’s first term, had been conducting “value diplomacy” just like Taiwan’s. During the first-term Trump administration under Secretary of State Pompeo, the U.S. diplomacy was carried out from the standpoint of the United 　　　　　　States being the leader among the world democracies. Secretary Pompeo recognized the Chinese　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 Communist Pary as a “Marxist dictatorship” and advocated for defense of the free world, namely, the camp of global democracies. In his famous Nixon Library speech in July 2020, he said, “Look, we have to admit a hard truth. We must admit a hard truth that should guide us in the years and decades to come, that if we want to have a free 21st century, and not the Chinese century of which Xi Jinping dreams, the old paradigm of blind engagement with China simply won’t get it done.” While Secretary Pompeo tightened his ideological opposition against China, on the other hand, he praised Taiwan’s democracy and expressed his idea about the necessity to defend Taiwan as a functioning democracy. The Taiwan Travel Act, signed into law on March 16, 2018, by President Trump, allows high-level officials of the United States to visit Taiwan and vice versa, an exchange which had been previously restricted, attempting to strengthen close relationship between the two democracies. During the first-term Trump administration, “value diplomacy” was promoted by Secretary Pompeo.

In the Biden administration that followed, on such occasions as the East Asian Summit (EAS), they held up the ideas of “free and open Indo-Pacific” and “global order based on law,” designed to “defend freedom and democracy in Asia,” emphasized the alliance among democracies in the region, including Taiwan and cited democracy as a value that the United States should protect. In October 2021, President Biden, during the CNN Townhall, was asked by a reporter, “If China should attack Taiwan, will the United States defend Taiwan?” and he answered, “Yes, we are responsible for it.” During a press conference held in Tokyo in May 2022, being asked a similar question, he clearly answered, “Yes.” In the Biden administration, the idea of “value diplomacy” implemented during Secretary Pompeo’s term in office remained unwavering and democracy was placed at the center of the values to be kept, which means that the United States stood on the common diplomatic grounds which Lai Ching-te firmly defines as “value diplomacy.”

3. The second-term Trump administration’s deal diplomacy

Unlike the first-term Trump administration in which diplomacy was left to the Secretary of State, in the second-term Trump administration President Trump came to lead diplomatic actions himself and the nature of diplomacy has drastically changed.

In July 2024, in an interview with a weekly magazine (Bloomberg Businessweek), Mr. Trump said, “Taiwan should pay us the defense fee...We act exactly like an insurance company.” He meant that Taiwan’s defense is carried out because Taiwan pays an insurance fee in advance, considering the defense of Taiwan as a kind of a business deal.

Regarding the aspect of military support to Taiwan, it is pointed out that there is a symptom of changes, from the support of weapons to arms sales and to preference of large-scale arms sales over monetary aid.

President Trump, immediately after he took the presidential office, issued an executive order to freeze all foreign aid for ninety days for reassessment. The aid to Taiwan was no exception and was not treated as special value aid, Taiwanese aid was treated as conditional and open to reconsideration.

In addition, according to Reuters’ report of October 2025, President Trump is said to have mentioned that Taiwan should set its defense budget at 10% of the GDP. This also is an indication of the United States policy of asking Taiwan to spend more money as a preliminary condition for getting the U.S. support.

As seen so far, the second-term Trump administration’s diplomatic policy is far from “value diplomacy” and does not confer special value on democracy. Rather, the United States response and policy are to be decided by trade deals, which is “deal diplomacy.”

Lai Ching-te unwaveringly emphasizes that “Taiwan is among the global democracies,” and expects the United States to carry out its responsibility as the “leader of the democratic camp.” However, the second-term Trump administration is cautious to the idea that the United States should defend Taiwan as a universal duty of the democratic camp. When it comes to Taiwan’s defense, the U.S. tends to regard it as a target of a business deal, and apparently the dominant idea is that so long as it is not disadvantageous to the United States, the United States will act.

4. Responses from now on

During President Trump’s recent visit to several Asian countries at the end of October 2025, he did not show any sign of the United States being the leader of the world democracies and free trade world but ended up fully conducting trade deal diplomacy with respective countries. During the U.S.-China top meeting held in South Korea, the Taiwanese issue did not come up to the table. Back home in the United States, following media questions about Taiwan, the President mentioned that so long as he is in the office, invasion of Taiwan will never occur. The realistic U.S. response remains vague.

Considering the nature of the second-term Trump administration’s “deal diplomacy,” since military interference by the United States may not be expected when China invades Taiwan, it becomes necessary for Taiwan to build as soon as possible a defense system, which is “not solely dependent on the United States”. As part of those measures, such actions as increasing the defense budget, advancing the plan to buy weapons from the United States as early as possible and speedily strengthening the war potential are urgently needed.

Together with these, in Japan, it is necessary to strengthen the deterrent power on the part of the Japan’s Self Defense Forces as speedily as possible. And considering the importance of the alliance among other democracies, it is necessary to urgently examine the rearrangement of supply networks, and cooperative system regarding economic sanctions, technical control and other issues within the “democratic bloc.”  

Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=2450

Ara Kenichi
Advisor, International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

When the description of the Nanjing incident began to appear in school textbooks in 1982, following the influence from neighboring countries clause, supposedly it was due to the “don’t-rock-the board” mentality toward China on the part of the Japanese Government. Now, however, the Nanjing incident is being used as the due cause for the Chinese people to attack Japanese people in China as well as the vital weapon in the intelligence warfare prior to the looming Taiwan emergency.

On December 13 last year, while Japanese schools in China were either closed or classes were held online, the Chinese Embassy in Japan called on people to remember the Nanjing incident victims, causing us Japanese to worry about Japanese children in China. The film Dead to Rights, whose screening in China began on July 25 this year, became a box office hit. The film showed scenes such as a baby being violently hit or a crucified Chinese soldier being stabbed with a bayonet, causing an acute rise of the Chinese hatred against the Japanese and further increase of worries among Japanese.

On December 13 last year, the Ryukyu Shimpo Newspaper posted a military diary of a soldier engaged in the battle of Nanjing on its front and second pages. Young people from Okinawa Prefecture were mobilized as the Second Sino-Japanese War broke out and deployed in the battle of Nanjing. The soldier’s military diary described well-known facts, but it was reported as if the soldier himself had witnessed the alleged massacre and the editorial of the Ryukyu Shimpo read that a massacre incident may happen again at any time, further asserting, “Think of the present situation. The allied U.S.-Japan military drills openly use commercial harbors, ports, airports and public roads. Urging the preparation for ‘emergency,’ the Self Defense Forces bases are being enlarged,” citing opposition to the military drills. On the TBS radio program “Ogiue Chiki Session,” aired on September 26 this year, journalist Aoki Osamu, touching the issues of “the battle of Okinawa and the Nanjing incident,” said that in the Nanjing incident the Japanese Army killed Chinese for the country and in the battle of Okinawa the Japanese Army brutally killed its own people for the just cause of protecting its own people.” Clearly, Okinawa is being made a target.

These cases show that the Chinese intelligence warfare using the Nanjing incident has deeply permeated public discourse, overwhelming Japan. These are not isolated incidents: on September 17, the Chinese Embassy in Japan invited one hundred and fifty guests to the preview of the film Dead to Rights. Some of the invited guests talked about the Japanese atrocities proving that the Chinese intelligence warfare in Tokyo has been openly staged. Dead to Rights is shown in the United States, Canada and many other countries in the world. Americans shed tears and generations unfamiliar with the Rape of Nanking hold the prejudice that the Japanese people are extremely cruel and such phenomena are seen elsewhere across the world.

In the prewar years, propaganda war or intelligence warfare in today’s terms was reported almost every month as extremely important in general magazines. After Japan’s defeat, the topic of armament became a taboo, and the propaganda war itself was forgotten. Under such circumstances, Japan is left totally vulnerable to operations of disruption.

While examining the Japanese Government’s actions over the recent years regarding the Nanjing incident, we can see that on April 3, 2023, at the House of Councilors’ Committee on Audit, Councilor Wada Masamune said, “Are there any documents kept within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which provide the grounds for the incident?” Foreign Minister Hayashi Yoshimasa answered, “’War History Series Sino Japanese War Japanese Army Operation (1)’ made by the governmental organization carries the relevant article.” Councilor Wada strongly refuted the statement, saying, “I have read all the related papers, but there was no specific description that the Japanese military intentionally killed Chinese.” He questioned the Minister again on April 24 to confirm it.

While the Foreign Minister kept making excuses, on January 26, 2024, Councilor Kamiya Sohei submitted a written question to the cabinet, asking, “If the War History Series Sino-Japanese War, Army Operation (1) is the basis, the Ministry’s website lacks the ground.” The Government answered that it did not solely depend on the war history series but made an overall decision. Councilor Kamiya submitted another written question to the cabinet on February 28. On May 13, 2025, Councilor Hamada Satoshi submitted a written question to the cabinet, asking, “Is there any official document to verify that the Japanese Army directed murder of noncombatants or acts of plunder?” The government did not answer. On June 17, he submitted another written question to the cabinet, but the government evaded the answer, saying, “Since it is not specifically clear what you mean, it is difficult to answer your question.”

In the first place, the neighboring countries clause was not made on the grounds of the Nanjing incident. Therefore, like a textbook made by Jiyu-sha, textbooks came to pass the authorization procedure without the description of the Nanjing incident. It is now clear that the post on the MOFA website was baseless. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan would not delete the article in question on the website but keeps admitting to the existence of the Nanjing incident.

When information came out related to the making of the film Dead to Rights, the story of negatives of photos taken by the Japanese Army being carried out by Nanjing citizens, it was understood that the film is based on the sixteen photographs submitted to the Nanjing military court held in 1947. The negatives of sixteen photos were supposed to have been carried out by Nanjing citizens and submitted to the Nanjing military court, and the court recognized them as valid evidence. However, some were totally unrealistic as photos taken during the rigorously cold winter in Nanjing. Since there was no record showing that photos were taken by the Japanese Army, clearly it was a fake story. Seventy years later, when China tried to register the 16 photos as UNESCO World Heritage, they were denied. At the time when the film was to be shown in China, doubts were pointed out on the Internet and “Sunday Sound Argument” column of the Sankei Newspaper dated August 6 shed light on the dubiousness of the film. And yet, the Japan’s Foreign Ministry would not do anything about it.

It was more than forty years ago when the Foreign Ministry forcibly spotlighted Nanjing incident. The Nanjing incident is not misjudgment like the removal of the sanctions against the Tiananmen incident or Emperor’s visit to China, but it is a case where Japan recognized as a fact at China’s insistence a questionable event without any ground. None of those concerned at the time are alive today. Japanese ministry’s Asian Bureau was changed to Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau. The Foreign Minister does not need to adhere to the past. The Ministry must protect the Japanese nationals in China and cope with the intelligence warfare staged by China. Based on the conclusive facts, Japan should immediately change its policy toward the Nanjing incident. There is no time to hesitate.