カテゴリー: 論説

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.

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.