カテゴリー: 論説

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.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: Related Documents is provided in Japanese Site.

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

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

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

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

■ Background ■

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

■ Summary and Evaluation of the Final Report ■

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

■ The SCJ’s Reaction ■

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fujioka Nobukatsu
Senior Researcher, iRICH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[August 18, 2024]

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

[September 15, 2024]

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

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

[October 20, 2024]

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

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

[November 17, 2024]

Moteki Hiromichi, Apparent “anti-Japan racism book”

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

[December 15, 2024]

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

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

[January 26, 2025]

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

Miroslav Marinov, What is “holocaust”?

[February 16, 2025]

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

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

[March 16, 2025 (slated)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t destroy the country while observing the Recommendations

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

The Committee on the Convention and NGO

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

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

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

First, there is a treaty and then follow up recommendations

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

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

Recommendation related to the Imperial House Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t destroy the country while observing the Recommendations  

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