コンテンツへスキップ

“The issue of how the Science Council of Japan should be” is now to be settled

[Japanese] https://i-rich.org/?p=1833

Tsukasa Shirakawa

It was announced that the Government has decided to change the status of the Science Council of Japan from the current national organ to an independent organization with corporate status by Chairman Matsumura of the National Public Safety Commission during a press interview held on December 22, 2023. The pending issue since the Suga Yoshihide Cabinet refused to appoint part of members in December 2020 has now begun to move toward a certain resolution.

The Science Council of Japan has conflicted with the Government over the selection of its members many times. The Council is a national organ and the power to appoint its members belongs to the Prime Minister. However, the Council has never accepted having their recommended candidates rejected. So, if the Council is to be independent from the State, its membership selection will be up to the Council and there will be no more conflict.

The Science Council of Japan has been receiving one-billion yen in support from the Government, but this amount will be reduced from now on. For the time being, the Council will try to vary its financial basis while receiving financial support. At the same time, the Council will consider the system to clarify its management.

The Science Council of Japan has not agreed to the decision, and possibly it will be necessary to accept part of the Council’s opinion regarding the decided change. However, it is very unlikely that the decision itself will be turned over.

The truth about the “appointment refusal issue” and its unexpected fallout  

Prior to the “issue of the appointment refusal” by the Suga Yoshihide Cabinet, it was the then Prime Minister Abe Shinzo that was preparing for the reform of the Science Council of Japan. The two sides clashed two times. The first time was in 2016, when three posts were vacant among the membership, and to fill the vacancy, Prime Minister Abe asked two posts to be filled by the second candidates. The second time was in 2018. Then, out of 11 posts to be refilled, Prime Minister Abe asked one post to be filled by the second candidate. After much tug of war, both cases were settled when the Council gave up refilling the posts.

What we must heed here is that the Science Council of Japan puts up two candidates for each post, but in fact they only recognize the first candidate. The Council pursued this method for decades and fiercely resisted against any attempt to remove the first candidate by the Government, Ministry of Education or related organizations of the Council. Outwardly, there are two candidates for each post, but in fact, it was nothing but the appointment by the Council.

During the semi-selection held every three years to reselect half of the members, the same method has been taken.

During the reselection of members in 2017, following the then Prime Minister Abe’s request, the Science Council of Japan was to recommend 110 candidates for the membership capacity of 105, leaving five for the Prime Minister to refuse. In fact, however, the Science Council of Japan had designated “105 candidates to be appointed” and had no intention to appoint the remaining five nominal candidates.

In the background of the “appointment refusal” incident in 2020, there was a fact that then the Science Council of Japan unprecedentedly recommended exactly 105 candidates.

Plainly speaking, breaking the promise made with the former Prime Minister, the Council daringly challenged the then Prime Minister Suga Yoshihide. In response to the daring challenge, Prime Minister Suga refused “six candidates” beyond the conventional five.

However, this issue brought an unexpected fallout. That is, the connection between the Science Council of Japan and the Communist Party came to be generally known. Prime Minister Suga got exposed to a barrage of criticism from the Oppositions and the mass media regarding this issue. At the same time, both the Science Council of Japan and the Communist Party went on exclusively criticizing the Government, totally forgetting to effectively take care of the largest issue of the moment, the covid 19 pandemic.

The more the Communist Party became concerned about the Science Council of Japan, the more apparently their close relationship became revealed, and the more people came to feel repulsive toward the Science Council of Japan.

Why it is necessary for the Science Council of Japan to be independent from the Governmnet     

The Science Council of Japan stated in a letter dated July 25, 2023, addressed to Minister of State for Special Missions Kobayashi (in charge of scientific technologies policy) that “it is difficult to clearly separate military and civilian study from non-military study. In response to this recognition, most of the mass media reported that “the Science Council of Japan admitted military study.”

As soon as this report appeared, the Science Council of Japan asserted that it maintains the position advocated in 1950. Later, the Council stated again that it is difficult to separate military and civil technologies. Still, it became clear that the Council has no intention to abandon “postwar pacifism.” Even today, the Council is controlled by the postwar pacifist ideology and has no intention to fully carry out its task as a national organ.

From the very beginning of its foundation, the Science Council has consistently maintained that military study may cause a war and publicly stated that the Science Council of Japan shall not engage in military study, three times, in 1950, 1967 and 2017.

However, military-civil technology includes the Internet, AI and drones which are essential for future economic development. Japan falls behind the United States and other countries in these fields and China is beginning to advance further than Japan. Unless both State and civilians work together, Japan cannot cope with the global competition.

In addition, the Science Council of Japan concluded a Memorandum of Cooperation with the Chinese Science Technology Association and has indirect personal exchange with the military science academy directly under the Association and the People’s Liberation Army. If it is to cooperate with the organization, there is a fear lest it should contribute to the Chinese military technology.

While the Science Council of Japan is working cooperatively in Chinese military study, it refuses to be cooperative in Japanese military study. If the Science Council of Japan is such harmful organization toward Japan, it is perfectly natural that it should be independent from the State. We hope that the Science Council of Japan will become independent from the Japanese Government as soon as possible.

[Japanese] https://i-rich.org/?p=1751

President
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

Sugihara Seishiro

It is said that there are three pillars in the European and American civilizations. They are Greek philosophy, Christianity and Roman law.

Related to Roman law, a proverb says, “Law is to be discovered, but not to be made.” In gist, law is the pursuit of justice.

Under the Chinese civilization, law is a mere tool that those holding power use to rule the people and therefore, those in power may make whatever law they wish and use it in whatever way they like.

European and American laws have been derived from Roman law and ultimately exist to pursue justice. Thereby, the word “right” meaning “correct” also means “privilege.” However, this concept was not based on law, and it was necessary to back it with power. The word “right” refers to “right hand” and represents power. So, it refers to justice backed by power.

Thus, law in the European and American sense exists not at the mercy of an arbitrary power but as an authority by itself. Consequently, law is included in the concept of the “rule of law” or “nomocracy,” and such law governs the present world.

Consequently, under the “rule of law,” various principles came to be born. For instance, when a law is made to impose punishment, the principle of non-retroactivity meaning that the law shall not be applied retrospectively is one of the well-known legal principles.

Under those principles, regarding the relationship between the people and the State, the principle of independence of the three powers (legislative, executive, and judicial) is to be upheld. Through adequate checks and balances among the judicial, legislative, and executive powers, justice and order of law are secured.

Since the Meiji Era, Japan has sincerely learned from European and American judicial systems and endeavored to follow the “rule of law” and has now become a country perfectly observing the “rule of law.” However, recently, within the last few years, incidents occurred, making us apprehensive that the “rule of law” may be collapsing. We can perceive the omen of the collapsing rule of law, which poses a historical crisis of the “rule of law.”

On December 10, 2022, related to the issue of the former Unification Church, the so-called Saving Victims Law, officially, Law on Illegal Solicitation of Donations by Corporations, was enacted.

This law was enacted amid the tumult asking for the dissolution of the former Unification Church. However, in terms of the “rule of law,” whatever rigid law may have been enacted to dissolve the former Unification Church, the application of this law should be limited to the cases after the enforcement of this law. This fact was not fully disseminated by the executive office amongst the tumult. Should this fact been disseminated earlier, such chaotic situation could have been avoided.

Prime Minister Kishida changed his interpretation overnight, stating that civil law can be considered among factors for the dissolution of the Church. As long as change of interpretation on the part of the executive branch is within the range permitted by law, under the “rule of law,” it cannot digress from law. However, without pointing out the principle of the “rule of law,” he suddenly mentioned the change of interpretation as if aiming to further complicate the issue. This is a kind of digression that exceeds the powers allocated to the executive branch.

On June 16, 2023, the so-called LGBT Law, officially, Law on the Promotion of the People’s Understanding of the Diversity about the Sexual Preference and Gender Identity, was enacted by the Diet.

In terms of the “rule of law,” this law lacks “legislative fact” that necessitates the legislation of the law. Under such judicial circumstances, the enactment of such a law may destroy the order that the majority of the people have enjoyed and shake the stability of justice and order of law, leading to the destruction of the people’s peace, security and happiness. As a legislation, such law is digression of the “rule of law.”

On July 11, 2023, the Supreme Court made a decision allowing the plaintiff with gender identity disorder, who works for the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and is married with a wife and child(ren), physically looks like a man, has not undergone the requisite gender reassignment surgery due to health-related reasons and claims to be a woman, to use any women’s restroom within the Ministry.

By this decision, the claim made by the plaintiff with gender identity disorder has been satisfied and as far as this person’s right is concerned, it is protected. On the other hand, as for the majority of female workers at the Ministry, their right to use women’s restrooms in peace and quiet which has been enjoyed so far came to be violated.

In the first place, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry had the person in question to use the restrictively specified women’s restroom within the Ministry but did not prohibit the person from using any of the women’s restrooms.

On the part of the Supreme Court, it is not their mission to directly resolve the inconvenience of the plaintiff. Rather, considering the right of the majority of female workers to use women’s restrooms in peace and quiet, the Ministry restricted the use of women’s restrooms by the plaintiff. Then, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether this restrictive measure taken by the Ministry against the plaintiff was within the legal range. It is against the justice of the law to destroy the order the majority of people enjoy and violate the rights of the majority.

In addition, if a person in such an unusual situation is to be protected, it is only possible by discussing the issue and making new rules that cover all of those in the same situation. However, it is the work of the Diet to make new rules through discussion.

Judiciary’s task is to decide whether an issue brought up in a lawsuit is legal or not, based on the existing laws, regulations, and customs and through such process, it decides the final interpretation of the respective laws and regulations.

In the judiciary, it is against the “rule of law” to save certain individuals by destroying the order that has been enjoyed by the majority of the people.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in our country, which must endeavor to maintain the importance of the traditional order and ensure the stability of the State.

Thus far, I have pointed out the cases that, if ignored, may lead to the collapse of the “rule of law” on the part of the judicial, legislative, and executive branches and this should be my warning about the possible collapse of the “rule of law.”

[Please refer to this author’s book Basic Theory on Judiciary—Its Structure of the Rule of Law (Published by Kyodo Shuppan, 1973)

Miyamoto Fujiko, guest fellow

Japanese https://i-rich.org/?p=1924

The similarity between the Japanese and the Korean languages

When I first began learning the Korean language, I wondered why the Korean language and Japanese are so similar in grammar and pronunciation of words.

I realized that it was easy for me to learn the Korean language or Hangul, because I am Japanese, have received education in Japan and live in the Japanese culture, in which I naturally learned kanji. In South Korea, Japanese kanji idioms and words remain almost intact and at present, these Japanese words are replaced with the phonetic letters of the Hangul. Thus, once you learn the rule of Hangul pronunciation, Hangul words instantly become Japanese kanji idioms in your head.

Kanji writing system was first invented in China and then, through the Korean Peninsula, kanji culture was introduced to Japan with the arrival of Buddhism. The Korean people generally think that Korea taught kanji to Japan. During the Meiji period, the Japanese invented many two-word idioms out of English words and reversely, through the thirty-six years of Japan’s annexation of Korea, kanji invented by the Japanese people came to be used in the Korean Peninsula.

For example, kanji words such as gakko (school), shakai (society), yakkyoku (drug store), keizai (economy), keikaku (plan) and yakyu(baseball) were all invented by Japanese people. The Korean people hardly know this fact.

Abolition of the use of kanji in the current Korean language writing

Nevertheless, kanji writing has become a problem in the present Korean language, where words made of kanji are written exclusively in Hangul. Such a complete expulsion of kanji made me feel very uncomfortable when I saw my children’s school textbooks in South Korea. Hangul being phonogram, the textbook written in Hangul seemed to have been written entirely in the manner of the Japanese phonetic hiragana letters.

Hangul writing is excellent in the sense that almost all foreign languages, including English, can be pronounced in Hangul. However, when it comes to homonyms, Japanese people can understand the meaning looking at the kanji, but in Hangul, there are no kanji to indicate the meaning of the word and one must try to understand the meaning by referring to the context of the sentence and guess the original meaning of the word written with Hangul letters.

To mention some extreme examples, Hangul letters for bouka (fire prevention) and houka (arson) are the same. And Japanese words zenki (first period), zenki (aforementioned), denki (electricity), denki (biography), denki (electiric appliances), zenki (entire period), senki (time for opening hostilities), senki (battle flag) are all written in the same Hangul letters. In English, a word may be phonetic but may have a prefix or suffix which makes the word ideographic. On the other hand, Hangul is a mere enumeration of sounds without any ideographic structure. Hearing a word, one cannot understand the meaning immediately, which is unnatural as a language.

Thus, in exclusive use of Hangul, I cannot help questioning whether South Koreans grasp the meaning of the word correctly and deeply and use the word fully knowing its meaning.

For example, we have the medical term of jibiinkouka (dealing with ears, nose and throat) in Japanese and looking at the kanji word we can immediately understand the parts, but I wonder whether South Koreans could immediately grasp what each Hangul letter refers to.

Educational problem arising from the non-use of kanji

As mentioned above, I remember wondering, looking at a Korean junior high school textbook, how well my sons understood whether the word refers to place, person or other thing. In junior high school, there is a class for learning kanji and students learn exclusively kanji in that class. However, the textbooks for other subjects do not carry kanji at all. It is highly questionable how effective limited learning of kanji is to children in their study.

As a private tutor, I taught Japanese to a Korean company executive in his fifties to sixties. He told me that when he was young, kanji was still used in newspapers, which was helpful in learning Japanese. However, at present, none of the newspapers use kanji or no kanji subtitles are seen on the Korean TV, or no kanji is used on the Internet, which poses a problem to children in learning subjects at school.

Personally, I am posting on YouTube videos that cover civilian activities in South Korea. In making the videos, it is essential to create Japanese subtitles to indicate the proper names of places and universities. I had extreme difficulties in checking the proper use of kanji on the Korean Internet, for there are no kanji available. Fortunately, searching through the Yahoo! Japan engine, I have found that names of places and proper nouns are written perfectly in kanji.

Thinking problems due to the non-use of kanji

It is said that the South Koreans have the national characteristic of putting emotion prior to reason. I think that the elimination of kanji culture has greatly affected the Japan-South Korea diplomatic relationships, which has become a serious obstacle to conducting reasonable dialogues.

I once saw a video showing the discussion between old Koreans in their eighties who had graduated from the Seoul University in the Korean Peninsula during the Japanese rule and the war-time journalist Mr. Inoue Kazuhiko. I was totally amazed at the Japanese language fluently spoken by those old Korean men with their use of respectful and humble language and their wide vocabulary of Japanese. South Koreans living in Japan and those Koreans now studying in Japan learn kanji in the Japanese culture and I feel that they are very different from the South Koreans living in Korea in their thinking and judging abilities.

Of course, Hangul has excellent features, and I am simply amazed at the current Koreans’ quickness in action and thinking with their promotional power and wonderful energy.

In December 2019, Mr. Kim Byungheon started it all with the action for the removal of the comfort woman statue in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul, in which I have been participating myself. Mr. Kim Byungheon is the President of the Korean History Textbook Research and represents the National Action to Abolish the Comfort Women Act. How can he continue to gallantly reveal lies in the anti-Japan South Korea and to undauntedly tell the truth when such opinions are suppressed in South Korea? Where does his swift action and ability to analyze the situation come from? I believe that is because director Kim Byungheon majored in Chinese classical literature and is an expert in kanji, faithfully conforming to the meaning what kanji bears. He is far more considerate and sophisticated than other Koreans. While ordinary South Koreans are apt to swallow the distorted history they were taught, director Kim is superbly quick to detect lies and fallacies.

In 2014 and onwards, director Kim at the Korean History Textbook Research directly made many phone calls to publishers about the many mistakes found in school textbooks and pointed out errors and corrected them, which is a truly remarkable achievement.

According to director Kim Byungheon, particularly, 99% of the statements regarding Japan in Korean modern history are either fabricated or distorted. This year will be the fifth anniversary of the movement of the National Action to Abolish the Comfort Women Act led by director Kim Byungheon. I believe that the rich idea and powerful action within the movement have been formed, based on the Korean trait of thinking and swift action, combined with a thoroughly thought-out theoretical philosophy well versed in kanji and conscientious morality.

Resume the use of kanji in writing

Therefore, South Korea, having deleted kanji culture, should gradually resume the use of kanji in school education and spread it throughout the Korean society.

Incidentally, it was at the time of the Park Chung-hee government that the exclusive use of Hangul in South Korea was implemented. In May 1968, President Park instructed his cabinet to establish a five-year plan for exclusive use of Hangul, setting 1973 as the goal. Since then, President Park himself changed all writings into Hangul. Then, in October that year, the goal was reset to be 1970, three years earlier than the original plan, together with powerful seven-articled instruction, concentrating on the use of Hangul. The concept of the deletion of kanji and exclusive use of Hangul policy “regards the ideographic kanji as anti-modern in the modernization trend. Through the linguistic life of our country, it is considered a part of enlightening efforts to eliminate kanji. Total elimination of kanji is modernization,” which is simply absurd. It was all because kanji was eliminated completely that South Korea eventually failed to notice the historical lies. Without the revival of kanji writing, it would be impossible to narrow the gap in the historical and international issues between Japan and South Korea.

【日本語】https://i-rich.org/?p=1832

Feb 2024
Nakamura Satoru, Senior Researcher at the International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

Revolutionary struggle that shifted from anti-war peace movement to anti-discrimination struggle

There is a new key phrase that started to be used after Okinawa’s Henoko struggle began in the 2010s. That is “Okinawa discrimination.” It argues that “the importance of the U.S.-Japan security alliance is understandable, but it is impermissible to overly burden Okinawa when it comes to the U.S. military bases in Japan.” It does not instigate the Okinawans to fight against the U.S.-Japan security but to instigate them to embrace the feeling that discrimination is impermissible.

To brew the sense of being unduly discriminated, they made up stories like “disposal of Ryukyu” and “sacrificed Okinawa during World War II” and claim that “Okinawa has been constantly under the discriminatory colonial rule by Japan to this day.”

In addition, a new term, “structural discrimination,” began to be used, asserting that people outside Okinawa Prefecture treat Okinawa discriminatorily without realizing the discrimination solely for the sake of national interest. They present the goal of their movement: for the future of Okinawa, the only action to be taken against the discrimination is to recover Okinawa’s right to self-determination.

In other words, the movement against the U.S. bases in Okinawa has completely shifted from “anti-war peace movement,” to “anti-discrimination struggle.”

Anti-discrimination struggle using the United Nations recommendations

The United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination have been issuing recommendations to the Japanese Government that “the Japanese Government should officially recognize the Okinawan people as indigenous and duly protect their rights,” for six times in total since 2008. The Japanese Government has been arguing against the recommendation each time. However, the fact that the United Nations has been repeatedly sending the same recommendation means that the United Nations firmly believes that the Okinawans are indigenous people. What is dangerous about this recommendation is that it coincides with the “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” which was passed by the United Nations in 2007 and approved by Japan. Article 30 of the Declaration states, “(1) Military activities shall not take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples, unless justified by a relevant public interest or otherwise freely agreed with or requested by the indigenous peoples concerned,” and in the case of conducting military activities there, “(2) States shall undertake effective consultations with the indigenous peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, prior to using their lands or territories for military activities.” In terms of the United Nations recognition, if the Okinawans say that they don’t need a U.S. military base in Okinawa, the Japanese Government that fails to take the relevant measures will be regarded as violator of the United Nations “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

In addition, China has been disseminating propaganda both domestically and abroad, claiming that “Ryukyu has been a member of the Chinese people ever since the ancient times and continuing independence movement from Japan and the United States and the Chinese people must support it.” In the event of a Taiwan emergency, it is highly probable that this anti-discrimination movement may give China a very good excuse for meddling with Okinawa’s sovereignty or really interfering in Okinawa.

The Japanese mass media provoke class struggle, using the ambiguously defined hate speech   

The Japanese Government has been making dangerous laws and acts one after another. Typically, there is the so-called “Elimination of Hate Speech Law.” The official appellation goes, “Act on the Promotion of Efforts to Eliminate Unfair Discriminatory Speech and Behavior against Persons Originating from Outside Japan.” This is a conceptual law without penalty, aiming to cope with discriminatory speech and behavior committed in Japan against persons originating from outside Japan and others whom the Japanese Government recognizes as minorities in Japan, namely, Ainu people and Korean residents in Japan. The aim to eliminate discriminatory speech and behavior cannot be denied, but this is a highly risky act prone to misuse and in fact, it is being wrongly used.

The Act defines the term “hate speech” as discriminatory speech and behavior against persons originating from outside Japan. However, in daily circumstances, the term “hate speech” is used not only for discriminatory speech against persons originating from outside Japan but hate speech for anyone. Although Human Rights Protection Agency of the Ministry of Justice cites cases of “hate speech,” there is no clear definition. After asking the Legal Affairs Bureau to clarify the definition, the response was that they were not in the position to refer to the use of the term “hate speech.” That was a refusal of response, indeed.

Therefore, despite the fact that Okinawans are not persons originating from outside of Japan, the phrase “Okinawa hate” is all over the place. Based on such circumstances, “Ordinance aiming to create a society without discrimination against Okinawa Prefecture” was put into effect in April 2023, stating “The Prefecture shall take measures to eliminate unfair discriminatory speech and behavior due to being citizens of Okinawa Prefecture.” Based on these Act and Ordinance, some people and mass media started to target those who criticize the method and action of the anti-discrimination struggle, making up imaginary discrimination and throwing accusations like “X committed discrimination,” “Y’s speech is hate speech,” and so on, and went too far against anyone who asked for better ways to cope with the issue.

How to fight “public opinion war” regarding Okinawa

In the teaching creed of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, “three wars” are advocated: “public opinion war,” “psychology war,” and “law war.” The People’s Liberation Army defines them as “combat actions committed based on the Central Military Committee’s strategic intention and operative missions.” These three wars are closely interrelated, but the most important one, with the strongest political impact concerning Okinawa now, is the “public opinion war.” And in the recent years, a public opinion war based on the story that “the people in Ryukyu have been discriminated since the era of the Ryukyu Kingdom and that Okinawa is about to be turned into a battleground once again. To evade the imminent war, Okinawa must regain its right to self-determination.” Unfortunately, Japan at present has no capable organ of intelligence, including the Self-Defense Forces, to carry out defensive operation against the public opinion war. Against the Chinese “three wars,” there is no alternative but for civilians to stand up and fight. In addition, now that the threat of a Taiwan emergency is looming, the public opinion war in Okinawa is the front of national defense.

Moreover, behind the public opinion war, the United Nations recommendation that Okinawan people are indigenous has been issued. Although this recommendation is the most vital matter directly concerning the Okinawan people’s identity, it has been so cunningly concealed that the Okinawans are totally unaware of it. The reason for the perfect concealment is that since 99% or more of the Okinawans identify themselves with the Japanese, instigators fully understand that they will fail, should the Okinawans be informed of their attempt.

Here is a hint to favorably fight the public opinion warfare, despite the adverse position Okinawa is now in. If Okinawan people are widely informed of the existence of this recommendation and the purpose and danger of the “anti-discrimination struggle,” this very issue could be brought to the election focal point, stating, “Those of you who regard yourselves as indigenous people, vote for that candidate, and those who think you are Japanese, vote for this candidate!” Then, things will completely change to your advantage. In addition, the power promoting anti-discrimination struggle with the convenient tool called “hate speech” will no longer be able to accuse those who say, “We are Japanese. The U.N. recommendation is wrong!” nor criticize it as “hate speech.”

However, most of the television and newspaper media stand on the side of the “anti-discrimination movement” and the activities on our part in the public opinion warfare are restricted to the Internet, handing out brochures, and making street speeches. However, if for the Okinawans who are merely 1% of the total Japanese population, the rest of 99% Japanese across Japan should fight in patriotic unison, the Okinawans will awake, and I am confident that we can win in the Okinawa public opinion war. We hope that the entire Japanese people will recognize this issue and act promptly for our country.

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories

Senior researcher

Shoichiro Kawahara

Japanese https://i-rich.org/?p=1803

1. The result of the 2024 Taiwanese Presidential election

In the 2024 Taiwanese Presidential election, candidate Lai Ching-te of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) won with a turnout rate of about 40%. The election was fought among three candidates, Lai, Hou Yu-ih of the leading opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang, KMT) and Ko Wen-je of the second opposition Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). Although candidate Lai reportedly held a marginal lead, it was a very close race to the end. At the result of this election, European and American countries belonging to the democratic bloc felt relieved. However, in the legislative election held simultaneously, the DPP could not win the majority seats, which will be a reason for concern about the Taiwanese government from now on.

The biggest issue in the election was how to deal with Communist China. In this regard, candidate Lai Ching-te continued the political line held by the current Tsai Ing-wen administration, keeping a certain distance from Communist China and never succumbing to China’s pressure.

Against this, the Nationalist Party candidate Hou Yu-ih basically holds the reconciliatory line with the Chinese Communist Party and emphasizes promotion of economic relationships through talks between China and Taiwan.

And candidate Ko Wen-je stood in-between the two candidates and claimed to act as a bridge between Chian and Taiwan.

As the election campaigns moved on among the three candidates, Communist China did everything to establish a China-friendly government in Taiwan, meddling in the election so that pro-China Hou Yu-ih might get majority votes. China’s actions included military pressure, trade restriction, media interference, dissemination of fake news, inviting influential Taiwanese to China, offering economic incentives to Taiwanese businesses, inviting Taiwanese youths to study in China and many others.

Why, then, is Communist China so entirely intent on establishing a pro-China government in Taiwan? That is because these attempts directly lead to China’s scenario of unified Taiwan. Now, let us look at it closely.

2. Communist China’s scenario of peaceful unification of Taiwan

There are two scenarios of the unification of Taiwan by Communist China, peaceful and military. Popularly discussed is the military scenario, but it is the last resort, so to speak, and the peaceful unification should be the first consideration.

In Communist China’s plan of peaceful unification of Taiwan, it was early in the 2000s that Communist China came up with the idea of using the opponent Nationalist Party (Kuomintang) when the Kuomintang left the government for the first time. At that time, the Nationalist Party was totally shocked and despondent after losing the ruling power and Communist China used this opportunity to lend a helping hand to the Party in distress. This attempt culminated in the summit meeting between Lien Chan, the Chairman of the Kuomintang and the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Hu Jintao on April 29, 2005. The meeting was called the third collaboration of the Nationalist and Communist parties. At the meeting five common recognitions (hereinafter, “Five Great Wishes”) were announced. The Five Great Wishes exactly manifest the scenario of the peaceful unification of Communist China and Taiwan. They are 1) to resume talks between both sides of the strait, 2) to have regular exchanges between the two Parties, 3) to discuss the way how Taiwan should engage in international activities, 4) to establish an overall economic and trade cooperation across the strait, and 5) to conclude the peace pact across the strait.

Kuomintang Ma Ying-jeou, who returned to power in 2005, faithfully carried out the Five Great Wishes. However, regarding the economic and trade cooperation, although the economic operation framework agreement was concluded in 2010 and a wide range of free activities was realized, the approval of the service-trade pact failed due to an opposition movement initiated by students (Sunflower Students’ Movement), so, the pact remained ineffective. In 2011, a plan of cross-strait peace treaty was brought up, but it was too premature; it was met with strong opposition within Taiwan and had to be promptly withdrawn. Later, in the Tsai Ing-wen administration, both the service-trade pact and the cross-strait peace treaty were shelved and remain unattended to this day.

Communist China aims to establish a pro-China Government by putting service-trade pact into effect and promoting control over the media, publishing, finance, and insurance in Taiwan. Candidates Ko Wen-je and Hou Yu-ih asserted their willingness to put this service-trade pact into effect early in their election campaigns, which shows that both candidates were working for Communist China.

Then, after imposing control over free speech in Taiwan, China aims to imbue the Taiwanese mind with the idea of “one country, two systems.” In view of Communist China, Taiwanese people’s repulsion for “one-country, two systems” is a major factor of preventing the unification of Taiwan and so, China tries to remove the factor. By reducing the Taiwanese people’s repulsion as much as possible, they will conclude the cross-strait peace agreement in a peaceful manner.

As a matter of fact, in order to reach the conclusion of the cross-strait peace pact, many unpredictable and complicated situations may occur, but the main scenario would be as mentioned above. In either case, without a pro-China government, it would be impossible to realize such scenario. The election this time turned out to be unsuccessful in realizing the scenario and Communist China’s plot has failed.

3. Armed unification and Taiwan’s statehood

The remaining scenario for Communist China to follow is military unification or armed integration. In this respect, how to deal with Taiwan’s statehood becomes a very important issue, and it will decide the success or failure of the entire scenario. It is an issue whether foreign countries interfering in the use of force against Taiwan is permissible or not in terms of international law.

Communist China does not recognize Taiwan as a State and states that Communist China’s use of force against Taiwan is a domestic matter within a State. The Government of Taiwan is merely a revolting group within the country and using armed force against the group is a domestic matter which other countries should not interfere in.

Against this assertion, the Taiwanese Democratic Progressive Party maintains that Taiwan is fully eligible for statehood and circumstantially a divided state. The two cross-strait realities are that the Republic of China in Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China in mainland respectively and parallelly exist as divided states and that Communist China should recognize the reality. Accordingly, Communist China’s use of armed force against Taiwan is equivalent to “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State,” as stipulated to refrain from in Article 2-4 of the Charter of the United Nations. And it cannot be helped if such act should be interfered in by other countries.

However, another Taiwanese political party, the Nationalist Party (Kuomintang) holds a different view. The Kuomintang has been holding the traditional party policy of “China is one” ever since Chiang Kai-shek’s leadership. The party ceased to emphasize the view but has not abandoned the view that Taiwan is part of the Chinese State, including the mainland.

As for the People’s Party, they have remained silent regarding the view of statehood and have not clarified their position.

We should be aware that views of statehood vary withing Taiwan. And yet, through democratic practices over the past thirty years, the great majority of Taiwanese realize that they live their daily life in a practically independent country and only a very few Taiwanese think that Taiwan is a part of the Chinese State.

It should be confirmed under the international law that Taiwan is a genuine independent state. The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States sets out the four criteria for statehood that the state as a person of international law should possess: (a) a permanent population; (b)a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. Taiwan unquestionably satisfies all these qualifications. In addition, no country in the world fails to recognize the continuous activities carried out by Taiwan as an independent state for the past thirty years. It is an indisputable fact that Taiwan is factually an independent state while Communist China is busy employing sophistry. To treat Taiwan as a true state enhances the international status of Taiwan and contributes to its security.

4. The Taiwanese Strait and the East Asia in future

In, the recent presidential election, Lai Ching-te won, pledged to succeed the Tsai Ing-wen political line, which has lessened the fear lest the Taiwanese Strait situation should rapidly become unstable. Still, the military pressure against Taiwan by China will be further strengthened and cross-strait tension will further intensify.

On the other hand, as confrontation between the United States and China in the East Asia, including the East China Sea and the South China Sea, further accelerates, in terms of defense strategy, the value of Taiwan, a democratic state in the East Asia, is getting higher than ever. Therefore, it is unthinkable for the United States not to interfere in the use of force by China against Taiwan. Taiwan is the pivot of the current East Asian policy of the United States leading the democratic bloc. In this sense, to abandon Taiwan means collapse and defeat of the U.S. Asian policy.

Under such circumstances, it was good news for the democratic bloc that the favorable result of the recent Taiwanese Presidential election prevented Communist China’s scenario of peaceful unification of Taiwan and China. However, I must repeat once again that in the legislative election, the Party could not secure the majority seats. This will bring many difficulties in running the Government. The outlook for the Lai Ching-te Government is far from optimistic. 

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories

Senior researcher

Yoshiaki Yano

日本語

Conflicts in the Middle East are raging once again. The war between Hamas and Israel is escalating. The historical background and its misinterpretation by the Great Powers concerned have caused complicated consequences.

During the Islamic Ottoman dynasty, in the present-day Israel, Jews and Christians lived in peaceful harmony under the Islamic rule.

However, at the end of the 19th century, the Zionist movement started, and groups of Jews started entering Palestine to settle in “God’s promised land.” But the Ottoman Empire did not particularly regulate their settlement.

After World War I, as the Ottoman Empire was in the process of dissolving, the Middle East region was divided into areas under the rule of several Western Great Powers. The United Kingdom, one of the belligerent powers of the War, concluded the Hussein-McMahon agreement in 1915, while the war was still going on, and promised the independence of the region where Arabs resided in exchange for the cooperation of the Arabic States in the war against the Turkish Ottoman Empire.

On the other hand, in May 1916, the United Kingdom made a secret agreement with its allies France and Russia, regarding the control over the Ottoman Empire after the War.

Moreover, in November 1917, the British Government issued the Balfour Declaration, pledging its agreement and support for the establishment in Palestine of a “National Home” for the Jewish people.

This triple-tongued diplomacy on the part of the United Kingdom, which made pledges that contradicted one another, is said to have been the fundamental factor creating the present-day Palestinian issue.

However, the Arab State designated in the Hussein-McMahon agreement did not include Palestine and some say that the two agreements did not contradict each other.

The Balfour Declaration clearly safeguarded the rights of Palestine’s indigenous non-Jewish residents while establishing a “National Home” for the Jewish people in Palestine.

Based on the Balfour Declaration, in 1922, the League of Nations adopted the resolution of the British Mandate for Palestine. At that time, the residents in Palestine were mostly Arabs and even under the mandatory rule, in view of the right of people’s self-determination, Arabs’ sovereignty should have been respected.

However, as the Zionist movement rose further, more and more Jews came to buy land and settle in Palestine and the conflicts between the Arab Palestinian residents and the Jewish settlement and Jewish settlers became more frequent.

The confrontation between the two peoples under the mandate turned into conflicts between States after the United Nations’ resolution to divide Palestine after World War II.

In the background of this resolution lay the massacre of Jews by Nazi Germany during World War II. Before and during the War, many Jewish refugees headed for Palestine and the movement to support the establishment of a state for homeless Jews in Palestine became widespread among the Allied Nations.

Decisively important was the lobbying by Jewish American residents in the Congress of the United States of America, the most powerful victor of the War. In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the resolution recommending the termination of the British Mandate for Palestine and the partition of Palestine to create two independent Arab and Jewish states, and a Special International Regime for the city of Jerusalem.

It turned out that the United Nations resolution allowed a different people to establish a respective new State in another’s land, almost equivalent to allowing invaders to conquer the land, which is against international law. This is exactly what became the root of the current conflicts in the Middle East.

In fact, on the next day after the State of Israel was proclaimed in 1948, the surrounding Arab States, not recognizing the Israeli independence, started military attacks against Israel. This was the first Middle East War. Israel won the war and after ceasefire through the United Nations mediation consolidated its status as an independent State and came to occupy a larger portion of the land than initially allocated in the Partition Resolution by the United Nations.

While Israel occupied the Palestinian region, more than 700,000 Palestinian people became refugees, which created the current Palestinian refugee issue.

After that, Middle East Wars between Israel and the surrounding Arab States took place three more times, and each time Israel won, expanding its territory further.

On the part of Palestine, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was formed in 1964, asserting its goal of Palestinian self-determination, but in the Lebanese civil war in 1982, the PLO was ousted from Lebanon and its influence gradually diminished. In 1988, after deciding to establish a Palestinian State in the West Bank of the Jordan River and in the Gaza Strip, co-existing with Israel, the PLO adopted the Palestine Declaration of Independence.

In 1993, the Oslo Accords were signed, according to which the Government of Israel and the PLO recognized each other and an interim Palestine autonomy in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank was established. The PLO promised to abandon its armed struggle, but the newly established Hamas, acting as a destroyer of peace, launched suicidal terrorist bombings, aggravating the domestic conflicts with the interim government.

Hamas won the Palestine legislative election in 2006 and after the Battle for Gaza in 2007 became the governing authority in the Gaza Strip. Hamas is an organization that follows the principles of Sunni Islamic fundamentalism and Palestinian nationalism.

During the Syrian civil war, attempting to oust the Asad Government, Hamas fought against Hizballah, supported by the United States and Israel. Hizballah is a Shia Islam militia, based in southern Lebanon, supported by Iran.

In recent years, however, Hamas has been concentrating on armed struggle against Israel, promoting the strategic cooperation with Hizballah, and receiving support in terms of weapons and training.

The current conflict with Israel, triggered by the unexpected attack by Hamas, opened a new battle front in connection with the ongoing war in Ukraine, which benefits strategically Russia and China, although they are not directly involved in the conflict. Some commentators even think that support for Hamas came from Russia and China.

Another assumption based on the conflict is that Israel and the United States may launch a preemptive strike against Iran, which is reportedly close to obtaining enriched uranium that could be used to build a nuclear weapon.

On the other hand, the Biden Administration released $ 6 billon-worth of the frozen Iranian assets. It cannot be denied that part of that money went to Hamas through Hizballah.

It is not clear, either, why the Biden Administration released as much as $ 6 billion of frozen Iranian assets, or whether weapons left deserted in Afghanistan or part of the weapons to be sent to Ukraine found its way into the hands of Hamas.

Some speculate that since Russia seems to be winning in the Ukraine War despite the past expectations, the U.S. Jewish international financial capital is trying to make profit by waging a new war in the Middle East.

Thus, the historical background leading to the outbreak of the war in the Middle East this time and the misunderstanding by the Superpowers of the realities inside and outside the region are so complicated that it is not at all a simple question of which one is ally or foe or which one is right or wrong.

It is urgent for each country to correctly analyze the situation and make the utmost effort to secure its national interest and particularly national security, without being swallowed up in the violent current of these bizarre and complicated international circumstances.

The region surrounding Japan is as militarily tense as Ukraine and the Middle East. Japan must have its own independent national security policy and carry out informational activities.

Particularly, Japan depends on the Middle East for more than 90% of its crude oil import. If the safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz should be threatened, Japan would be directly hit. Japan has 240 days’ oil stockpile maintained by the state and private companies. If the conflict should linger on, the Japanese economy would be hard hit. Japan should strengthen its energy security and particularly, restart its nuclear power facilities soon enough.

The conflict may suddenly spread and it is urgent to secure the safety of the Japanese residents and companies in the region and to have them safely and promptly return home to Japan. Reexamining the five principles to participate in the U.N. Peace Keeping Operations (PKO), the Japan Self Defense Forces should be authorized to use the necessary weapons in carrying out their missions in the conflict regions.

The biggest threat is China’s advance to the Senkaku Islands and Taiwan, using the void of power in the Northeast Asia. The state control of the Chinese economy tightens further and the dictatorship of Xi Jinping is further consolidated after consecutive ousting of high government officials and it appears that there are signs of progressing preparations for war, including efforts to enhance the nuclear forces and stockpile more nuclear weapons. Japan should speedily enhance its defense force, prepare for a possible attack on the Senkaku Islands and strengthen its own nuclear deterrent power.

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories

Guest Fellow

Tsukasa Shirakawa

日本語

1. The origin of the SCJ’s Galapagos-like pacifism

The Science Council of Japan was established in 1949 under the rule of the Allied Forces General Headquarters (GHQ), when everything held affirmative prior to the Pacific War was negated without reason. This very atmosphere turned the national academy fundamentally aiming to support Japan’s science and technology into a propaganda organ with Galapagos-like pacifism .

The then Prime Minister Yoshida Shigeru was dissatisfied with the Science Council of Japan because while using the Government budget, all the SCJ did was to criticize the government and engage in political confrontations. So, Yoshida tried to change it from a government organ to a private one. But the SCJ’s first President Kameyama Naoto, citing the GHQ foremost, checked Yoshida and thus, eventually the time was up for Yoshida’s efforts.

Initially, when he took office, General Douglas MacArthur of the GHQ was very enthusiastic about the demilitarization of Japan. In thought and academic aspects, he was most attentive to two issues: the purge of public officials, which started in 1945, and the establishment of the Science Council of Japan.

2. The Science Council of Japan was filled with leftists

In the purge of public officials, many statesmen who held conservative views, journalists, business leaders, scholars and teachers were expelled from their jobs. Among those expelled, there were many people indispensable in the task of restoring Japan in the postwar years. It was only since 1950 that those indispensable workers gradually came to be exempt from the purge.

On the other hand, in the Science Council of Japan, from the very beginning, the subsidiary of the Communist Party named Democratic Scientists’ Association (DSA) was dominant. Against the re-armament, the Science Council of Japan issued a statement to the effect that the Council shall not engage in any study that may contribute to the development of military technologies. Incidentally, this statement was repeated as the statement of study of military security in 2017. Regarding national security, the SCJ has not changed its standing for sixty-six years.

The DSA lost support after it criticized Stalin in 1965 and practically ceased to exist in the 1960s. However, the Japan Scientists’ Association (JSA) succeeded it. The JSA is partially influenced by the Japanese Communist Party and the latter has kept certain influence over the Science Council of Japan, using this academic organization.

After DSA ceased to exist, its branch of jurists called “legal sub-committee” continues to operate even today and acts as a brain for the pro-Constitution movement or as an organization of activists. Incidentally, among the six SCJ members “who were denied appointment,” three of them, Mr. Matsumiya Takaaki, Mr. Okada Masanori and Mr. Ozawa Ryuichi are related to the legal subcommittee of the Democratic Scientists’ Association.

We should bear it in mind that although GHQ gave birth to the Science Council of Japan, it did not expand it. MacArthur himself gradually lessened his initial prejudice against Japan and finally started rearming it. On the other hand, the Science Council of Japan accepted MacArthur’s initial prejudice as it was and has preserved it.

I just mentioned that the first President Kameyama name-dropped GHQ in protesting against Prime Minister Yoshida’s intention to make the SCJ private. The Science Council of Japan has been very much proud of the fact that it came into being through GHQ, which was more powerful than the Japanese Government, while ideologically influenced by the Communist Party. This sense of pride seems to make the Science Council of Japan always act arrogantly in dealing with the Japanese Government.

3. The organization ailed by the “Pre-war Syndrome”

The year 1965, when Japan Scientists’ Association was born, was the “era of the students’ movement.” The Japanese Communist Party was promoting a peace movement with the goal to stop nuclear bombing and further accelerated it into a movement opposing the Vietnam War.

Part of the Science Council of Japan still carries the mentality of the students’ movement deeply soaked in pacifism and leftist ideology, which were present even in its prime age. This is clear from the scenes of scholars who “were denied assignment” loudly expressing themselves in front of the TV cameras.

Listening to anti-Government statements voiced by the Science Council of Japan, we can see its morbid, short-circuited thinking that connects everything to the pre-war situation or claims that “whatever conservative administration does leads to militarism.” I call it “Pre-war Syndrome.”

When statesmen of the ruling party try to enhance the national security policy, those who have internalized the pre-war syndrome hear “military boots” resounding from nowhere and become hot with flames of justice, thinking “unless we do something against it, Japan will become militarist.” This is the source of energy that keeps Galapagos-like pacifism going to this day within the Science Council of Japan.

4. The right to appoint resides in the Prime Minister

As the theoretical grounds for criticizing Prime Minister Suga Yoshihide’s refusal of appointment in 2020, it was mentioned that Niwa Hyosuke, Chief of Home Affairs of the Nakasone Cabinet, responded that “it is mere nominal recommendation and those recommended by the Council will not be refused and will be nominally appointed.”

In the background of this response, there was a change in the membership nomination. The SCJ members used to be elected among recommended candidates, but then the procedure was changed to a system of recommendation by the sitting SCJ members. By the latter method, it became easier for the Science Council of Japan to arbitrarily select its members.

However, the status of the member of the Science Council of Japan is special national civil servant to be appointed by the Prime Minister, which is clearly stated in the Science Council of Japan Law. It is the duty of a civil servant to follow the appointment by the Prime Minister. There is no need to account for the personnel appointment.

In addition, the final report of the Council for Science and Technology in 2003, based on the Fundamental Law on Reform of Central Ministries, Agencies and others, states, “As to the form of establishment, the way academies in major European and American states are is considered to be ideal, and regarding the Science Council of Japan, we will evaluate the progress in the reform within the next decade and discuss adequate way of establishment.” Following this, the Science Council of Japan should be reformed in one way or another by 2013.

5. The Science Council of Japan should promptly be dissolved 

Surveying proposals made by the Science Council of Japan so far, we cannot find any example of its significant social contribution that the entire nation can duly appreciate. In 2000, there was a case of fabrication in the field of archaeological society. The Science Council of Japan failed to propose any solution. In recent years, there have been many anti-Government proposals and when it comes to the covid disaster, the SCJ did not come up with any proposal. The Science Council of Japan, having assembled the top brains in Japan and being versed in overseas information and knowledge, has been busy protesting against the issue of the refused appointment, but failed to produce any proposal as a government organ during the hardest time for the Japanese people. A billion yen out of the precious tax money is annually spent on the SCJ. The Science Council of Japan seems not to feel duly responsible for meeting the people’s expectations.

In addition, the Science Council of Japan holds certain influence over the examination members of the Science Council of Japan Promotion Foundation in deciding the allocation of \237.7 billion scientific research fees for the fiscal 2021 as authorities in various fields of science. Through its enormous influence in allocating the scientific research fees, the SCJ controls the entire academic society, driving the academic world toward left, marring the Government’s national security policy and making Japan fall behind other countries in dealing with national security.

Moreover, some members of the Science Council of Japan are related to the so-called “seven schools of national defense” of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, some apply to the “One Thousand People Plan” by the Chinese Government recruiting foreigners, and there is a case in which Japanese cooperated in Chinese military study, while opposing Japan’s own military study.

Most of physics and engineering scientists’ specialties span both military and civilian fields. However, the Science Council of Japan is so insistent on being a propaganda organization firmly opposing military study on its own that not a few scientists find it difficult to carry out their study in Japan. The SCJ is led by assertions of those in humanities study and pro-Communist Party members while members in physics and chemistry are obliged to follow them. Thus, only partial assertions made by ultra-left SCJ members turn out to be the assertions representing the entire Science Council of Japan.

In historical examination of the Science Council of Japan, we must say that the SCJ is too much influenced by the Japanese Communist Party, which has a mere one percent support rate among the Japanese voters. The Japanese Government should promptly start dissolving the Science Council of Japan for the sake of Japan’s national security and other important issues.   

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories

advisor

Nishikawa Kyoko

Japanese Version

The overpowering sense of existence of Prime Minister Abe being felt anew

It’s been a year since Prime Minister Abe was brutally shot to death. The tremendous sense of loss has been not a bit appeased all this while, and the greatness of his existence has been felt each day. As if in correspondence with the loss, it seems that the world is moving toward an undesirable and eerie direction. Once the world stood in the honeymoon mood between Prime Minister Abe and President Trump, without major conflicts and well-balanced with the leaders of advanced countries respecting each other. Only one country, China, tried to expand its military power, aggressively moving in the South China Sea, the East China Sea and around Japan. From that time onward, the U.S. China policy has been drastically changed and the sense of a threat coming from China has been rapidly spreading among the advanced countries.

Seeing such global circumstances, I cannot help but feel how great the presence of Prime Minister had been. In the strong and trustful relationship with President Trump, Prime Minister Abe supposedly told the U.S. President on every available occasion what a perilous threat China is and how dangerous China’s self-righteous political stand is. He probably informed him that at present, China’s expansionism constantly creates the threat of military invasion, regarding Japan as an imaginary enemy and that this situation is extremely dangerous to the United States.

In the postwar years, the United States policy toward China was consistently China-friendly, including the one of the Republican Party. China has been receiving enormous amounts of economic aid from both the United States and Japan and at present has acquired huge economic and military powers. China has now become a monster, nearly overpowering the United States and demonstrating its overwhelming presence to the world. The world owed much to Prime Minister Abe, who endeavored to let the major world leaders recognize the menace of China. But he is gone now. The war in Ukraine is getting more and more complicated and chaotic, Russia and China are getting closer to each other, and Japan finds itself in the extremely difficult position amid the two.

Non-commonsense claims rapidly spread today

In the world successively plagued by the corona-virus disaster and the war in Ukraine, the trend of globalism has become vividly conspicuous. Globalism, at the first glance, may look beautiful, but at its root, it is close to communism and is a movement aiming to steer things into one direction. It seems that the destination of globalism is rootlessness, confusion, emptiness and loss of identity as a human. Losing the sense of a state, more like in terms of reducing the state to individuals, individuals rather than the whole, minority rather than majority, extraordinary rather than ordinary, and so forth---the society that up to now has been well-balanced on such traditional relationships has recently changed into a society with the emphasis on just one side, putting ordinary existence and common sense into an awkward position. The mass media and those with social status cater today to people who loudly assert their non-commonsense claims, and their non-commonsense views are pushed aggressively to the center. I wonder since when have the Japanese people became such a deplorable nation. The Japanese people used to be very considerate of each other.

The typical incident riding on this recent trend was the enactment of the law to enhance the understanding of LGBT. I was totally appalled at the passing of this LGBT bill. The bill has been discussed and the attempt to enact the law has been made over the last seven years and while Prime Minister Abe was alive, the conservative Diet members of the Liberal Democratic Party had been fending off the movement. However, after Prime Minister Abe was killed, entering this year, suddenly and speedily, the bill was passed, led by supposedly conservative Diet members, ignoring many opposing voices within the Party. The excuse of those Diet members for leading the passing of the bill was that the LDP had taken over the opposition parties’ radical bill, considerably amending and correcting the wordings, in response to questions and concerns raised by the conservative group and simply held by the public. However, before such an excuse, there is a fact that even the United States has been very careful anticipating problems involved and has not passed the LGBT related bill at the Federal level. Why, then, did Japan pass the bill, in advance of the rest of the world? I feel that this is very dubious and inadequate. I would like to hear what Prime Minister Kishida really believes to be right.

The movement of the LGBT related legislation is advanced rather at the municipal level. Including Tokyo as a starter, fifty municipals across the country have enacted ordinance to prohibit discriminatory treatment based on sexual orientation or identity. The speed of the trend is amazing. The trend to enact this bill, using the “verbal tool” of anti-discrimination, further leads to the destruction of the marital system by the introduction of the partnership system. At the root of this chain of movements lies the promotion of political correctness, leading to the destruction of the entire order concerned with the identity of the Japanese people, such as Japanese traditions, culture, customs, common sense that have been nurtured over our long history. This is not a reform. A reform does not change the essential axis of the matter but changes the methods. However, the recent movement can be termed as white revolution, riding on the current of globalism. Without using arms, leading the human mind and thinking at the base of all the fields of human activities to a certain direction. I think this can be called mental revolution or a trend of thought control.

The Supreme Court should reach the judgment, considering the common sense of the public in the broad perspective

In less than a month after the LGBT bill was passed, on this July 11, the Supreme Court returned a verdict in the small court, recognizing the plaintiff’s complaint that the transgender worker of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry be allowed to freely use women’s restrooms in the workplace. It was reportedly the unanimous decision of the five judges. What can I say? I thought judges are to reach judgment, in consideration of the public common sense and in the broad perspective, but, alas, they are not. They seem to live in a narrow and small world.

This year, in Saitama Prefecture, which enacted ordinance related to LGBT in 2022, they conducted a survey of public comments on making the basic plan. A total of 417 comments were turned in, 80% of which were against the plan. I think this is the exact consensus of ordinary Japanese. I only hope that the education for understanding LGBT at schools may not go too far, ignoring what parents, pupils and students feel. I used to fight against people trying to promote extreme sex education in Tokyo Metropolis. I cannot help thinking that advocates of the LGBT movement seem to have the same ideas as those advocates of sexual education I met in the past.

From the ancient times, countries with monotheism like Christianity and Islam have been very strict as their precept in dealing with sexual matters and homosexuality used to be severely punished as a crime. Therefore, the movement of LGBT tended to be radical. Comparing with monotheistic countries, Japan has been worshipping nature gods, which can be termed as polytheism and this kind of matter must have been dealt with in an extremely lenient, generous and open-minded way. Throughout our long history, various people have coexisted in a properly harmonious way. Therefore, it is totally unsuitable that Japan, having a history of such mature and moderate sexual responses, was the first to enact the “Promotion of LGBT Understanding Law” in the world.

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories
Researcher

Haruka Ikeda

Japanese Version

Introduction

On April 3 and 24, 2023, at the House of Councilors Committee on Audit, regarding the so-called Nanjing Incident, Councilor Wada Masamune asked Foreign Minister Hayashi Yoshimasa about the grounds for the Government’s view posted on the website of the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs: “The Japanese Government thinks it undeniable that after the Japanese Army entered the city of Nanjing in 1937, there occurred murders and acts of blunder against non-combatants.” Consequently, Minister Hayashi’s answer revealed that there were no evidential documents on which the Government relied for its official view. According to Ara Kenichi, researcher on the Nanjing Incident, it was in 1982 that the Foreign Ministry came to admit the occurrence of the alleged Nanjing Incident. This decision was probably made, catering to the external pressure and public opinion amid the fading memory of the battleground.

Now, let us examine the ground on which the common theory that “there was Nanjing Incident” is based. The Nanjing Incident is believed to have really taken place primarily because of the third-party witnesses to the effect. At that time, those who condemned the Nanjing Incident through various media were Europeans and Americans staying in Nanjing, and at the Tokyo Trials held after the War, the most powerful claims that the Nanjing Incident did happen were statements by the assumingly neutral third-party Europeans and Americans. After the War, those Chinese who suddenly came forth in their old age claiming to be victims associated themselves with the European and American records and asserted the authenticity of their own statements.

In such a verification process of the Nanjing Incident, although statements made by Europeans and Americans who were there in Nanjing at that time were decisively important, the studies on the nature of those statements are surprisingly few. So, this paper confirms the origin of those third-party statements based on the European and American documents at the time and indicates that those original sources were American missionaries who remained in Nanjing and clarifies those missionaries’ activities, intentions and backgrounds.

Hopefully, this paper will reveal the hidden truth of the Nanjing Incident and fundamental errors of the common theory and the Japanese Government’s view.

  1. Examination of the original disseminators of the Nanjing Incident   
  2. Who were the third party remaining in Nanjing?

First, let us confirm the third party (Europeans and Americans) in Nanjing at that time.

In order to witness or examine an incident, one needs to be there on the spot. On December 13, 1937, when the Japanese Army entered the walled city of Nanjing, and for a while after that, there were 22 Europeans and Americans staying in Nanjing. Among them, there were 14 Americans (the majority group) and all of them were missionaries. Besides them, there were 5 Germans, 1 Austrian and 2 White Russians, all of whom were in Nanjing on business. Besides these businessmen, there were 2 Europeans (1 Dane and 1 Briton), who temporarily came to Nanjing and left, and they were also on business. There were five newspaper correspondents (1 Briton, 4 Americans) who left Nanjing a few days after the Japanese Army entered Nanjing. On January 6, 1938, and thereafter, diplomats from respective countries returned to Nanjing, but there were no reports of their witnessing massacres. So, the civilians mentioned above were the third party who might possibly have seen the Nanjing Incident.

  • The examination of the original disseminators

Bearing those remainders in mind, let us now examine some of the well-known disseminators of the reports and statements related to the Nanjing Incident.

  • The first news report of the Nanjing Incident

Articles written by those correspondents who left Nanjing on December 15, 1937 (The Chicago Daily News, the New York Times, etc.) are said to have been the first report. However, it is confirmed that the original source of these articles was the statement made by American missionary Miner Bates (1897-1978), through Missionary Bates’ letter.[i]

  • The theory of 20,000 victims of the massacre stated by Koo Vi Kyuin at a League of Nations conference

At a League of Nations conference in Geneva on February 2, 1938, Chinese Delegate Koo Vi Kyuin (1888-1985) quoted from the Daily Telegram and Morning Post of January 28, 1938: “The number of Chinese civilians killed by Japanese in Nanjing was supposedly twenty thousand.” To confirm the newspaper’s article, it said, “One missionary estimates the number of Chinese slaughtered at Nanjing at 20,000.” As previously mentioned, since missionaries staying in Nanjing then were all American, the original disseminator of this article was an American missionary.

  • Records of incidents by the International Committee and the Diaries of Rabe

For the protection and safety of civilians, the American missionaries established the Nanking Safety Zone and the International Committee to administer the safety zone. The records of incidents within the Safety Zone compiled by the Committee[ii] were filled with cases of atrocities committed by the Japanese military. But the Committee was under the control of the American missionaries who held the majority power among the remaining foreigners. Practically, the Committee report was disseminated by the American missionaries.

The Diaries of German John Rabe (1882-1950), who was set up as chairman of the International Committee, was published after the War.[iii] The diary contains many records of massacres committed by the Japanese Army submitted by various missionaries but no records of his own witnessing massacres. The records of massacres in Rabe’s Diary were also originally disseminated by American missionaries.

  • Statements made at the Tokyo Trials

After the War, the Nanjing Incident was examined at the Tokyo Trials. There were three Westerners who appeared in the court in person and stated that the Nanjing Incident had taken place and they were American missionaries.

With what I have stated so far, I hope it is understood that the original disseminators of the Nanjing Incident were entirely American missionaries.

  • The reason why American missionaries disseminated the Nanjing Incident to the world
  • The true purpose for the establishment of the Nanking Safety Zone

The purpose of the American missionaries who remained in Nanjing was nominally to establish the neutral and demilitarized Nanking Safety Zone for the safety and protection of the citizens. However, during a meeting held to report on the plan for establishing a safety zone, missionary Mills stated to the contrary effect: “At our meeting Mr. Mills expressed the longing that instead of having all educated people trek westward that it would be far better for a group to go down and try to encourage and comfort the Chinese army and help them to see what disorder and looting among even a small group means to China.”[iv]

Missionary Mills was the central figure (Presbyterian) among the American missionaries in Nanjing and the mastermind of the establishment of the Nanking Safety Zone.[v] Neutrality and one-sided support cannot stand together. From these words of missionary Mills, it becomes clear that the Nanking Safety Zone was established not for the protection of civilians but for the support and protection of the Chinese Army. In fact, there is record that within the Safety Zone, during battles, Chinese artillery operated[vi] and after battles, Chinese soldiers infiltrated into the safety zone and hid themselves there.[vii]

  • The Nanjing Incident to justify the Nanking Safety Zone    

From these records, supposedly, the dissemination of the Nanjing Incident by the American missionaries was part of protection and support measures for the Chinese Army. The missionaries needed to disseminate the Nanjing Incident. It was because the Nanking Safety Zone was not an officially acknowledged establishment, unlike the Shanghai Safety Zone, which was officially approved by both Japan and China.[viii]

Since the Nanking Safety Zone was dubious in terms of neutrality, the Japanese authorities did not recognize it but during battles, Japan would avoid attacking it so long as it was not militarily necessary. After the battles ceased, the unauthorized Nanking Safety Zone had no longer a reason to exist. After entering Nanjing, the Japanese Army immediately ordered the Zone to be dissolved, which the missionaries refused to follow. On the other hand, the missionaries decided to support and protect the Chinese Army within the zone as missionary Mills had stated and conveyed their intention to Huang Jen Lin (1901-1983),[ix] Chiang Kai-shek’s right-hand man. It was necessary for the missionaries to maintain the safety zone under their control in order to secretly protect Chinese soldiers in Nanjing. So, to make up a pretext for keeping the safety zone, they needed to fabricate a story of atrocities committed against citizens by the Japanese Army, namely, the dissemination of the Nanjing Incident.

We can judge whether the missionaries’ claim that the safety zone was necessary to protect citizens from the atrocities committed by the Japanese Army was reasonable or not, based on the situation after Nanking Safety Zone was dissolved. On February 4, 1938, the Japanese Army ordered the citizens within the Safety Zone to go home, and practically, the Safety Zone disappeared. On February 8, non-substantial International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone was renamed the Nanking International Relief Committee, having the term “the safety zone” removed. If the missionaries’ claim had been right, after the Safety Zone disappeared, Nanjing would have become a worse hell. However, on March 4, 1938, Chancellor Paul Scharffenberg for the German Embassy recorded, “...we no longer hear of atrocities, and order is also being restored in general.”[x] As a matter of fact, the missionaries’ assertions were not correct.

These documents indicate that the Nanjing Incident existed only when the American missionaries supported and protected the Chinese Army in the Safety Zone. Sabotages by Chinese soldiers hiding within the Safety Zone and fictions made up by the American missionaries in order to justify the existence of the Nanking Safety Zone were all that was to the alleged Nanjing Incident.

  • The background for the creation of the Nanjing Incident

By the way, while French Catholic Father Robert Jacquinot (1878-1946), who established the Shanghai Safety Zone kept neutral, why did the American missionaries (Protestants) in Nanjing support and protect the Chinese Army? In the background, there was a resolution clearly showing the relationship between the Chinese Protestant Church and the Chinese (Chiang Kai-shek’s) government:

“Recognizing in the ideals of the New Life Movement many of the same objectives that Christians have always sought, Christians, whether individuals or church groups, be urged to co-operate in the New Life Movement program as far as possible.” (National Christian Council Biennial Meeting, May 6, 1937).[xi]

The National Christian Council is a body representing the Protestant churches in China. And the New Life Movement was substantially Chiang Kai-shek’s political activity for nation building. Therefore, this resolution stated the overall cooperation on the part of the Protestant churches in China as their consensus for the Chiang Kai-shek’s political activity in the name of the “New Life Movement.”

The slogan of the New Life Movement was the “three Life transformations,” namely, “Militarization of Life, Productivization of Life, and Aestheticization of Life [or Rationalization],” Productivization meant participation in productive activities and Aestheticization or Rationalization dealt with upbringing. However, clearly, it started with militarization which meant the movement anticipating the military mobilization of the people. In fact, after the Second Sino-Japanese War broke out, the movement included the support for the Chinese Army.

And the missionaries knew that the New Life Movement was a dangerous activity ensconcing a military element.[xii] While they recognized well the military and political colors of the movement, they resolved to totally cooperate with it. The reason was evangelical motives. The missionaries regarded Chiang Kai-shek, who had converted to Protestantism after his marriage to Soong Mei-ling and reawakened to religious worship while he was held under detention during the Xi’an Incident, as a true Christian[xiii], expecting that if Chiang Kai-shek representing the Nationalist Party Kuomintang was to rule China, a Protestant State of China would be born. Thus, they resolved to fully cooperate with the New Life Movement, which was deeply tinted with the military color. In the extension of this resolution lied the American missionaries’ support and protection of the Chinese soldiers in Nanjing.

This relationship between the resolution made by the Chinese National Christian Council and the activities by the American missionaries in the Nanking Safety Zone can be clearly explained. The previously mentioned Mr. Huang Jen Lin, Chiang Kai-shek’s right-hand man, with whom missionary Mills shared the American missionaries’ plan to support and protect the Chinese Army within the Nanking Safety Zone, was fully in charge of the New Life Movement. The fact that the American missionaries’ support was carried out as a part of the activities to support Chiang Kai-shek’s New Life Movement by Protestants was proved by the very existence of Mr. Huang Jen Lin.

4 Conclusion

The Nanjing Incident was a complete fiction created by the American missionaries. The Nanjing Incident was created by the American missionaries pretending to be the third party who under the great policy of the Protestant Church to protect Protestant Chiang Kai-shek remained in Nanjing to support the Chinese Army. China merely used it.

The true players behind the Nanjing Incident were neither Japan nor China. They were American missionaries, who have been regarded as the third party so far. This is the reason why at the time the Nanjing Incident was widely reported in the United States, fully used by the United States, the victor of World War II, during the Tokyo Trials, and the truth about it remains still unrevealed to this day.

The Japanese Government of 2023 should seriously accept the truth about the Nanjing Incident, immediately remove the view that lacks any solid grounds posted on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and show the historical truth both at home and abroad for the honor of the Japanese people.


[i] S. M. Bates, “Circular letter to friends,” April 12, 1938

[ii] “Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone” (1939), Kelly & Walsh

[iii] John Rabe, “Der gute Deutsche von Nanking” (1997), Hrsg. Erwin Wickert, VA(German)

[iv] Vautrin, “The Diary of Wilhelmina Vautrin,” November 18, 1937

[v] “Address of John Rabe at farewell party by staff of Nanking Safety Zone,” February 21, 1938

[vi] John Rabe, December 9, 1937

[vii] New York Times, January 4, 1938

[viii] “Telegram from American Embassy in Shanghai to Nanking Safety Zone Committee,” December 2, !937

[ix] Vautrin, “The Diary of Wilhelmina Vautrin,” November 18, 1937

[x] John Rabe, “Der gute Deutsche von Nanking” (1977), Hrsg, Erwin Wickert, VA(German)

[xi] “The China Christian year book 1936-37 (1937), Arthur H. Clark Company, p.77

[xii] Ronald Rees, “China Faces The Storm” (1938), Edinburgh House Press, p.61

[xiii] Ibid. Ronald Rees, p. 48

For details, refer to the book Primary Historical Sources Reveal the Truth about the Nanjing Incident, unraveling the Curse of the American Missionaries’ View of History written by Ikeda Haruka, 2020, published by Tenden-sha.

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories

Senior researcher

Nakamura Satoru

日本語

The biggest crisis in Okinawa

Now, Japan is facing its biggest crisis in the postwar years over the issue of the national security. And Okinawa is the main problem. Not only is Okinawa exposed to a military threat from China, but it also is the subject of a history war. However, the Japanese Government has failed to effectively cope with the grave situation. Therefore, Okinawa has become Japan’s largest national security issue. Ever since the clashing incident of a Chinese fishing vessel off the Senkaku Islands took place in 2010, China has been continuously disseminating propaganda to the effect that “Ryukyu has been a member of the Chinese nation since ancient times and now is struggling for independence against the United States and Japan, which China should support.” China’s most important  basis for the claim is the historical view of the “Ryukyu disposal.” According to the Chinese propaganda view of history, Japan has kept Okinawa under its colonial rule ever since the “disposal of Okinawa” in 1879 (the twelfth year of Meiji). On the other hand, in Japan, in 2006, Suzuki Muneo, a member of the House of Representatives, submitted a statement of inquiry to the House of Representatives: “At the time when the Japanese name of era was changed to Meiji in 1868, did the Japanese Government recognize the Ryukyu Kingdom at that time as an indivisible part of the State of Japan? We ask the Government for a clear answer.” The response of the Government was, “Regarding Okinawa, it is difficult to definitively state since when Okinawa became part of Japan. But it is certain that Okinawa was part of Japan at the latest when early in the Meiji era, the Ryukyu Domain became Okinawa Prefecture.” This is extremely ambiguous and void of trustfulness, I must say. Such an ambiguous historical view is greatly favorable to China, which desperately wants Okinawa.

The positioning of the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture among the Japanese people

Here, let us consider the position of the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture, which is termed as “Ryukyu disposal.” The term “Ryukyu disposal” may give a negative impression as if the Ryukyu Kingdom was ruined. Certainly, in Okinawa, Ryukyu disposal generally meant that the Japanese Army came to Shuri Castle and forcibly took over the castle and sent the then head of the Ryukyu Domain, King Sho Tai, to Tokyo. But to be fair, it was not Okinawa alone that had its castle taken over but the same happened at Domains all over Japan. Castles of Kumamoto, Himeji and Matsumoto followed the same fate after the decree of “Abolishing Domains and Establishing Prefectures” was proclaimed and the respective Heads of Domain turned over their castles throughout Japan. Also, after the Heads of the Domain came to Tokyo, they were treated the same way and raised to the peerage. Currently, the present heads of the Shimazu Family and the Tokugawa Family are alive and so is the present head of the Second Shu Family, the descendant of the Ryukyu King. The Ryukyu disposal does not mean that people living in Okinawa were annihilated or the lineage of Ryukyu King had perished. Essentially, the construction of a modern state by the Meiji Restoration was the transition from the feudalistic system of ruling the country by a “family” to the modern ruling by the government. The rule by the Tokugawa Family was gone and in the 300 domains throughout Japan, the rule by the family of the domain head was abolished, and equally in Okinawa, the rule by the Sho Family ceased. And instead, prefectural governors sent by the Ministry of the Interior were placed in charge of the administration throughout Japan.

The Meiji Restoration started with the crisis in Okinawa and ended with the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture

Looking at the Meiji Restoration from the perspective of Japan’s defense of Okinawa, we can find new significance. In the school history textbooks and history books on the shelves of bookstores, it is interpreted that the Meiji Restoration started with the arrival of the foreign black ships in 1853 at the end of the Edo period and ended with the Seinan Civil War in 1877, the 10th year of Meiji. And as the national border designated after the Meiji Restoration was completed, the Okinawa disposal (the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture) emerged. The Meiji Restoration and the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture were recognized as separate events, which led to the historical view that “as the result of the Meiji Restoration, the Ryukyu Kingdom perished,” and such a view supported the assertion made by a certain power that Okinawa was victimized by Japan or that people of Ryukyu-Okinawa are an indigenous people in Japan. In fact, however, the Meiji Restoration started in Okinawa, the stronghold of the national defense at that time. Patriots in the Satsuma Domain began to feel threatened by the Western Powers when they obtained information that the Chinese Qing dynasty was defeated by Britain in the Opium War in 1842. Two years later, the threat became real. In 1844, French battleship Arcmere came to Ryukyu and its crew demanded that the kingdom open its port. At that time, following the Treaty of Nanjing, the Qing opened her five ports to the Western Powers and Western ships came in a row, approaching Ryukyu. The five ports were Guangzhou, Fuzhou, Shanghai, Ningbo, and Amoy. Look at the East China Sea on the map. On the way from these five ports to Japan, there is Ryukyu (currently Okinawa), which is best situated as the base for opening Japan to the world. The man who most seriously perceived the crisis and contemplated about what path Japan should follow was Lord Shimazu Nariakira of the Satsuma Domain. As soon as Nariakira became the Lord of Satsuma in 1851, he launched the Shusei-kan enterprise of building Western-style ships, reverberatory furnaces and blast furnaces, manufacturing land mines, torpedoes, glass, gas lamps and so forth in order to build a rich and strong military country by promoting modern industries. Two years prior to Perry’s appearance off Uraga, the original framework of the policy to establish a rich and strong military state was implemented in Satsuma (presently Kagoshima), the southernmost part of Japan. The original idea was drafted by Godai Hidetaka, father of Godai Tomoatsu, who led Satsuma’s enlightenment policy after Shimazu Nariakira died. The afore-mentioned Arcmere left, predicting the reentry of a bigger battleship a year later. The Bakufu Government (Tokugawa Shogunate) ordered Satsuma to send guard soldiers to Ryukyu. A member of the personnel who were ordered to sail to Ryukyu asked how to solve the Ryukyu issue and Hidetaka wrote the “Ryukyu secret plan.” The plan specifically stated in the question-and-answer form how to cope with the French military pressure on the part of the Satsuma Domain. The gist of the plan was: in disposal of Ryukyu, implement two alternative policies of refusal and conciliation, 1) refuse to open the country, citing any thinkable excuses and 2) when refusal would not work, then open the country. But never resort to the means of war. And once Japan is opened, Japan must have more powerful military force than the Western countries. Ryukyu disposal was not a plan to destroy Ryukyu, but to protect Ryukyu. That was the root of the secret strategy--the idea of “open the country and become rich and strong military power.” Thus, the Meiji Restoration started with the crisis in Okinawa.

Ryukyu Cannon Ship

There is a ship that confirms the fact that Shimazu Nariakira felt threatened with respect to the defense of Okinawa. That was the Shohei-maru. At that time, it was impossible to build a huge military ship. The Bakufu Government prohibited the building of large ships as one of the regulations of Buke Shohatto, laws prohibiting the military families from conducting several activities  in order to keep them under control. The laws did not change even when Western battleships started to appear along the coast of the Sea of Japan. Nariakira, worrying about the defense of Ryukyu, consulted with the Shogun’s senior councilor Abe and started building the “Ryukyu cannon ship” at Kinko-wan Bay (presently Kagoshima Bay) in 1853 in order to defend Ryukyu. It was three days prior to Perry’s appearance off Uraga. Later, Nariakira remodeled the ship into a Western-style one, renamed it Shohei-maru and dedicated it to the Bakufu Government in 1855. Shimazu Nariakira’s policy of a “rich and strong military state” can be applied to the present-day Japan. As it was at the end of the Bakufu Government, at present, Okinawa is the front of Japan’s defense, and the present Government lacks the strength to protect Okinawa. At the end of the Bakufu Government, a political idea of opening the country and making it rich and militarily strong was born in the Satsuma Domain, which was held responsible for the defense of Ryukyu. Satsuma, after toppling the Edo Bakufu Government, became the center of the Meiji Government, built the Japanese Army, and implemented the policy of making the whole Japan rich and militarily strong, which was the meaning of the Meiji Restoration. Japan lost the power to protect Okinawa on her own, due to the defeat in the Greater East Asian War, and another restoration is indispensable so that Japan may be reborn to become competent enough to protect Okinawa once again. However, the Satsuma Domain does not exist anymore. Japan urgently needs to create a power capable of rebuilding the country’s capacity to defend Okinawa.

*Reference

Tha Secret Plan of Ryukyu [ Original Document ] [ Colloquial Translation ]