カテゴリー: English Articles

Japanese https://i-rich.org/?p=2200

Sugihara Seishiro
President, International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

On September 18, 2024, in Shenzhen, China, a boy pupil of a local Japanese school and his mother were attacked by a 44-years-old Chinese man and the boy was stabbed to death.

The incident was supposedly caused by the patriotic education implemented by Jiang Zemin, who became general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party in 1989, aiming to promote hostility against a particular state. Thus, the tragic incident occurred as the result of anti-Japan education. The anti-Japan education was introduced as means of oppressing the democratization movement like the Tiananmen incident and maintaining the rule of the Chinese Communist Party within China.

At the present time, the rational way for a state to operate is by being a democratic state where those who hold the political power are regularly replaced by the will of the people and the national will is largely formed according to the wishes of the people who constitute the state. In ancient states, the election itself was impossible. Since the election is possible today, it is a right concept in view of the evolution of the law that the will of the state should reflect the choice of the people through election.

Today, however, a type of tyrannical state exists where a certain political body like the communist party or an individual takes hold of the political power and such a group or an individual determines the will of the state. When comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the two political systems, in terms of the deterrent of war, it becomes clear that the democratic state is superior.

In Japan’s history, the Japanese people have been belligerent in certain periods. Now, after having gone through the tragic experiences in World War II and when its battle scenes are conveyed at hand on television and through social media, the people cannot be belligerent in principle. That is because we realize that if a war begins, the people constituting the state will be forced to risk their lives on the battleground. If people feel the danger, naturally, a trend to avoid war emerges among them, which affects the will of the state, leading to deterrence against war.

On the other hand, in a despotic state, the group or individual holding the power never faces the danger of death when a war is started as the will of the state. Consequently, the sense of the necessity to avoid war becomes weaker. Moreover, to maintain its despotic rule, which is not consigned by the people, the ruler may think it necessary to keep the people under stress and possibly resort to waging a war as a means of doing so. Therefore, a despotic state has weaker deterrence against war.

Applying this argument to the antagonistic education against a particular state, it goes without saying that such hostile education against a specific state itself is far from agreeable when it comes to global peace in the 21st century. In a despotic state, the power holding group or individual must establish a policy merely to maintain the despotic rule within the state and exercise the political power for that sake. The ruler may say that it is for the benefit of the state, but, in fact, it is merely for the sake of maintaining the despotic system and for the sake of the ruling group or the individual’s benefit.

Depriving people from their freedoms in a despotic state is an inevitable consequence of the need to maintain the despotic regime and, as a result, the people are oppressed.

While the Chinese people today violently hate Japan, totally affected by the anti-Japan education, at the same time they are robbed of their freedom by the power holding group or the individual and feel desperate under the harsh oppression.

Now, I would like to make a suggestion to the Chinese-origin people all over the world. Presently, there are many people of Chinese background in the United States, Australia and elsewhere who have obtained the nationality in the respective countries and live free from the rule of the Chinese Government. To our surprise, those Chinese-origin people sometimes agitate to promote anti-Japan education in cooperation with the Chinese Government’s overseas propaganda activities or work for the Chinese Government’s “wolf-warrior diplomacy.”

Now, it is time to stop and think. Is it tantamount to leaving the Chinese people in mainland China suffer, unilaterally deprived of their freedom and helping the tyranny go on or even become harsher? If you cooperate with the Chinese Government in this way, that will strip the freedom of the Chinese people in mainland China even further and cause them to suffer in a worse way.

If Chinese-origin people in the world with nationalities other than mainland China criticize the way the Chinese Government is now and resist it, the action will lead to helping the fellow Chinese people and contribute to world peace. I truly want to appeal to the Chinese people with foreign nationalities to take a considerate and brave action.

Nonoda Takahiro
Researcher
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

Japanese https://i-rich.org/?p=2129

1. Introduction—the popularization of the Internet and the present

The commercial use of the Internet was authorized in 1994, and since then the Internet has been an indispensable infrastructure in our present-day social life. An ubiquitous society where everything is inter-connected through a network, which this author referred to in the iRICH statement of December 2022 that Professor Sakamura Ken conceived “a society where everything is connected to a network” (ubiquitous or later, IoT (Internet of Things)[i], has been realized more than thirty years after the TRON project (The Real-time Operating System Nucleus) launched.

In this paper, bearing in mind that with the Internet the way information is disseminated and shared has drastically changed, let me discuss the aggregated information in the World Wide Web (WWW) and its relation to historical controversies.

2.From Web1.0 to Web3.0 

In Web1.0, many individuals have their own website and disseminate diary entries, photos, hobbies and other things of interest. The characteristic of WWW during this phase was that “sender” and “receiver” were clearly present. In this WWW generation, expertise and information were completely within the individual website and the necessary information was being accessed through search engines.

In Web2.0[ii], a large volume of information is concentrated into an information-disseminating platform. YouTube and Wikipedia serve as such platforms. Social networking services, such as Facebook, Instagram and Line attract many users, and information is disseminated toward bilateral directions. These platforms are provided by private companies and naturally, companies providing infrastructure to run such platforms become prevailing.[iii] The so-called GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft) companies are famous and control information in the name of “community rules.”

Web3.0[iv] intends to be free from dependance on platforms. Ultimately, this invention can be considered an effort to make WWW free space by eliminating the need for GAFAM. Concretely, they try to become less dependent on platforms by setting up information diversely.

3.World Wide Web and historical controversies

At the time of Web1.0, individual or group disseminators expressed their own views in the form of a website and the information was posted diversely. In that way, few arguments occurred and even if they did, they were dealt with within the individual website and no all-out argument involving the entire WWW could occur.

In Wikipedia, as an example of the platforms of the Web2.0 period, users post articles on a specific issue and the information is put in order after users’ reviews are posted and the ultimate agreement is reached. In Wikipedia, according to their rules[v], it is required to allow posted information to be cited by viewers and to clearly specify websites, academic papers and publications as information sources. Since there is a risk of authors of articles having partial information sources, to brush up articles with respect to impartiality, a reviewing process is very useful, contributing greatly to this effort. If arguments go the wrong way, Wikipedia information can become biased or misleading or even fake. When getting information from Wikipedia, users should be aware of this risk.

4.Historical controversies in generative AI

Information produced by generative AI, as mentioned in the previous section, largely depends on “teachers’ data” and “machine learning.” Brushing up by machine learning is “expected”, but since this is based on the “view of human nature as fundamentally good,” there is a risk of fake information to be provided by ill-intentioned users. Generative AI has a grave technical issue of how to eliminate ill-willed users.

5.Conclusion

Thus, the history of the World Wide Web has been briefly explained. While information is integrated and stored as a mammoth date file, it is eventually used by a system like generative AI, which extracts information from the gigantic database and presents it as transformed texts.

In historical studies, false study results have been disseminated to the world, and to correct such false results, not only researchers but also the public should realize that in pursing true historical studies, the use of AI has certain limitations. “Teachers’ data” which are the basis of the conclusion generative AI extracts are mostly based on wrong study results in the past, so generative AI makes conclusions based on wrong data and naturally, such conclusions induced by generative AI are wrong. Let me conduct a case study on a theme the International Research Institute of Controversial Histories deals with.

[Case Study]: Evaluation of generative AI in the “comfort women issue”

As an example of generative AI, let me put a question to the two versions of the typical general AI system ChatGPT and examine the results. Let us ask the generative AI system an ambiguous question. The purpose is to analyze in how many sentences the AI answers the question and whether the answer is based on multiple-phased viewpoints (unbiased). As generative AI, ChatGPT is used with the versions GPT-3.5 and GPT-4o.

GPT-4o is a later-versioned AI system, which is equipped with consolidated teachers’ data and tuned-up generative AI engine.

Question: About Comfort women in the Greater East Asian War

Answer (GPT3.5)

The issue of comfort women during the Greater East Asia War (Pacific War) refers to the Japanese military establishing comfort stations in war zones and forcibly mobilizing women (especially those who served during the war) to be used as sexual slaves. This is considered a form of military sexual exploitation and human rights violation during wartime. The Japanese government has previously taken steps to apologize and provide compensation for this issue, but there remain differences in recognition and historical perspectives among the victims and involved parties.

Author’s analysis and consideration:

The contents closely resemble the likely words inscribed on the comfort woman statues built in the United States. The answer is short in less than 200 words. The answer is written only from the viewpoint of the victims and remains a one-sided account.

Answer (GPT-4.0)

The comfort women issue during the Greater East Asia War (World War II) is a historical problem involving the forced use of women as sex slaves by the Japanese military during the war. Below is an overview of the issue.

Background

Comfort women refer to women who were forced to work in comfort stations set up to provide sexual services to Japanese soldiers. These women were gathered not only from Japan but also from Korea, China, the Philippines, Indonesia, and other regions occupied by Japan.

Recruitment Methods

Many comfort women were forcibly taken through violence and deception. The recruitment involved the military and government, and women were often tricked into going by promises of good jobs.

Conditions in Comfort Stations

Life in the comfort stations was extremely harsh. The women were subject to daily sexual violence, and their health deteriorated. Many of them could not return home until the war ended, and even after returning, they continued to suffer from psychological and physical trauma.

Postwar Response

After the war, the Japanese government denied or downplayed the comfort women issue for a long time. However, in the 1990s, former comfort women began to speak out, attracting international attention. In 1993, then Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono issued the “Kono Statement,” acknowledging the Japanese military’s involvement and coercion, and apologized. However, the issue remains unresolved, with ongoing debates over historical recognition and compensation.

Current Situation

The comfort women issue is a particularly important topic in Japan-South Korea relations. In 2015, the Japanese and South Korean governments reached an agreement for a “final and irreversible resolution,” but there has been strong opposition to this agreement, and the issue remains unresolved.

The comfort women issue needs to continue to be discussed as an important historical matter, respecting the dignity and human rights of the women who were victims of the war.

Author’s analysis and consideration:

There are 723 words, three times more than the other answer. However, this answer leaves much to be desired, with a lot of grave fake statements and misinformation. Wrong expressions mentioned are “sex slaves” and “Many of them could not return home until the war ended.” If the person who asked is well-informed, mistakes are easily detected. The answer is mixed with fake information, as mentioned in the statement. It is important to nourish media literacy.

Conclusion of the case study

We can clearly see that in obtaining information regarding controversial historical issues, through generative AI, overseas views of history are strongly reflected, and the system is not yet sufficient to disseminate Japanese views of history to the world. However, information disseminated from Japan came to be adopted among teachers’ data, which helps improve the situation. Therefore, it is important to disseminate Japanese views of history widely in English.

As shown by the case study, the ability to discern the authenticity of information or consider the bias is strongly required of an individual. As information along the line of the receiver’s intention is presented on a priority basis,[vi] it is necessary for the receiver to bear this preference in mind and always be careful about whether the obtained information is biased.

---

[i] YRP Ubiquitous Network Laboratory, greeting from the director (online), cited on July 27, 2024, https://www2.ubin.jp/overview/greeting/.

[ii] O’Reilly Tim. What is Web2.0. (online), cited on July 26, 2024. https://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.

[iii] Iseki Yosuke. World-class cyber jurist discusses “the problem of Web2.0 before the launch of Web3.” Forbes (online), cited on July 27, 2024. https://forbesjapan.com/articles/detail/48144.

[iv] ecbeing. What is Web3.0(Web3)? Dispersive next-generation Internet-ecbeing (online) cited on July 26, 2024. https://www.ecbing.net/contents/detail/318.

[v] Wikipedia. Wikipedia: policy and guideline. Wikipedia(online) cited on July 26, 2024. https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E6%96%B9%E9%87%9D%E3%81%9D%E3%81%A8%E3%82%AC%E3%82%A4%E3%83%89%E3%83%A9%E3%82%A4%E3%83%B3.

[vi] Kaonavi. What is filter bubble phenomenon? Counter-measures using easy examples, kaonavi(online) cited on July 26, 2024. https://www.kaonavi.jp/dictionay/filter-bubble/.

Hiromichi Moteki
Senior Researcher
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

Japanese https://i-rich.org/?p=2133

1．How do junior high school history textbooks describe the Marco Polo Bridge incident and the Second Sino-Japanese War?

How do school history textbooks of respective publishers deal with the Marco Polo Bridge incident that triggered the Second Sino-Japanese War and the ensuing expansion of the war?

Tokyo Shoseki: In July 1937, on the event of armed clash between the Japanese and Chinese Armies around the Marco Polo Bridge in the suburbs of Beijing (the Marco Polo Bridge incident), the Second Sino-Japanese War broke out. The conflict spread toward Shanghai in central China to become an all-out war.

Teikoku Shoin: In July of the following year (1937), triggered by the Marco Polo Bridge incident in the suburbs of Beijing in which the Japanese and Chinese Armies clashed, the Second Sino-Japanese War started. The Japanese Army also invaded from Southern China and occupied Shanghai and Nanjing, the then capital of the Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang) Government.

Kyoiku Shuppan: In July 1937, triggered by the Marco Polo Bridge incident in which the Japanese and Chinese Armies clashed, the Second Sino-Japanese War started. In August, the battle spread to Shanghai and without declaring war, the Japanese Army incessantly strengthened forces and expanded the war front.

Yamakawa Shuppan: Amid the worsening relationship between Japan and China, in July 1937, at the Marco Polo Bridge in the suburbs of Beijing, the Japanese and Chinese Armies clashed (the Marco Polo Bridge incident). Coping with this situation, Prime Minister Konoe Fumimaro adopted at first a non-expansion policy. However, under the pressure from the military and in the face of the nation supporting the military, he changed the original policy, increased the forces and expanded the war zone into an all-out war.

Nihon Bunkyo Shuppan: In July 1937, at the Marco Polo Bridge in the suburbs of Beijing, an incident of military clash occurred between the Japanese and Chinese Armies. This incident triggered a war between Japan and China and in August, which spread to Shanghai. Thus, Japan and China entered an all-out war without declaring war. (The Second Sino-Japanese War).

Ikuho-sha: InJuly 1937, amid the growing tension between Japan and China, the Japanese Army stationed in Beijing was fired at by unknown perpetrator while training near the Marco Polo Bridge in the suburbs of Beijing and a battle started between the Japanese and Chinese Armies (the Marco Polo Bridge incident). The Japanese Cabinet of Konoe Fumimaro adopted a non-expansion policy but then decided to increase the forces. In August, the Chinese Army killed a Japanese military officer in Shanghai, which triggered a battle between the Chinese Army and the Japanese Army stationed in Shanghai.

Reiwa Shoseki: And in July of the following year, 1937, the Marco Polo Bridge incident occurred. At that time, the Japanese Army was stationed in Beijing, following the treaty concluded after the Boxers Rebellion which took place in 1900. Japanese troops, engaged in a night drill near the Marco Polo Bridge, were attacked by an unknown shooter. At dawn on the following day, the Japanese Army attacked the base of the Nationalist Revolutionary Army, which escalated into a battle between the two Armies. After this incident, those who were against escalation and wanted to resolve the matter promptly and those who supported escalation to defeat the Nationalist Revolutionary Army on this occasion conflicted with each other. In due time, cease-fire agreement was reached, but Prime Minister Konoe decided to dispatch troops to the Chinese North. In August, when a battle broke out in Shanghai, Prime Minister Konoe abandoned the non-escalation policy and entered an all-out war.

2．The cease-fire agreement on the scene (July 11) tells the very truth about the Marco Polo Bridge incident

We have seen the respective publishers’ descriptions. Tokyo Shoseki, Teikoku Shoin, Kyoiku Shuppan, Yamakawa Shuppan and Nihon Bunkyo Shuppan unanimously write that a military clash incident between Japan and China at the Marco Polo Bridge led to the total war, without mentioning which side attacked first as if the incident happened accidentally and then the incident grew into a bigger conflict.

Ikuhosha, unlike the above mentioned six publishers, writes that the Japanese military “was shot by someone unknown”, but does not at all mention “from which side.”

Reiwa Shoseki also mentions “being shot by someone,” but does not mention at all “from which side,” either.

In fact, there is extremely powerful evidence regarding “which side opened fire.” It is the “on-the- spot cease-fire agreement,” exchanged by both parties on July 11, four days after the incident. It was a paper agreed to by both parties, the Japanese Army (China Stationed Army (6500 strong) and Chinese 29th Army (100,000 strong) and is very important as such. The agreement consists of the following three paragraphs:

1. The representative of the 29th Army expresses regret to the Japanese military, punishes the one in charge and declares with responsibility that an incident like this shall never occur again in future.
2. The Chinese Army is stationed too close to the Japanese Army at Fengtai, which may easily lead to a conflict, therefore, troops will not be stationed at the east bank of Youngding River near the Marco Polo Bridge and peace and order will be kept by security troops.
3. Considering that the incident was provoked by the so-called Blue Shirts Society, the Communist Party and other anti-Japan bodies, measures shall be taken against them, together with a complete crackdown.

In the first paragraph, the Chinese Army apologizes, admitting that the responsibility for the incident rests on the Chinese side and promises to punish the one in charge. It is not to specify the “perpetrator,” but since the Communist Party can be a possible suspect, they promise to conduct thorough crackdown. In either way, China apologizes for the fact that the perpetrator was Chinese.

Despite the presence of such a clear fact, publishers do not refer to this agreement at all but write ambiguously that “The Chinese Army and Japanese Army clashed,” as if out of the blue, which seems to be an attempt to conceal the true perpetrator. In gist, they neglected the most important “on-the-spot cease-fire agreement” only because they wanted to assert that “the perpetrator was the Japanese Army” intending to escalate the conflict into a total war.

In fact, the description of Jiyu-sha used to mention the on-the-spot cease-fire agreement but did not put the original text of this agreement. They were afraid if they had put it, the textbook would surely fail the accreditation of the China-conscious Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.

In the revised textbook this time, they put this agreement in the column of the textbook with firm belief that it is perfectly adequate to put the solid fact.

Fortunately, the textbook passed the accreditation and the historical fact revealing the truth about the Marco Polo Bridge incident is duly presented in a junior high school textbook.

3．It was not due to “the expansionist” that the war expanded 

Next, what is wrong is that “each of the publishers writes about the reason why the war expanded as if the war escalated in a natural course or that there were expansionists in the Japanese Government and urged by the military and civilian supporters of the expansion policy, war was expanded into a total war.

Here, the very important fact is decisively overlooked. It is the fact that mass murder of civilians was committed by the Chinese Army on July 29 (Tongzhou mutiny), as Frederick Vincent Williams put, “to be recorded in history as the worst mass slaughter ever committed since the ancient time to this day.” As calls “to punish China the outrageous” rose across Japan, the Japanese Government made an epoch-making peace plan (Funatsu Peace Plan) on August 5. The government subdued the voices that demanded “to punish China the outrageous” and maintained the non-expansion policy. The theory that the Japanese people’s anger at the massacre at Tongzhou led to the expansion of the Second Sino-Japanese War is completely wrong.

Based on this peace plan, the first negotiation was held on August 9. However, on the evening of that day, First Lieutenant Oyama of Navy Land Battle Army and First Class Seaman Saito were brutally killed in Shanghai. This atrocity was committed by a power willing to prevent the peace-making efforts. According to the book Mao: the Unknown Story written by Ms. Jung Chang, the murder incident was ordered by Commander Zhang Zhi-zhong of the Nanjing and Shanghai Defense Army, a crypto-Communist Party member. The peace negotiations failed, but it was not because Japan got angry and expanded the attacks. In this case, too, it was the Chinese side that plotted the attack. On August 13, four days later, the 30,000-strong Regular Chinese Army hiding in the demilitarized zone in Shanghai started a total attack on the 4,500-strong Japanese Navy Land Battle Army stationed in Shanghai to protect 30,000 Japanese civilians. Japan could not overlook Chinese negligence of the safety of Japanese residents and the agreement and decided to dispatch two Divisions from mainland Japan. Thus, the decisive expansion of war was plotted by the Chinese side and it never caused by the Japanese expansionists. In addition, on August 15, China issued the National Mobilization Order.

Such important facts are not at all written in school textbooks, but it is written as if “expansionists” and Japanese people’s anger caused the war to expand. How deplorable!

In the first place, in the Tokyo Shoseki textbook, at the beginning of the section “the Second-Sino Japanese War and the War-time regime,” it is asked, “How Japan came to wage the Second-Sino Japanese War and how the war affected the Japanese people.” The textbook ignores the fact and on the premise that Japan started the Second Sino-Japanese War explains the Marco Polo Bridge incident and how things went afterwards. What a pity that such literally “anti-Japan” and “anti-fact” descriptions pass the accreditation of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology!     

Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=2054

International Resarch Institute of Controversical Histories
Senior Researcher Shunichi Fujiki

A body called “Japan Alliance for Truth about Comfort Women” was established on July 29, 2013.

This author had been working on the comfort women issue in various ways before that event and knew about the creation of the new body but wondered why it was necessary to establish a new one when there were already so many.

It was around the time when I was in the United States and stayed overnight to visit the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for the confirmation of the United States archives, on the ground of which we intended to prevent the installation of a comfort woman statue (Statue of a Girl of Peace) slated in the city of Glendale, California, in cooperation with Mr. Tony Marano (a.k.a. Texas Daddy) who lived in Texas.

In September 2013, when I was back in Japan after having completed my investigation in the United States, Mr. Sato Kazuo, secretary of this action body contacted me and asked if I would join the body. Mr. Sato told me that one group organized a panel exhibit of the comfort women issue while another investigated the issue, but since each was acting separately, there was loss in momentum, and that in order to bring the separate efforts together, his organization held a monthly meeting, serving as a window for information sharing, mainly in the form of a mailing list.

Thinking that through information sharing, it would be possible to act more effectively than as an individual body working on its own, I accepted to join this action body, as a representative of Texas Daddy in Japan and personally as a secretary of this body.

The birth of the International Research Institute of Controversial Histories (iRICH)

It goes without saying that the Japan Alliance for Truth about Comfort Women had harvested many fruits since its establishment. During a meeting held at the early stage of the foundation, we discussed the problem that the comfort women were called sexual slaves at the United Nations and that this term was disseminated to the world and then decided to form an investigation team, “Japan Alliance for Truth about Comfort Women United Nations Investigation Team.” This author became a member of the team and participated in the meeting of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women held in July 2014.

To our great surprise, what they discussed at the UN was not only the comfort women issue, but almost everything, ranging from the LGBT issue, which was hardly ever talked about in Japan, to gay couples’ trouble getting into the public housing, the same-sex marriage, Okinawa issue, Ainu issue, “Buraku (segregated village)” issue, the issue of Korean schools in Japan and the most extreme was a claim that the Japanese Imperial Household commits discrimination against women. These were brought to the United Nations by leftist NGOs, including the one organized by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations. We witnessed scenes at which these NGOs were brainwashing the UN Committee members who had little information about Japan.

We also came to learn that Mr. Kaido Yuichi, head of the Japan Federation of. Bar Associations (JFBA) and de facto husband of Ms. Fukushima Mizuho, member of the Japanese House of Councilors, acted like a tour guide for more than a hundred Japanese NGO members and controlled the speech sphere in the United Nations at his will.

This author was totally appalled to find that besides the comfort women issue, these other issues were secretly brought to the United Nations and Japanese domestic laws were drastically changed by these forces. They started acting in the United Nations nearly forty years ago and have been spreading false information that Japan is a terrible country, both domestically and internationally.

Upon returning to Japan from the United Nations, this author reported at the immediate monthly meeting about this situation and proposed to set up an international committee within our alliance body so that when issues other than the comfort women issue come up, we would be able to fully cope with them, without being restricted by the appellation carrying “comfort women.” My proposal was duly accepted.

Later, in November 2017, the international committee became iRICH International Research Institute of Controversial Histories and then it obtained the status of General Incorporated Association in April 2022.

Ten years since our action started

It’s been full ten years since we went to the United Nations for the first time in 2014. During these years, we attended annually almost all meetings related to human rights, held three to five times at the United Nations European Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. We also attended meetings held at the New York Headquarters.

We participated as a team, session by session, and in some cases this author attended alone. Even during the Covid-19 pandemic disaster, we never failed to attend meetings whenever there was a meeting at the United Nations, going through PCR testing many times.

During this period, related to the comfort women issue, besides this author, Sugita Mio, member of the House of Representatives (at that time, out of office), Ms. Yamamoto Yumiko of Nadeshiko Action (Director of this Institute), Mr. Fujioka Nobukatsu (Senior Researcher at this Institute), Mr. Matsuki Kunitoshi (Senior Researcher at this Institute), Mr. Tony Marano (Texas Daddy) and others energetically took part in coping with the issue.

We have worked with many great people: related to the abduction and comfort women issues, Mr. Fujii Mitsuhiko (Refutation Project) also acted at the United Nations several times; related to Okinawa issue, Mr. Nakamura Satoru (Senior Researcher at this Institute) of the Japan Okinawa Policy Study Forum and Ms. Ganaha Masako; related to the Ainu issue, Mr. Sawada Kenichi (Senior Researcher at this Institute) and Mr. Onodera Masaru (former member of Hokkaido Legislative Assembly); related to the mobilized workers and comfort women issues, Dr. Lee woo-youn, researcher at Naksungdae Institute of Economic Research and Korean scholar on Japan; and related to China’s pressure over Hong Kong, we invited activists from Hong Kong and Japan. Thus, we have devoted ourselves to activities to protect Japan in our capacity as civilians.

For the first several years, we had much financial assistance from benefactors and then have continued to work on our own financial strength and have also received support from individuals.

There are many reasons for our consistent activities at the United Nations and we act mainly because it is necessary to obtain information regarding leftist operations at the UN, refute them on the spot and prevent the UN from issuing wrong recommendations, inform the Japanese people of such adverse operations and take prompt measures against them.

In addition, our efforts include establishing prestigious status for conservative Japanese NGOs within the United Nations.

The bond among the leftist frequent visitors to the United Nations is considerably firm. Judging from my ten-year experience at the UN, I have noticed that the leftist groups have two kinds of objectives.

First, they aim to advertise the individual or groups’ names by asserting that they successfully induce the UN into issuing recommendations or Japan into changing its domestic laws. And second, they aim to destroy Japan as a state, using funds provided within or outside Japan or appropriating Japan’s national budget or groups’ money.

We can give as an extreme example of the first case, a group led by lawyer Ms. Ito Kazuko of Human Rights Now, which brought an issue to the United Nations, in their capacity as lawyers, claiming that performance of group gymnastics during an elementary school sports day constitutes child abuse. Against their assertion, this author refuted them, saying, “The performance has been maintained since the Meiji era as physical and mental training for children,” “Needless to say, teachers attend the performers with much care and once they discern any danger, they try to reduce the tiers of a human pyramid,” “In view of fearing lest children should get injured, it is far safter to have them stop riding a bicycle.” Ms. Ito’s assertion was absurd to such an extent. Of course, no U.N. recommendation was issued following her assertion. If a recommendation had been issued and a law had been revised as she required, lawyer Ito would have risen in the public esteem more than a lawyer who just made a new precedent. During these exchanges at the UN, I found out that in its actions, her group cooperated with a certain Japanese mass medium.

Second, there are those who question the Imperial House Law and those against the U.S. military base in Okinawa.

When Okinawan activist Yamashiro Hiroji came to the United Nations, this author refuted Mr. Yamashiro on the spot and prevented a UN recommendation from being issued.

The Sankei Newspaper of June 18, 2017, reported as follows:

“Defendant Yamashiro appealed in front of the crowd of about fifty media and NGO people, saying, “It is no doubt that the improper treatment against us was warning or threat to the Okinawans resisting the Government’s political pressure.”

“However, when asked about the video showing defendant Yamashiro and others inflicting violence upon staff of Okinawa Defense Agency of the Ministry of Defense, defendant Yamashiro evaded the question, saying, ‘I am being advertised as if I were No.1 terrorist in Japan.’ He seemed embarrassed having the fact revealed that he was a ‘perpetrator.’ It was the moment when a lie disseminated by some Japanese through the United Nations was refuted.”

In October last year, Okinawan Governor Tamaki Denny asked Citizens' Diplomatic Centre for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Japanese leftist NGO, for support using the Prefectural taxpayers’ money and made a speech at the Human Rights Council. This author was singularly participating in the meeting and exposed the governor’s lie and deception on the spot. Of course, no UN recommendation came to be issued related to this matter.

The leftist powers have been conducting such activities for forty years. Since this author began regularly visiting the United Nations, in a group or on my own, we have continued working, refuting issues these leftist groups bring to the UN and preventing the UN from issuing inadequate recommendations. If we had not continued working, there would have been many things far beyond our understanding.

At one time, South Korea attempted to register the official U.S. military documents written in 1944 related to the comfort women issue to the UN-affiliated UNESCO’s “Memory of the World.” Against this attempt, Director Yamamoto and others came up with a plan to apply for registration of the same documents under a different interpretation and carried it out successfully. In addition, the Japanese Government led by Prime Minister Abe stopped submitting Japan’s contribution to UNESCO, proposing to reform UNESCO, which was duly realized. This was because the United Nations and its affiliated organs are supposed only to provide the platform for consideration but not to judge which side is correct when it comes to historical issues.

In our opinion, it is no exaggeration to think that our various activities brought about the correction and apology regarding the false reporting of the comfort women issue on the part of the Asahi Newspaper.

Devitalized current leftist activities at the United Nations Human Rights Council

Originally, it cost us 350,000 to 400,000 yen per person to attend a meeting at the United Nations. Currently, under the weak yen, it costs us dearly to act in Switzerland, where prices are highest under the inflated economy. At present, the cost is 800, 000 to 1,000,000 yen per person. Leftist groups have access to abundant money while we, the orthodox campaigners, have to cover our own expenses. We are supported by assistance from benefactors and public donations. Therefore, we cannot afford to engage in activities unless they bring fruits. The leftist groups, based on lies and distorted data they bring to the United Nations, brainwash and lead the ill-informed UN Committee members to issue various recommendations at their will. They could accomplish these results due to their abundant monetary resources.

Maybe, however, as the results of our activities over the decades or because they have judged that the cost effectiveness does not work as well as before, the leftist activities at the United Nations have been remarkably devitalized since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The self-proclaimed disciple of the then lawyer Totsuka Etsuro, who succeeded in defining comfort women as “sexual slaves”, former Professor Maeda Akira of Tokyo Zokei University (currently Professor Emeritus of the University and lecturer at Korean University in Japan) participated in the Human Rights Council to the last, incessantly fabricating stories but has not shown up in the Human Rights Council in recent years.

Besides the Human Rights Council, the United Nations holds the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), which takes place every four or five years against all member countries, in addition to respective UN Convention, Treaty and Covenant-related committees.

Now that we can hardly see leftist activists at the Human Rights Council, it can be judged that the leftists are losing their momentum. Possibly, however, they may try to concentrate their activities on the UPR and respective convention committees. Still, we must be watchful and prepared to cope with them adequately from now on in case they become active again.

“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)