カテゴリー: English Articles

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

International Research Institute of Controversial Histries
Researcher Haruka Ikeda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shoichiro Kawahara
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories
Senior Researcher

1. Lai Ching-te’s value diplomacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Responses from now on

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

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

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

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

Ara Kenichi
Advisor, International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=2395

Kunitoshi Matsuki
Senior Researcher
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

On the past June 3, in South Korea, the presidential election following the dismissal of President Yoon Suk Yeol was held and as mostly expected, Mr. Lee Jae-myung won and took the presidential office. I would like to state my view as to where the Lee Jae-myung Administration will head and how Japan should cope with his administration.

The birth of the despotic Lee Jae-myung Administration

One thing is certain: in South Korea, the President takes hold of all powers. Naturally, the President himself directly controls the administrative branch. President Lee appointed his men to all the important posts, such as the prime minister and the director of the top intelligence organ of the National Intelligence Service. As for the legislative body, since the ruling “Together Democratic Party” occupies the absolute majority of seats in the national legislature, bills and budget proposals and personnel proposals will easily pass the Assembly without much opposition.

How about the judicial aspect? The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Korea is appointed by the president and takes office after the approval by the National Assembly. The incumbent chief justice is conservative, but his term of office expires in June 2027, two years from now, and the next chief justice will be practically appointed by President Lee Jae-myung. Regarding the rest of the justices, nine out of the twelve justices are to be replaced due to the expiration of their terms while President Lee Jae-myung is in office. The justices of the Supreme Court are appointed by the president, following the recommendation by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the approval by the National Assembly. Therefore, newly appointed justices are most likely to be those close to the administration.

As for the Constitutional Court, the Court is composed of nine justices, three of whom are selected respectively by the president, the National Assembly and the Supreme Court Chief Justice. Consequently, if as of June 2027, pro-president Supreme Court Chief Justice is to take office, almost all the Constitutional Court justices will be pro-President Lee Jae-myung.

The mass media, the so-called fourth power, are in the same political situation. The board members of the Korean public broadcasting stations, such as KBS and MBC, are appointed by the President on the recommendation by the governmental organ of the Korean Communications Commission (KCC). Consequently, those who align with President Lee Jae-myung’s intentions are to be elected board members, rendering the public broadcasting nothing but the advertising organ for the government. It is highly probable that the Lee Jae-myung administration will become a despotic one without any brakes.

Uniting the people through anti-Japan agitation

Serious social problems permeate South Korea, such as lingering high-unemployment rates among young people, expanding social inequality, and sharply declining birthrate rarely seen elsewhere in the world. Moreover, the national economy came to impasse, due to its heavy dependence on exports, and the economic growth rate for the first quarter of this year fell to minus 0.2 %. All these problems derive from structural failures and cannot be resolved overnight. Amid rising concerns over a fuzzy future, the people’s frustration will be directed against the Lee Jae-myung’s government.

The conservative powers within South Korea will never remain silent. In the first place, Mr. Lee Jae-myung evokes much suspicion because of his own dubious acts. Presently, he faces five lawsuits over the money he illegally sent to North Korea while in the gubernatorial office of Gyeonggi Province, and inappropriate conduct over the city development while he was a mayor of Seongnam City. Although the president has a privileged immunity from lawsuits, it is legally ambiguous whether the immunity can be applied to the cases which occurred before he became president. From now on, the conservative power will thoroughly hold the president accountable for these suspicious deeds, which have become the Achilles’ heel of the Lee Jae-myung’s government.

In the previous presidential election, over 40% of the votes were against Lee Jae-myung and if the conservative powers gain momentum and win decisively the next 2028 general election, it may be possible for the National Assembly to make a proposal to impeach President Lee Jae-myung. Although the president holds the personnel control over the Constitutional Court, if the anti-Lee Jae-myung public opinion becomes strong and the justices cater to it, the impeachment may become reality.

If President Lee Jae-myung is to avoid such “threat,” he must win the public opinion and have the ruling party dominate in the next general election. However, it is extremely difficult for the current government to achieve satisfactory results for the people in little time. Under such circumstances, there is no alternative but to turn the people’s dissatisfaction into “anger against Japan” by bringing back the historical issues, already settled in the past, inciting the anti-Japan sentiment.

Even if he voices the friendly Japan-South Korea cooperative policy line, the true nature of Mr. Lee Jae-myung is “China-friendly and anti-Japan” as seen from his past words and conduct. In his campaign promises, he clearly stated that he would “recover the honor of the former comfort women and bring about compensation as much as possible.” On the pretext of “realizing the campaign promise,” he may bring back the “comfort women issue,” which had been finally and irreversibly resolved and ask Japan for “apology and compensation.” In South Korea, a country strongly affected by anti-Japan sentiment, the more aggressively the president reacts against Japan, the more popular he becomes. And the ruling party will surely win in the next election.

His next target is the revision of the South Korean Constitution. In the Korean Constitution, the presidential term is limited to five years, without reelection. In the past, many of the consecutive presidents were judged guilty by the court after the expiration of the presidential term and met disastrous fate. Mr. Lee Jae-myung will be an ordinary person when he retires from the presidency. He is very suspicious, and it is easily foreseeable that he will be ruined, after being held accountable for several criminal deeds. To avoid such dire destiny, the only way is to become re-elected president. The South Korean president holds the right to propose constitutional revision and if Mr. Lee Jae-myung proposes, “Let us make it possible for the president to be re-elected, just like in the United States,” the proposal will probably pass. He will win the second term, resorting to every possible means under the despotic system he himself builds up and may even think of the way to the lifetime presidency.

Let’s stop the despotism through Japan-South Korea cooperation

If the government holds both legislative and judicial powers and anti-government activities are legally oppressed, there will be no freedom of speech, and the society will become no different from a socialistic regime. The danger does not stop here. The “China-friendly, and anti-Japan” political line the Lee Jae-myung administration plans to pursue will weaken the U.S.-Japan-South Korea alliance and in the worst scenario, it is feared that South Korea will be entirely swallowed up by China. If this becomes a reality, Japan would be obliged to directly face the hegemonic state of China, and Japan’s autonomy and independence may be threatened. To avoid such situation, the peoples of Japan and South Korea must cooperate and stop the despotic Lee Jae-myung regime, using all means.

I already mentioned that Mr. Lee Jae-myung will use “anti-Japan sentiment” to bring the Korean people together. However, this “anti-Japan sentiment” is nothing but “unjustified resentment” imprinted by anti-Japan education that distorts history. Fortunately, despite their small numbers, in South Korea, some scholars raised their voices to point out this fact. The book Anti-Japanese Tribalism written by the former professor at Seoul University Lee Younghoon concretely refutes the historical distortion in the anti-Japan education; it became a best seller in South Korea.

The claim that comfort women were “sexual slaves” taught in the anti-Japan education turned out to be not true and instead, the fact that they were simply prostitutes came to be known by many South Korean people. Civilian movements by South Koreans for the withdrawal of comfort woman statues built everywhere are expanding. In addition, more and more people gain access to various information through the Internet and come to doubt the credibility of what has been taught through the anti-Japan education.

What Japan should do is to provide an active support, so that these new waves may spread across South Korea. If South Korea wants to bring back again the historical issue, which has been resolved between the two countries, Japan must refute the claims one by one, truth by truth. If the anti-Japan historical view asserted by Mr. Lee Jae-myung is revealed to be a lie, his authority based on “anti-Japan sentiment” will fall, opening the way for the Korean conservative forces to come back. Mr. Lee Jae-myung may be impeached.

For the future of both peoples of Japan and South Korea, I, as a member of the International Research Institute of Controversial Histories, will continue to do my best. In addition, I ardently hope that the Japanese Government is determined to protect Japan’s national interest and undauntedly cope with the Lee Jae-myung administration and carry out its important responsibilities.

Japanese: https://i-rich.org/?p=2349

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

Forty years or so after an incident occurred, when few survivors remain, fake information is spread, and sometimes the utter fabrication may be perceived as a ‘fact.’ “During World War II, the Japanese Army abducted young girls and women in the occupied regions, made them sexual slaves called comfort women, abused them, and when the war was over, most of them were killed.” The lie conceived about the so called comfort women issue is such an example.

And now, another type of fake information is being spread. It is the crash accident of Japan Airlines Flight 123 at Mt. Osutaka in 1985. The comfort women issue and the JAL’s accident may appear completely unrelated, but the common aspect of fake information is the anti-Japanese smear of the Japanese Army and Self Defense Forces.

Fake information linking the suspect to Japan Self Defense Forces

JAL’s flight 123 crashed down on Mt. Osutaka on August 12, 1985, killing 520 people on board, the worst airplane accident in history. The airplane accident investigation committee reportedly ascribed the cause of the crash to improper repair on the rear pressure bulkhead, which led the bulkhead to break down during the flight. The Japan Self-Defense Forces sent about fifty thousand troops for the disaster rescue mission. They accomplished the difficult task of rescuing survivors and retrieving victims’ bodies at a very inhospitable location.

Already at that time, there was a conspiracy-theory type of criticism against the Japan Self-Defense Forces participating in the rescue mission. However, now, forty years after the incident, fake information that the crash was perpetrated by the Self-Defense Forces is being spread again.

The theory of the JSDF as a perpetrator can be summed up as follows:

1)Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force’s escort ship in Sagami Bay during missile launching drill accidentally destroyed part of the JAL aircraft’s vertical tail. 2) Then, two Phantom II jet interceptors followed the JAL plane and shot it down with a missile. 3) After the plane crashed on Mt. Osutaka, the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force burned survivors and bodies, using flame throwers, to conceal evidence. 4) For that operation, they intentionally delayed the identification of the crash site and sending of an airborne brigade for the rescue mission. 5) Since the JAL’s pilot who once belonged to the Maritime Self-Defense Force knew about this plan and possessed materials related to the secret mission, a member of the Self-Defense Forces stripped the pilot’s body found on August 14 of his uniform and destroyed the material evidence.

The theory was too absurd for any member of the Self-Defense Forces or those concerned to believe or refute at that time. However, in the Internet sphere, this kind of fake information attracts many viewers and not a few people believe in the theory. Also, books promoting the theory of the Self-Defense Forces being the perpetrator sold hundreds of thousands of copies. Three books among them were selected for recommendation by the National School Libraries Association and were displayed at school libraries. At Mt. Osutaka, a memorial monument, inscribed with the statement that Passengers, Victims were intentionally killed by the Self-Defense Forces, was installed by bereaved families.

Refute fake information with facts

Deeply worried about this situation, former Self-Defense Forces members and former Japan Airlines employees testified at a symposium held at the House of Councilors Hall on April 16, 2025.

There, the theory of JSDF being the perpetrator was refuted:

1. The escort ship Matuyuki at Sagami Bay was in fact handed to the Maritime Defense Force in March of the following year (1985). At the time of the accident, the ship belonged to Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. and the person in charge of the ship was the captain appointed by Ishikawajima-Harima and many of the crew were civilians. As such, no missile was installed aboard the ship. In the first place, a missile launching drill was never conducted in Sagami Bay. If such a drill had been held, many people would have seen flames.
2. Two Phantom II jets of the Air Self-Defense Force scrambled from Hyakuri base in Ibaraki Prefecture at 19:01, four minutes after the JAL plane disappeared from the radar. There was no scrambling before the two Phantoms. Therefore, no Phantom pursued the JAL plane. After the Phantoms returned to the base, it was also confirmed that no missile was launched. Within the Self-Defense Forces, the management and handling of weapons is very strictly conducted. If a plane should return, missing a single missile, it would certainly raise hell.   
3. Immediately after the accident, it is physically impossible to carry portable flame throwers and fuel to the site. According to one book, flame throwers burned the area of 3.3 hectares. However, to burn the area of 3.3 hectares, it will require 220 sets of portable flame throwers, which is equivalent to the total number of portable flame throwers that the Ground Self-Defense Force possesses and 16 to 17 steel drums each containing 200 liters of fuel. In addition, to produce gelled oil, it usually takes one full day or at least five to six hours. To conduct such a huge-scale mission in a little time in secret is totally impossible.
4. As to the identification of the crash site, they tried to identify the accurate location from airplanes. The area burning around the crash site stretched like a long band and using the TACAN (tactical air navigation system) at that time was not free from errors. A little error makes a big difference in the steep mountain ridges. At that time, there was no GPS (global positioning system) available, and it was difficult to specify the location by the ground map. Another book writes that the rescue dispatch order to the First Airbourne Brigade on the day of the accident was changed, and they were ordered to stand by until the next morning, allegedly to intentionally delay the rescue dispatch. This is a sheer lie. In the first place, there was no standby order, and it was the next morning after the crash that the First Airbourne Brigade received the mission order.
5. During the work of retrieving bodies on August 14, there were already many people concerned and media people at the site. If a dead pilot wearing his uniform had been found, everybody would have seen it. It would have been impossible to remove the uniform from the pilot’s body. Aboard a helicopter, bodies were covered with blankets and tightly laid side by side. It was impossible to strip the body of the uniform. As a matter of fact, the pilot body was found on August 29, only the lower jaw and several teeth remaining.

Never repeat the tragedy of the comfort women issue

It is argued that the comfort women in wartime were sexual slaves. People at that time would have laughed off such a story as a lie. However, Yoshida Seiji’s book was published, the Asahi Newspaper reported it in the 1990s, and leftist lawyers and civil groups acted overseas. Consequently, the concept of “comfort women being Japanese military sexual slaves” spread through the international community, and comfort woman statues were installed across the world. If somebody dared to refute the sexual slavery theory, they were harshly criticized as “history revisionist.”

If a member of the Self-Defense Forces refutes the fake information asserting the theory of the Self-Defense Forces being the perpetrator, the Internet speech sphere criticizes it as the perpetrator’s excuse and speech control by the State. Those who delight at the spread of anti-Self Defense Forces information are leftist groups in Japan and South Korea, as well as North Korea and China. Both the comfort women issue and fake information over the JAL crash incident are wars of intelligence and history. They are also wars of recognition, streaming fake or biased information, using information media such as Social Network Services and Internet, and influencing receiver’s thinking and judgement. To protect the honor of the members of Japan Self-Defense Forces and to convey the correct history to the next generation, we must not leave fake information as it is but must patiently keep disseminating the truth.

Japanese: https://i-rich.org/?p=2359

Seishiro Sugihara
President
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories (iRICH)

The political feud this time was caused by shortcomings in the current constitution

In the South Korean presidential election held on June 3, 2025, as expected, Lee Jae-myung of the “Together Democratic Party” won and became the South Korean President on the next day.

Plainly speaking, the political chaos this time triggered by the former President Yoon Suk Yeol declaring martial law was solely due to shortcomings in the current Constitution of the Republic of Korea.

On December 4, the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea resolved to demand the lift of the martial law and President Yoon immediately cancelled the martial law. Later, on December 14, the National Assembly resolved to follow up with impeachment proceedings to purge the president. If the Korean impeachment proceedings were the same as the non-trust resolution cited in the Japanese Constitution, the President could have authorized the dissolution of the National Assembly and then called a general election. If the newly elected members of the National Assembly would vote in favor of the President, he would be able to resume the presidency, and if voted otherwise, he would lose the presidency. If this had been the case, the political feud this time would have been settled orderly by the people’s consensus.

From this perspective, the Korean Constitution has a peculiar stipulation, albeit it has some advanced stipulations when it comes to human rights. For example, Article 84 stipulates the crime of insurrection by the President and conflicts with other countries. Article 76 authorizes the President to issue emergency orders against domestic and foreign insurrections, and Article 77 authorizes the President to declare martial law in case of national emergencies. Why, then, is the crime of insurrection stipulated? Is it that the crime of insurrection means act committed to cause insurgence with the purpose to replace the government? How is it possible that the President authorized to issue emergency orders and martial law could be charged with the crime of insurrection? As the issue of insurgence was raised this time, the police investigated the President on the charge of inciting a riot, which seems quite odd in view of the rule-of-law principle.

Under the Yoon Suk Yeol administration, the “Together Democratic Party” made impeachment proposals 31 times, following the Constitution. Before that, impeachment proposals were made 18 times in 38 years since the Constitution was proclaimed in 1987. Comparing these numbers, we can see how often the impeachment was proposed under President Yoon Suk Yeol. Although it was legally and politically improper that President Yoon declared the martial law as a warning, I would rather emotionally sympathize with him to a certain extent.

The birth of the current South Korean Constitution emphasizing judiciary power

In South Korea, after the military administrations by Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan, in June 1987, democratization was declared on July 12, and on October 29, the tenth-revised Constitution came into effect as the current one, after nine revisions since the Constitution of the Republic of Korea was proclaimed on July 12, 1948. And in December,1987, presidential election was held and Roh Tae-woo became President. Since then, presidents elected by the people ensued.

In such political historical background, President Yoon declared martial law and naturally, the Korean people could not agree to the martial law.

However, the Constitution, seemingly over-conscious of the military administrations, is too dependent on judicial power and in that respect is somewhat inappropriate. Beyond the principle of separation of the three powers in the rule of law, it is too dependent on the work of judiciary power, deviating from the principle of separation of the three powers. Principally, political issues to be dealt with based on the political intention of the people are intended to be addressed by the judiciary power, whose task should be to carry out judicial justice and provide a correct interpretation of laws. Such attempts ultimately lead to the division of the people.

In the end, under the current constitution, President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law on December 3 last year and on the 14th, the National Assembly voted for impeachment, suspending the presidential office and on April 4, this year, the Constitution Court ruled that the President be dismissed. Following the decision, the presidential election was held on June 3.

On the other hand, as for Lee Jae-myung of the “Together Democratic Party,” who had been charged with violation of the “Public Offices Election Act,” the South Korean Supreme Court overturned the verdict of the original court citing not guilty and ruled otherwise, and Lee Jae-myung was on the verge of being non-qualifier for the presidential run. The High Court, on being remanded the verdict, decided that the court hearing be held on June 18, after the presidential election, postponing the original court date of May 15. By this decision, Lee Jae-myung was able to run for President and was consequently elected President. After all, the appointment of the new President Lee Jae-myung and the impeachment of the former President Yoon Suk Yeol were realized by the hands of judges who are not chosen by the people.

The Korean people want to reform the Constitution, focusing on the judicial issue

Fortunately, the people of the Republic of Korea are wise and most of them want constitutional reform. They have a strong interest in courts and want a reform of the judicial system. During the presidential election this time, both the ruling “People Power Party” and the opposition “Together Democratic Party” cited constitutional reform among their policies. Responding to the people’s intention, they should address the issue of constitutional reform, focusing on the reform of the judicial system.

What is judiciary, then? I would like to consider what the role of law is in terms of the separation of the three powers under the “rule of law” or “nomocracy.” It goes without saying that in terms of written law, judiciary’s ultimate role is to faithfully follow law, and in case of non-written law, through court procedures, judiciary exercises the final interpretation and judgement of the matter in question. And it is presumed that the interpretation thus made shall be applied in the same manner when dealing with any case of the same nature.

Such a judiciary act is not an act of the government but interpretation of law, conducted by judges who are selected from individuals with the required qualifications. Through lawsuits, in order to exercise the same judgement regarding the same issue, there is the system of the three stages of courts, namely, district court, high court and the supreme court.

The judiciary follows the Constitution, the highest written law. Therefore, when the legislative body makes a law against the Constitution, the judiciary is authorized to nullify the law in question. This is principally done through lawsuits. Article 13 of the current South Korean Constitution stipulates that the retroactive legislation shall not be applied to suffrage and property right. If such a retroactive law is made, those who are to lose their rights can file a lawsuit. During the court process, it is clarified that such legislation is against the Constitution and thus the law’s effectiveness is halted. Thus, it is made clear that the judiciary exercises the final interpretation regarding the Constitution and law.

In this sense, the judiciary is opposite to the government. However, the current Korean constitution so easily designates to court decision matters that should be dealt with by the government.

In discussing what judicial power is, we must look at the “theory of governing act.” The executive branch in charge of administrative power is authorized to declare martial law or something similar in the case of national emergency, without grounds written in the law. For example, when North Korea militarily invades South Korea or huge earthquake hits most parts of the country, the government should immediately cope with the dire situation, and emergency orders, including martial law, can be issued. This is the right concept under the “rule of law” or “nomocracy.”

Article 76 of the current South Korean Constitution stipulates that in the case of domestic insurgence, foreign raid or natural disaster, emergency orders shall be issued, and Article 77 stipulates that martial law shall be declared in case of a national emergency.

Regarding former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s declaration of martial law on December 3 last year, there are different views as to whether his act was constitutional based on the article of the constitution or not. Strictly speaking, it looks like both. There was no such emergency as to require martial law and his act was unconstitutional. On the other hand, he immediately cancelled the martial law, following the disapproval of the National Assembly and on December 14, he followed the Assembly’s resolution of impeachment and purge from the office. This shows that he acted according to the Constitution. Then, even if the martial law was issued politically in a wrong manner, the case should have been dealt with by the Assembly’s disapproval. Therefore, it can be interpreted that the act was formally constitutional. However, former President Yoon reportedly tried to hold Assembly members in custody, and in this sense, former his declaration of martial law could partially have been unconstitutional.

When we think about the role of judiciary, we must take the concept of “theory of act of government” into account. Regardless of the existence of written-law grounds, the administration has a special role when it comes to government. This theory is so important that we cannot eliminate this way of thinking.

This theory was strongly advocated in Japan in December 1959 by Tanaka Koutaro, the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Japan and jurist, in connection with the verdict of the case called the “Sunagawa incident.” In the Japanese Constitution, interpreted literally, Article 9 stipulates that Japan shall possess no armed forces. In a further literal interpretation, it is also unconstitutional to have foreign armed forces stationed in Japan. Therefore, it can be concluded that it is unconstitutional to have the United States forces stationed in Japan because it is tantamount to having “armed forces” in Japan. How did Justice Tanaka judge in this situation?

Justice Tanaka did not say either constitutional or unconstitutional because judging whether it is constitutional or not is not within the jurisdiction of the judicial court. That is, a highly political state act related to the foundation of the state government is an issue beyond the jurisdiction of the court, even when it is possible to judge through court proceedings whether it is constitutional or not.

In gist, the role of judiciary is to carry out the final interpretation of law through lawsuits. Even so, there are matters related to government that are outside the jurisdiction of the court. We must say this was an extremely important judgement regarding the role of the judiciary.

In case of the current Korean Constitution, it is highly respectable that democratization was declared in June 1987 and efforts were made to protect democracy under “rule of law” or “nomocracy.” However, when it comes to the role of the judiciary under the Constitution under “rule of law” or “nomocracy,” it was made to play inappropriate role, including the case of “theory of governmental act.” Plainly speaking, what should be politically resolved based on the people’s intention has been entrusted to the judiciary, whose task is to pursue the rightful interpretation of law.

Through the presidential election campaign this time, both the then ruling “People Power Party” and the then opposition “Together Democratic Party” held up the policy of constitutional reform. However, there were few reform plans advocating judicial issues. There are many reforms to be made, such as the regulation of the one five-year-term only presidential office. The worst fault of the South Korean Constitution is that what should be solved politically is entrusted to judicial judgement. Unless this fault is overcome, there will be no stability of the South Korean government.

From this viewpoint, speaking of South Korean principles of order of law and constitution, further consideration of viewpoints is necessary, regarding the prohibition of legislation of exclusively specified matter and prohibition of retroactivity.

When there is only “rule of law” worthy of the name of rule, under “rule of law” and “nomocracy,” no legislation applicable solely to specific individuals is permissible. The premise of general law must be constantly observed. Moreover, legislation that can be disadvantageous to specific individuals must be strictly adherent to the rule of non-retroactivity. That is, legislation related to individual disadvantage must strictly follow the principle of non-retroactivity, which means that such legislation should be strictly applied to cases that occur after the legislation. Unless this principle is observed, such a state cannot be said to be a state worshiping “rule of law” and “nomocracy.” In South Korea, as a leading state in the world, those who are engaged in law-related legislation, administration and judiciary must seriously recognize this idea and work to make South Korea one of the most excellent modern states in the world.

Bi-partizan structure in South Korea

Article 8 of the current South Korean Constitution stipulates that when a political party’s purpose or activity is judged to violate fundamental domestic order, such party shall be possibly dissolved. This judgement is made by the constitutional court. In the case of South Korea, in the north sits the communist brother state and constant vigilance is unavoidable, so a pro-North Korea and communist-admiring political party is impermissible. It is understandable that its Constitution holds such stipulation. Consequently, however, what kind of political structure may come into existence? Under the political structure void of communism, after all, bi-partisan system, like that of the United States, with a slight difference between conservatives and non-conservatives or liberals and non-liberals will be practically established. In addition, in Japan before the war, when the communist party was illegal, Seiyu Party and Minsei Party became two major parties and entered into one battle after another only to fail to establish a sound political party government. One of the reasons was that since the communist party was illegal and communist activities were strictly suppressed by the special police, placing the party out of the public sight, the political world did not have to worry about the communist party.

In the postwar Japanese political world, the communist party is legal as long as it does not plot a violent revolution. Political abilities of many parties are to be judged by the distance they keep from the communist party. In this respect, vigilance regarding communist activities now is an everyday concern   and as a result, the Liberal Democratic Party upholding the conservative political line has long held the administration.

In South Korea, there will be no alternative but to maintain stability through bipartisanship. 

Then, the legislators should stop abusing the previous administration and degrading those involved in the former administration every time the government changes hands. In this respect, Lee Jae-myung, who became President with the help of the judiciary, said in his inauguration speech on June 4 that he would “stop the division.” To this end, he should pardon the declaration of martial law by former President Yoon Suk Yeol as a kind of constitutional act. Considering this unthinkable declaration of martial law was an error committed by the opponent and a deplorable selfish goal, it is important for him to leniently cope with it. While in the presidential office, it may be permissible for him to make a law favorable to him such as exempting him from the lawsuit and suspending the trial, but he should not promote legislation which is impermissible under the “rule of law” or “nomocracy.”

Then I want him to work on a constitutional reform so that the division may be removed. To realize this goal, it is necessary to constantly reflect the people’s intention and make adjustments accordingly like the United States with the four-year presidential term, where half of the Congress members are elected through the mid-term election so that the President’s government may be judged by the people.

Expectations from Japan

Allow me to repeat that during his inauguration speech on June 4, the newly elected President   Lee Jae-myung said that he would eliminate the domestic division and internationally make practical diplomatic efforts, valuing the relationship of South Korea, Japan and the United States and Japan-South Korea relationship. This may be realized. In Japan during the time of the Meiji Restoration, before the great cause of national unification, severely conflicting Satsuma and Choshu domains came to unite and form an alliance. Just like what happened in Japan, President Lee Jae-myung may drastically change and stop the long history of ill vengeance on the previous administration, become a truly great president and dissolve the conflict within the country. President Lee himself is to deal with five criminal charges against him. However, he may be possibly pardoned and exempted from the charges forever as a great president by the next president.

However, at the base supporting President Lee Jae-mung lies the magma-like dormant power about to erupt with anti-Japan issues of mobilized workers and comfort women. There may be chances at any moment of the magma erupting and freeze Japan-South Korea relationships like ice. If so, Japan must be fully prepared for any symptom of the Lee Jae-myung administration using the anti-Japan card and if such action becomes imminent, Japan should immediately freeze economic and diplomatic friendship and keep President Lee Jae-myung from making any little steps toward such action. This may turn beneficial for the future decisions that President Lee Jae-myung could make.

At present, both Japan and South Korea suffer declines in the number of births. However, in the global perspective, both countries are ranked among the most advanced in the world. In the average lifespan, Japan ranks first and South Korea third. It is extremely regrettable that between the most advanced countries in the world, a groundless anti-Japan policy is implemented, and anti-Japan sentiment swallows up people’s minds. It may be permissible as historical recognition of the South Korean people that Japan’s annexation of Korea in 1910 was colonization of Korea by Japan, but it was not unilateral exploitation on the part of Japan.

When World War II was over and Korea was revived as one nation, many systems established under Japan’s rule of Korea were preserved. Among those that remained were the police system and the grand and competent bureaucratic system. Looking today at a country that became modernized and one of the most advanced countries in the world, one can understand how valuable the positive heritage of Japan’s rule is. Apart from the emotional aspect, the people must have come to the stage where they can objectively recognize it.

Besides, the anti-Japan feelings in postwar South Korea were purposefully promoted by consecutive governments through anti-Japan education. Present-day South Koreans seems to recognize already that the anti-Japan sentiment was partly brought about by the anti-Japan education. They are now at the stage where they must get rid of anti-Japan feelings for the sake of the honor of South Korea.

Geopolitically, at present, South Korea is in a position where it has to confront the despotic nuclear powers of North Korea, China and Russia. South Korea, Japan, the United States and Taiwan are in the relationship of mutual assistance as universal democracies. If so, there is no room or time for anti-Japan claims under the current circumstances. At any hint of an anti-Japan movement, Japan must immediately freeze the policy of promoting the Japan-South Korea friendship. It is naturally good for Japan to freeze the friendship at the hint of an anti-Japan action on the part of the Lee Jae-myung administration. It is also indispensable, necessary and good for South Korea and the newly elected Lee Jae-myung. In this way, we can help President Lee Jae-myung become the greatest and best president in Korean history.

What I have said so far is not meant to be a patronizing message from Japan. In Japan, too, the judiciary has become abnormal. The Supreme Court of Japan has deteriorated extremely when it comes to judging ability and competence. I am concerned about the judiciary world in Japan and want to have Japanese Constitution reformed as well.

Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=1996

Sawada Kenichi
Senior Researcher of International Research Institute

Introduction

Some people say, “The Ainu are a northern people,” “The Aine are not the descendants of the Jomon people,” or “The Ainu are not a Japanese people.” However, these are misunderstood conceptions which may shake the foundation of Japan, and any assertion based on such false recognitions can be extremely dangerous. I will now correct the false recognitions and explain how fallacies put Japan into a crisis.

Mr. Matoba Mitsuaki of Hokkaido is regarded as the leader of the conservative view regarding Hokkaido, and I pay due respect to him for his work. However, when it comes to the issue of Ainu, his view is utterly misleading, and I cannot help condemning him for the dangerous direction to which he may be leading Japan. Let me explain why so.

The fault of Mr. Matoba’s assertion

Once I received a text message from a friend asking if I had seen YouTube video titled “Matoba Class #60: History tells of the Ainu’s genetic element of the Jomon people.”[i] I did not see the video and so immediately checked it. The part of the video about 37 minutes into it, which my friend described as totally astounding, was the most extraordinary explanation that “Ainu are not the descendants of Jomon people, using a chart (Chart 1) of the pedigree which shows Ainu in Hokkaido, Okinawans and the mainlanders derive from the same branch.

If you read this chart correctly, the Ainu, Okinawans and mainlanders derive from the same genetic branch and are all descendants of the Jomon people. Nevertheless, in the video, a completely opposite explanation is calmly being made, which made me totally astounded.

Then, other people contacted me to point out the video is wrong. This video mostly explains the segregated people. Why is it about the segregated people? That is because Mr. Matoba explains that during the Edo period, a large number of segregated people moved from Honshu in mainland to Hokkaido and mixed with Ainu people. Even if it is true that there were certain cases of mixing with the segregated, it is hardly thinkable that all of them were mixed. Even so, this conclusion is clearly wrong.

Chart 1 The Formation Model of people of the Japanese archipelago from the book Japanese People Seen from DNA, written by Saito Naruya, Chikuma Shinsho, 2015.

According to Mr. Matoba’s explanation, “the Ainu people are northern tribe having nothing to do with the Jomon people.” That is, the original Ainu did not have Jomon people’s genes, but the segregated people came and mixed with Ainu, through which Jomon people’s genes entered Ainu people. However, the present-day mainlanders possess about 10% of the genes deriving from the Jomon people. Against this percentage, today’s Ainu people possess about 70% of genes deriving from the Jomon people.[ii] [iii] Should all Ainu people have genetically become segregated people, the ratio of their genes could never reach 70%. It would have been 10% at most.

Using the segregated people up front in a manner like this is extremely inappropriate and poses a serious human rights issue. An academic mistake can be corrected, but a statement made concerning human rights cannot be corrected academically.

Mr. Matoba’s view has many other faults. Let me mention just one more. Thirty-six minutes into the video in question, immediately after Mr. Saito Naruya said, “Ainu are the direct descendants of Jomon people,” Mr. Saito said, “It’s not true,” and this scene is repeatedly quoted. By doing so, it is explained as if Mr. Saito said, “Ainu are not Jomon people’s descendants.”

In fact, I had seen Mr. Saito’s video “Ethnical relationship in East Asia seen from genetic analysis”[iv] before and felt great sense of disparity at the above-mentioned scene, because Mr. Saito squarely explains that Ainu are descendants of the Jomon people in his books. So, I directly called Mr. Saito on the phone to confirm it. Mr. Saito said what Mr. Saito meant in the video was “they were not 100% Jomon people.” I would like Mr. Matoba to read Mr. Saito Naruya’s books once again.

To sum up, what the chart means in Mr. Matoba’s video in question is explained in the context which is opposite to the author’s intention, and this is an academic problem. At the same time, he lightly uses the segregated people in his explanation, which can be said to include a serious human rights issue. It can be concluded that the assertion in the video “Matoba school series #60: History tells the Ainu people’s genetic element of the Jomon people” is inadequate and misleads public opinion.

The danger in Mr. Matoba’s assertion with respect to the relationship with Russia   

Academic errors will occur. Those errors are to be corrected through academic controversies over time. However, when it comes to the issue related to the Ainu, we cannot be so slow and time-consuming. I will explain the reason for quick action now.

Mr. Matoba says that Ainu are a northern tribe who used to live along the Amur River. Then, the Ainu people would become Russian, of which Russian President Putin promptly took advantage. The Hokkaido Shimbun dated December 19, 2018, reported that Russian President Putin showed his intention to acknowledge Ainu people as indigenous Russians. Along this line, J-cast News of April 7, 2022, reported: Russian political science scholar Sergei Chernyakhovsky asserts, “Tokyo (the Japanese Government) inappropriately owns Hokkaido, which was politically Russian territory. As one of the grounds for the assertion it was mentioned that the Ainu people living in Hokkaido are one of Russian peoples. On the next day, April 8, 2022, Vice-Chairman Sergei Mironof of the Russian Lower House reportedly said, “According to experts, the entire hegemony of Hokkaido rests on Russia,” according to zakzak, the official website of Evening Fuji, published by the Sankei Shimbun Company.

Surprisingly, the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology has followed this trend. It instructed that since Hokkaido was inhabited by more populations of other peoples than Japanese up to the Edo period, Hokkaido before the Meiji era did not belong to Japan. In the school textbook accreditation of geology, it was instructed that Hokkaido be shown in white while other parts south of Hokkaido be colored. Thus, logically, Hokkaido is no longer called Japan’s inherent territory.

Under such circumstances, Japan is in the extremely disadvantageous position when it comes to the northern territorial issue. Etorofu and Kunashiri will be no longer Japanese people’s inherent islands. People lived there were Ainu and should Ainu be regarded as Russian people, Japan’s claim to the region will be completely toppled. Let alone, Russia is already claiming its territorial right to Hokkaido, as mentioned above

Should Japan leave these situations as they are, fearfully Japan may become a second Ukraine. In fact, The Newsweek Japan of November 25, 2022, reported, “Russia had been prepared for attack against Japan, not against Ukraine.” This was revealed by email text of an insider of FSB (Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation, formerly KGB). We don’t know how trustworthy this peace of information was, but whether true or not, we must not overlook it nor underestimate Russia.

Ainu seen from genome

According to the study jointly announced in August 2020 by The University of Tokyo, The University of Tokyo Graduate School and Kanazawa University, “Ancient Jomon genome sequence analysis sheds light on migration patterns of early East Asian populations[v], “Ainu are the oldest lineage as inhabitants of Japanese Archipelago and at the same time, highly probably one of the direct descendants of original East Eurasian groups and the lineage of Jomon people is “so old as to compose the “root” of East Eurasians (East Asians, Northeast Asians) and one of the direct descendants of the original East Eurasian populations.”

In gist, Ainu are descendants of Jomon people and therefore genuine Japanese people and more detailedly the oldest inhabitants of the Japanese Archipelago. Ever since recorded history, Hokkaido and Chishima Islands have been inhabited by none but the Japanese people. There is no room for ethnic issues whatsoever. On the contrary, the Japanese people advanced to East Eurasian Continent. In archaeology, in Siberia of the Eurasian Continent, no other ruins are older than those in Japan. Jomon potteries unearthed along the middle and lower Amur are much newer than those found in Japan. The ancient people most certainly came to settle in Siberia, advancing from Japan. If this was the case, Siberia surely belongs to Japan after Putin’s argument.

Certainly, “Ebisu people” and “Emishi people” in the north conflicted with the central government and in order to conquer them, the Barbarian Quelling Generalissimo was appointed and became leader of the Japanese government as “Bakuhu”. The “Bakufu” government and “Ebisu” were key players in Japan’s history, like two sides of the same coin. There is no room at all for Russia to intervene in such history. We must not be trapped into a plot aiming to divide the Japanese people and the conservative parties must duly cope with Russia, sharing this historical view. For that cause, no one should make the wrong assertion related to the Ainu people. 

---

[i] Matoba Mitsuaski, YouTube “Matoba Intensive Course No. 8 Jomon people’s DNA mixed with the modern Ainu people” (February, 2024) Since this study of mine aims to directly criticize this video of Mr. Matoba, I would like to post this video as below. This video is in Japanese and those who read this “study” in English translation may not fully understand it. I apologize for the inconvenience in advance.

Scholars and researchers cannot speak about the Jomon people’s DNA mixed with Ainu [Matoba...] Accessed by the author as latest as April 27, 2024.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?V=B7cc9OtqPo4

[ii] The Nihon Keizai Shimbun of May 13, 2019 “The origin of the Jomon people probably dates back to 20,000 ~40,000 ago, the National Museum of Nature and Science analyses genomes.

[iii] Hideaki Kanzawa-Kiriyama, Timothy A. Jinam, Yosuke Kawai, Takehiro Sato, Kazuyoshi Hosomichi, Atsuhi Tajima, Noboru Adachi, Hirofumi Matsumura, Kirill Kryukov, Naruya Saito, Ken-ichi Shinoda, Late Jomon male and female genome sequences from the Funadomari site in Hokkaido, Japan, Anthropological Science, Essay ID 190415, publication date 2019/05/29

[iv] Saito Naruya’s YouTube video “The ethnical relationship seen from generic analysis,” (June 2021). This video is also in Japanese. Those who read my paper in English may not fully understand it. The part of this video (twenty minutes into it) is cut out and used in Mr. Matoba’s video of Note 1. But this explanation is introduced in the opposite context to what Mr. Saito means. By the way, Mr. Saito’s books of the same effect are The DNA tells the root of the Japanese people (Bessatsu Takarajima, 2016) and The Origin of the Japanese people traced through nuclear DNA analysis (Kawade shobo, 2017). The author’s latest access to the video: April 27, 2024. https://youtu.be/nb5eunteGa0

[v] Takashi Gakuhari, Shigeki Nokagome, Simon Rasmussen, Morten E. Allentoft, Takehiro Sato, Thorfinn Kornelliussen, Blanaid Ni Chuinneagain, Hiromi Matsumae, Kae Koganebuchi, Ryan Schmidt, Souichiro Mizushima, Osamu Kondo, Nobuo Shigehara, Minoru Yoneda, Ryosuke Kimura, Hajime Ishida, Tadayuki Masuyama, Yasuhiro Yamada, Atsushi Tajima, Hiroki Shibata, Atsushi Toyoda, Toshiyuki Tsurumoto, Tetsuaki Wakebe, Hiromi Shitara, Tsunehiro Hanihara, Eske Willerslev, Martin Sikora, Hiroki Oota, Ancient Jomon genome sequence analysis sheds light on migration patterns of early East Asian populations, Communications Biology 2020

Chart:

Okhotsk Culture people   Hokkaido (Ainu people)  Okinawans  Japan Archipelago mainlanders    Continental Chinese   Korean Peninsula people

10,000 years ago   3,000 years ago  1,000 years ago  present

Japanese :

Sugihara Seishiro
President
International Research Institute for Controversial Histories

It was in early 1970s that I visited South Korea for the first time. Then I had just begun teaching at a university. At that time the compulsory education in South Korea was up to the elementary school. As evening neared, I saw children of junior high school ages vending newspapers in the street. I felt the scene very strange because I had never seen children working in the street in Japan. I enjoyed walking down the street lined with art dealer stores selling excellent ink paintings, unlike these days, for I like ink paintings and felt familiar there. On the way from Seoul to Busan by train, I saw houses with sharp roof tops and felt a kind of nostalgy as the train neared Busan passing the Japanese-like scenery. I visited Bulguksa, a large temple in Gyeongju to the north of Busan and saw many stone Buddha statues in the neighborhood and realized that Buddhism in Japan would have never prospered without its passage through Korea. At the time of my first visit to South Korea, Koreans over the age of fifty spoke Japanese. Even those Koreans who pretended not to speak Japanese began talking to me in Japanese when we were twosome.

I specialize in education and once I studied the moral education in South Korea. During the time of Prime Minister Abe Shinzo’s cabinet, Japan had included limited moral education in the school curriculum and created moral education textbooks. Throughout the post-war years, moral education was entirely excluded from the curriculum and there were no moral education textbooks in Japan. On the other hand, in South Korea, moral education was a required subject and there were moral education textbooks. Studying Korean moral education textbooks, I found that Korean moral education textbooks have inherited the tradition of “shushin” (moral training) during the Imperial Japanese rule and that they are very good textbooks. In Japan during the period of occupation after the War, “shushin” was abolished by the Allied Occupation Forces (in fact by those Japanese who have benefited from the war defeat), the subject of moral education was no longer taught at school and no moral education textbooks were available anymore. However, the heritage of pre-war Japanese “moral training” has been passed on to South Korea in the form of “moral education.”

As a scholar on education, I published a book entitled nihon no dotoku kyoiku wa kankoku ni manabe—dotoku kyoiku he no shishin [Learn from South Korea in Japanese Moral Education—Guideline for making moral education a school subject] (published by Bunka Shobo Hakubun-sha, 2007).

Now, South Korea, which I dearly remember, and Japan, my home country, are conflicting with each other over various issues. Above all, the most serious is the issue of mobilized workers. On October 30, 2018, the South Korean Supreme Court ruled that Japanese companies had to compensate their former workers and seized the companies’ properties. It is feared that the seized properties will be cashed shortly.

In terms of international law, the issue was completely settled between the two countries by the Agreement made in 1965 regarding the Korean claims. Nevertheless, the South Korean Supreme Court overturned the agreement and made it an issue of conflict between Japan and South Korea. We cannot help but question the legal sense of the South Korean Supreme Court. Under the rule of law, South Korea, as a civilized nation, should duly understand that the issue caused by the South Korean Supreme Court’s decision is a purely domestic issue within South Korea and the Korean Government as the executive organ should be fully responsible to resolve the issue. Should the Japanese companies’ properties be cashed following this court decision, Japan and South Korea would surely enter a serious conflict.

As for the Japanese Government, at this time, it does not show any sign of concession, having been bitterly betrayed and let down over and over again in the past by South Korea. The conflict between Japan and South Korea may further lead to the worst consequences, such as severance of diplomatic relations. However, as always, it is feared that the Japanese Government may come up with the last-minute compromise and bring up an extraordinary solution.

What I really want to say here is that I would like to suggest that it is better for both Japan and South Korea to confront each other as close as possible to the severance of their diplomatic relations.

Since World War II was over and Korea became independent as the Republic of Korea, South Korea seems to have been too emotionally dependent on Japan. In order to unite the people as a new nation, South Korea intentionally implemented fanatic anti-Japanese education as a policy since Syngman Rhee. This was nothing but emotional dependence on Japan. On the presumption that Japan never fights back, whatever South Korea attempts to do against Japan, has been used for the sake of the Korean national unification. Clearly, this is emotional dependence on Japan.

On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of the Japanese people have been indifferent to South Korea. The Japanese people have hardly any knowledge regarding South Korea and remain uninterested in that country. Together with this indifference, the self-deprecating view of history which has been deeply imprinted on the Japanese mind throughout the postwar years, the Japanese tend to think that Japan has done the Koreans totally wrong things and in consequence, Japan has tried to settle everything peacefully by immediately apologizing for whatever happened between the two countries and succumbing to whatever unreasonable demand may come from South Korea and thus resolving the situation. This can be said to be somewhat insulting to South Korea.

After all, such flattering or catering responses on the part of the Japanese Government have been the biggest cause of the twisted relationship between Japan and South Korea. If Japan had known South Korea well enough and been interested in it, Japan should have dealt reasonably with what South Korea demanded, clearly stating what is right and what is wrong and have gotten angry when the anger was the right answer. In fact, however, Japan has been ignorant of South Korea and indifferent to it and influenced by the self-deprecating historical view which the post-war Japanese have been imbued with. Thus, Japan always tried to solve whatever issues it may be confronted with, by immediately apologizing and responding with a temporary solution.

I think that South Korean anti-Japanese actions have become massive, group-like, social, national and common trait of the South Korean people and when it comes to national characteristics, the Korean people will surely participate in anti-Japanese movements, through the anti-Japanese education implemented since the establishment of the Republic of Korea. However, when it comes to simple, emotional daily life, they are rather sympathetic and friendly toward the Japanese people and not at all anti-Japanese. Otherwise, South Koreans would not enjoy Japanese songs and animations so much, or so many South Korean tourists would not visit Japan for sightseeing. Anti-Japanese education has forced South Koreans to participate in anti-Japanese activities under certain circumstances.

Recently, anti-Korean sentiments began to arise among Japanese people due to one problem after another that South Korea inflicts upon Japan. This situation is exactly what we fear should never have happened.

Therefore, here is my proposition in addressing the issue of the mobilized workers. Japan and South Korea need to confront each other to an extreme until there is nowhere to go. When both sides come to such a desperate point, South Korea will realize that it should stop the anti-Japanese education, and Japan will realize that it should stop being indifferent to South Korea and should not look at that country based on the self-deprecating view of history.

When it comes to national security, South Korea and Japan share a common destiny. No South Korean hopes to fall under the military control of China ruled by the Communist Party. On the verge of the national crisis of collapsing diplomatic relations, South Korea should learn what has been wrong with its inadequate response against Japan so far and find a new, effective way to deal with Japan. Japan should learn how to deal seriously with South Korea, determined to genuinely get angry at the right thing at the right time and sincerely apologize that Japan has apologized to South Korea unreasonably. Then, both sides will develop in a better way and be able to establish a sound mutual relationship.

Bear in mind that this time, the conflict over the mobilized workers should be thoroughly addressed by both countries. Especially, on the part of the Japanese Government, I suggest that Japan should be fully determined and prepared to implement a firm policy toward South Korea in resolving this issue.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: Related Documents is provided in Japanese Site.

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

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

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

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

■ Background ■

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

■ Summary and Evaluation of the Final Report ■

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

■ The SCJ’s Reaction ■

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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