コンテンツへスキップ

人権理事会52セッション(ジュネーブ・2023年2月27日-4月18日)にて 国連特別協議資格をもつ新しい歴史教科書をつくる会国際歴史論戦研究所と協力して、3月17日に「徴用工問題について」ビデオでのNGO発言を行いました。
その様子はこちらの国連の公式ネット放送(UN Web TV)でご覧になれます。


人権理事会52セッション(2023.2.27-4.18)
3月17日 アイテム3 NGO発言

【発言 日本語訳】

徴用工問題

議長、有難うございます。

韓国の最高裁判所は、「第二次大戦中に朝鮮人を強制連行して奴隷労働をさせた」という理由で、日本企業に対し被害者個人に賠償せよとの命令を下しました。

しかし、いわゆる朝鮮人被害者は当時日本国民であり、彼らを徴用することは合法で、彼らは奴隷労働者ではありません。

さらに日韓間の請求権問題は個人の請求権も含めて1965年に締結された政府間協定によって「最終的かつ完全に解決」されています。

今日では、法的にも道義的にも日本企業に賠償責任がないことは明らかです。

ところが韓国側は政府間の合意を一方的に破棄し、被告企業の在韓資産を差し押さえ、現金化して「補償」に充当しようとしています。

このような行為は国際法に違反するばかりか、日本国の安全保障を脅かすものです。

我々は国連人権理事会に対し、不当な判決によって日本企業の在韓資産を収奪すべきでないと韓国政府に対して勧告することを強く要望します。

有難うございました。

【発言 原文英語】

The Issue of the Mobilized Workers

Thank you, chair person.

The Republic of Korea’s Supreme Court ordered Japanese companies to individually compensate Korean victims, based on its ruling that “Japanese companies forcibly mobilized Koreans and made them slave-like labors during World War II.”

However, at that time, the so-called Korean victims were citizens of Japan and it was legal to mobilize them, and so they were not “slave labors”.

Moreover, the 1965 Agreement between Japan and the ROK concluded issues as “finally and completely resolved” including individual claims.

Today, there is neither legal nor moral responsibility for compensation on the part of the Japanese companies.

In response, ROK unilaterally abandoned an agreement, seized Japanese companies’ assets and is trying to cash them so that the money can be used as “compensation”.

These not only violate international law but also constitute a threat to Japanese national security.

We strongly request that this council warn the ROK not to deprive Japanese companies of their assets in ROK based on an unreasonable court ruling.

Thank you.

<参考サイト>
52nd regular session of the Human Rights Council (27 February 2023 – 18 April 2023)
17 Mar 2023
Item:3 General Debate (Cont’d) – 32nd meeting, 52nd Regular Session of Human Rights Council
1:44:50 Japan Society for History Textbook
https://media.un.org/en/asset/k1q/k1qqhwj7s9?kalturaStartTime=6290

令和5年3月15日

 2023年3月6日韓国の朴振外相は徴用工問題の解決策として、韓国政府傘下の財団が日本企業の賠償金を「肩代わり」する案を発表した。韓国側が日本企業に直接賠償を求めていないこと、及び謝罪を重ねて要求していないこと等を評価し、日本政府は本案を前向きに受け入れる意向を示している。岸田首相及び林外相は「日韓関係を健全な関係に戻すもの」として「肩代わり」案を歓迎し、その上で岸田首相は韓国側に配慮して「歴代内閣の日韓関係に関する歴史認識を引き継ぐ」と公言した。さらに林外相は「政府として民間企業による国内外での自発的寄付活動について特段の立場をとらない」と発言している。

このような一連の日本政府の対応は、法論理的に考えれば、我が国の将来に重大な禍根を残す恐れのある極めて不適切なものであると言わざるを得ない。

徴用工問題を巡って日本で行われた裁判では最高裁判所が被告企業の無罪を確定している。だがここで補償金の「肩代わり支払い」を評価し受け入れれば、日本政府が韓国の最高裁判所による有罪を認めたことになる。それは日本の最高裁判所の無罪判決よりも韓国最高裁判所の有罪判決を優先することを意味し、日本の主権放棄に繋がる。

さらに同有罪判決は「日本統治は不法な植民地支配であり、従って統治下での日本企業の活動も不法である」という認識に基づいている。「肩代わり」案を日本が承認すれば、被告の通常の企業活動を有罪だと認めることになり、「合法的な統治」であったとする日本の立場が根本から崩れる恐れがある。

 また、政府が「日本企業の自発的寄付活動に特段の立場をとらない」とだけあるのであれば、それは日本政府が当該企業に暗に寄付を促しているに等しいとも解釈できなくはない。

 もし当該企業が寄付をするようなことが起これば、それは過去の「強制労働」への償いとなり、日本企業が朝鮮人を「強制労働」させたことの証左となる。

ここで日本政府が正しく対応しなければ、韓国最高裁の「日本統治は不法な植民地支配」という認識が定着し、日本統治時代で日本が行ったあらゆる行為が訴訟の対象となり、法論理上、朝鮮総督府が徴収した税金も日本企業が上げた利益も全て「不法な搾取」となり、膨大な額の対日訴訟が発生する可能性がある。

しかしながら「日本の朝鮮半島統治」はあくまでも日本国と大韓帝国の正式な国際条約によって合法的に両国が統合したものであり「不法な植民地支配」ではない。それは今日に至るまで日本政府が戦後一貫して取って来た正当な立場であり、我が国として絶対に譲ってはならない一線である。

両国の請求権については1965年に両国政府が締結した「日韓請求権・経済協力協定」によって「完全かつ最終的」に解決しており、国家間の合意は三権(立法・司法・行政)を超越して 国家を拘束するものであり、『条約法に関するウィーン条約』にもそのことが明記されている。韓国最高裁の判決は本来この協定を反故にするもので国際法違反であり、国家の統治行為の最終責任者としての大統領が自らの責任において廃棄すべきものである。しかも原告4人の中で徴用によって当該企業で働いたものは一人もおらず、「事実誤認」の不当判決でもある。

以上の通り非は全て韓国側にあり、日本が徴用工問題を巡って日本の首相が「謝罪を引き継ぐこと」を表明すべき筋合いはない。ここで韓国に迎合して不必要な謝罪或いはそれに準じる発言をすれば、これから先も事あるごとに日本は「反省の意」を表明することを求められることになるであろう。

 日韓両国が将来に向かって対等で健全な関係を回復し、信頼に基づく友好国関係を築くために、さらにはアジアの安全保障と経済繁栄に寄与するために、我々は下記の4点を日本政府に強く要望する。

1.尹錫悦大統領に対し、国家の統治行為の最終責任者であり、国家を最終的に代表する者として、韓国最高裁判決が国際法に違反していることを認め、大統領の責任において韓国内で解決すべき問題であることを正式に表明するよう、日本政府は尹錫悦大統領に求めなければならない。そうしなければ今回の尹大統領の決定すらも将来の大統領によって覆される恐れが出てくる。

2.韓国の案が日本企業の「肩代わり」である以上、日本への求償権は残る。日本政府は徴用工問題は韓国の国内問題であり、今回の解決策は「肩代わり」ではなく、韓国内で完結する解決策であるとの確認を韓国政府より取り付けなければならない。

3.終戦時に現在の韓国に残した日本の民間資産は現在の価値で7兆円に近い。これらは本来日本側に所有権があるが「日韓請求権・経済協力協定」で日本は放棄している。「日韓基本条約」及び「日韓請求権・経済協力協定」で請求権問題を含め、過去は全て清算済であることを、日本政府は韓国政府に再確認させるべきである。

4.これまで日本政府が「河野談話」「村山談話」「菅談話」などで韓国の歪曲した歴史をそのまま受け入れ謝罪を繰り返したことで、嘘が「真実」となり今日の日韓の対立を招いた。日韓和解のために日本政府は「歴代内閣の歴史認識」を踏襲すべきではなく、逆に歴史の真実に基づいてこれを見直し、日韓併合が「不法な植民地支配であった」との韓国人の誤解を解いて、日本人の名誉と誇りを取り戻さねばならない。

以上

国際歴史論戦研究所
会長 杉原誠四郎

【日本語版】https://i-rich.org/?p=1329

Fujiki Shunichi, Senior Research Fellow

International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

January 10, 2023

• Introduction Purpose of This Study

• Chapter 1 Distortions in the Macroscopic Domain

1. The UN Charter and the Constitution of Japan: Is it possible to suspend Russia from the Security Council?

A. Procedure for amending the UN Charter

B. Procedure for amending the Constitution of Japan

  2. Opinions of many experts concerning various problems with the UN

• Chapter 2 Distortions in the Microscopic Domain

1. Problems with UNICEF, a UN organization

2. Problems with child guidance centers, a form of Japanese administrative organs

• Chapter 3 Measures and Conclusion

Introduction Purpose of This Study

The purpose of this study is to examine how the United Nations and various institutions and organizations in Japan have become dysfunctional because they have been preserved despite the fact that they have fallen out of step with the times. To that end, it discusses the theme in relation to problems linked to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the United Nations as an organization, the Constitution of Japan, as well as the UN Charter and child guidance centers under the jurisdiction of the Japanese local administration, which are apparently irrelevant, to explore possible solutions.

Chapter 1 Distortions in the Macroscopic Domain

First, in the context of this study, the perspective relating to international problems is defined as “macroscopic” and the perspective relating to domestic problems as “microscopic.”

On February 24, 2022, the Russian invasion of Ukraine started. The nations of the West, mainly the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), which is under the strong influence of the US, requested from the Free World nations to intensify the economic sanctions against Russia, with which Japan went along. Until 2021, Russia was the world’s largest producer of natural gas and the third largest producer of oil and, before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Japan imported about 8% of its natural gas and 4% of the oil from Russia. Russia is a natural resources superpower where about 17% of the government revenue is derived from oil exports alone.

Since 2014, I have participated in various human rights-related councils and all kinds of treaty-based bodies (committees) of the UN to speak about various problems and debate with representatives from the governments of different countries. I traveled abroad sometimes as frequently as five times a year and was invited to various human rights-related meetings in the UK, the US and Asian countries to make statements. This experience has given me opportunities to see personally that the UN is the world’s largest bureaucracy that is so hypocritical and dysfunctional. I may sound a little too straightforward, but I have gradually realized that the UN itself generates victims, pretends to be protective of the victims and demands an increase in the contributions from each country to enrich the organization. I have felt that it acts exactly like a coffin maker committing street murders.

In other words, it does not solve problems but generates problems to instigate division by identity politics, which means speaking on behalf of groups based on gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, etc., to create rights and interests. A bureaucracy, in the first place, is an organization that by nature reproduces rights and interests on an enlarged scale.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine made known to the world that the UN is a good-for-nothing organization. Of the various bodies of the UN, the only one with resolutions that have legally binding force for the 193 member states is the Security Council of the UN. This Security Council of the UN consists of permanent members, namely the US, the UK, France, China, and Russia, and 11 nonpermanent members. After joining the UN in 1956, Japan served 11 times as a nonpermanent member with a term of two years up to now and has been serving the twelfth term as a nonpermanent member since January 2023.

In Japan, the UN is called Kokuren (abbreviation for Kokusai Rengo), which may be literally translated as the Coalition of Nations, but its English name is the United Nations.  Accordingly, Kokusai Rengo is an obviously intentional mistranslation led by the occupation army. In fact, in China, which is a permanent member of the Security Council, it is spelled Lianhe Guo, which is a literal rendering of the Allied Powers.

The organization called Kokuren in Japan is actually the allied victor nations of WWII. And Japan, a defeated nation, is mentioned as an “axis power (enemy state)” in Articles 53 and 107 of the UN Charter, which practically says that the permanent members “may take combat action against Japan without a resolution of the Security Council.”

Japan and Germany have striven to have these “enemy state clauses” deleted. However, because of the high hurdle posed by the condition of deletion, which requires adoption by a vote of two thirds of the members (129 nations) of the UN and ratification, the enemy state clauses still remain in the UN Charter.

The voting procedure of the Security Council is based on Article 27 of the UN Charter, which provides that each member of the Security Council has one vote. It means that the procedure requires concurring votes of all of the five permanent members and four of the nonpermanent members, or agreement by a total of nine nations. Paradoxically speaking, if just one of the permanent members disagrees, no resolution is adopted by the Security Council. The nation that has exercised the “veto” most often is Russia, including the former Soviet Union. Up to now, as much as half of the resolutions submitted have been vetoed by Russia.

 1. The UN Charter and the Constitution of Japan: Is it possible to suspend Russia from the Security Council?

Now, let me discuss whether Russia can be suspended from the Security Council.

Article 5 of the UN Charter provides for suspension of membership of member states: A Member of the United Nations against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council may be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The exercise of these rights and privileges may be restored by the Security Council.

Suspension of membership and expulsion from the UN must be implemented by the General Assembly based on the recommendation by the Security Council. However, issuance of this recommendation requires an affirmative vote of the permanent members of the Security Council.

In addition, Article 6 of the UN Charter says, “A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council” but, in reality, no state exists that has been expelled based on the recommendation of the Security Council.

It is quite suggestive to see that Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK: North Korea), which is not recognized as a sovereign nation by Japan, is approved as a nation by the United Nations and has not been expelled despite its various violations of treaties and international law.

In this way, the UN Charter itself has major defects, which has already rendered the organization dysfunctional. Excluding Japan from the enemy state clauses and preventing Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council, from exercising its veto both require the procedure for amending the UN Charter. This amendment procedure must be adopted according to the procedure under Amendments in Chapter XVIII Articles 108 and 109 of the UN Charter. The Articles respectively provide as follows.

A. Procedure for amending the UN Charter

 Article 108

Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.

 Article 109

1. A General Conference of the Members of the United Nations for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter may be held at a date and place to be fixed by a two-thirds vote of the members of the General Assembly and by a vote of any nine members of the Security Council. Each Member of the United Nations shall have one vote in the conference.

2. Any alteration of the present Charter recommended by a two-thirds vote of the conference shall take effect when ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations including all the permanent members of the Security Council.

3. If such a conference has not been held before the tenth annual session of the General Assembly following the coming into force of the present Charter, the proposal to call such a conference shall be placed on the agenda of that session of the General Assembly, and the conference shall be held if so decided by a majority vote of the members of the General Assembly and by a vote of any seven members of the Security Council.

From these provisions, and how nations such as China, North Korea and India have behaved toward the condemnation resolution against the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the General Assembly, it is clear to everyone that the UN Charter itself does not function.

In relation to human rights, condemnation resolution made in the UN Human Rights Council concerning the Chinese government’s oppression of Uyghurs, Hong Kong and other minorities in China met much more vindication than condemnation of China in terms of the number of nations due to the influence of Chinese money, which is also clear from various resolutions submitted in the last few years.

B. Procedure for amending the Constitution of Japan

For comparison, let’s look at the procedure for amending the Constitution of Japan.

Regarding the procedure for amending the Constitution, Article 96 of the Constitution of Japan provides that amendments require “a concurring vote of two-thirds or more of all the members of each House of the Diet followed by the affirmative vote of a majority of all votes in a referendum.”

This provision virtually makes amendment of the Constitution impossible, which is clearly shown by the fact that the Constitution has not even once been amended until now, 77 years after the end of the war. The procedure required for amending the Constitution of Japan and the procedure required for amending the UN Charter are very similar and practically make amendment inapplicable.

The organization and its institutions still exist today because every means possible is used to keep them alive, even though 77 years have passed since the establishment of the United Nations on October 24, 1945, and the current global power balance and the surrounding environment are totally different from those at the end of the Greater East Asia War (WWII).

We have been repeatedly taught that the UN exists for “world peace.” In reality, however, the organization can be said to have destroyed world peace, been used as a tool for handing out favors to specific countries and become dysfunctional. Today, no measure is taken even to conceal corruption in the UN by Chinese money.

2. Opinions of many experts concerning various problems with the UN

Many experts say that, if the UN’s procedure for amendment based on the UN Charter makes it impossible to realize an unavoidably required reform only by a veto of one permanent member of the Security Council, withdrawal is a possible option as a means for its realization. I also thought at first that withdrawal from the hypocritical organization intended for retaining rights and interests of the white community was the only way, as Japan gave up its international status of a Council member and withdrew from the League of Nations on March 24, 1933.

Some argues along the lines that, if what should be a new Charter of the United Nations is discussed in the present General Assembly of the UN and a veto of one permanent member of the Security Council obstructs a new Charter, the nations that have approved of the new Charter of the United Nations should withdraw from the present UN altogether to reassemble under the new UN Charter.

However, as I have witnessed the realities of the UN, I think of it as almost impossible to reach a consensus that nations in the camp of the Free World will withdraw from the UN at one time.

The reason is that there are many among nations in the camp of the Free World that are greatly benefitting from the UN and, on the contrary, this means of withdrawal is likely to make the influence of China on other nations even stronger in the UN. Therefore, I cannot agree with this idea at the present stage.

First, it is important for the camp of the Free World to share the recognition that institutional fatigue and systematic fatigue exist and the best possible way at the present stage should be to implement the UN reform proposed by Japanese Prime Minister Kishida and, at the same time, for the G7 or other party to build an organization under a new framework to strengthen its influence on the UN.

Chapter 2 Distortions in the Microscopic Domain

1. Problems with UNICEF, a UN organization

In the same way as the amendment of the Charter is hindered, in Japan, amendment of the Constitution of Japan, which is called the “occupier’s constitution,” has not once been amended. I assume that this dysfunction of the UN and the dysfunction within Japan have common causes and, of those, I would like to focus on child guidance centers, an issue I am involved with and a single point in the microscopic domain to which it also belongs.

For the purpose of discussing the problems with child guidance centers in Japan, I should first take up the problems with UNICEF (United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund), an organization of the UN, which share almost the same purpose and time of establishment.

The establishment of UNICEF was adopted in the General Assembly in December 1946 to provide relief such as water, food, medical care, clothes, and education for children who lost their parents in the war.

In 1949, for Japanese children who were seriously undernourished or lacked daily living necessities such as clothes, it started provision of goods such as skim milk powder for meals, raw cotton for making clothes and medical supplies, which continued for 15 years until 1964, when the Tokyo Olympics were held.

15 to 20 years after the war, those who were children at its end had grown up to be adults and old enough to be independent, which should mean that the role of the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund has ended. However, to continue its existence, UNICEF changed its purpose from “support for children affected by war” to “support for children suffering extreme poverty in underdeveloped countries,” although recently aired TV commercials of the organization are calling for support for children suffering hardships in Afghanistan and Ukraine.

In the General Assembly in 1953, a resolution was passed to make UNICEF a permanent organization. The organization retained the original acronym UNICEF but was renamed the United Nations Children’s Fund. While I think that support for children in underdeveloped or developing countries itself is admirable, the actual circumstances are preservation and expansion of the rights and interests of an organization once established and the staff working there and other relevant parties.

In addition, it can also be seen as the UN’s inability (reluctance) to resolve conflicts between nations increasing the raison d'être of UNICEF. In short, it has been structured as an organization that becomes richer from the world’s problems, no matter what happens.

Also in Japan, there exists an organization called the Japan Committee for UNICEF, whose purpose is to gain a share of the huge amounts of the donations to UNICEF and it allocates up to 25% of the contributions collected to its operating capital. This organization, in particular, is specialized in raising money and goes so far as to hold seminars such as “UNICEF inheritance seminars” for raising funds from inheritance. Due to the larger amount of money paid from the Japanese public to UNICEF than in other countries, this organization has been authorized to use the UN logo as a money-raising body.

Many of the readers must have seen signs outside stations showing photos such as one of a person who is apparently a black African mother holding a child with messages such as “Money for your cup of coffee can vaccinate five children” and “You can save little children’s lives.” The organization raises money there, calls for “regular support” and sends direct mail to companies, which receive letters requesting support by automatic deduction from bank accounts or credit card payment.

Perhaps because of the white community’s sense of being indebted, or “a sense of atonement,” for historically trafficking black people of Africa as slaves, the focus of activities gradually shifted to support for Africa.

If the present-day Japanese see those photos posted outside stations or on the Internet, they would naturally find the situations “miserable.” They would probably think, “If there are children having such an awful time on the same planet where we are comfortably off, we should manage to donate a small amount of money.” This is a technique of showing only partial phenomena to the Japanese without the knowledge of the local situations or the early background of the organization to implicitly emphasize how different the situations are from Japan. Any Japanese with a high sense of morality who has seen them would make a donation with good intentions by thinking that it will “do good for people.” Furthermore, people who are collecting donations are working voluntarily with good intentions for unknown people or rights and interests.

However, it would not occur to them that the good intentions are used by hypocrites for their own benefit. Nobody would doubt for a second if the name is “capped” by the authority of the UN. There is no way anybody can make a complaint about the donation. It is because anybody who sees the children’s condition would feel “sorry” for them.

The total fertility rate*1) for African women was 7 to 9 in 1980. In Rwanda, it was 8.5 on the average, which is assumed to have been even higher before that. While it has decreased in the last 40 years to 5 to 7 (6.8 on the average in Niger) in 2021, it still provides a factor of a massive population explosion. Incidentally, the total fertility rates as of 2021 are 1.7 for the US (150th in the world), 1.4 for Japan (191st) and 0.9 for South Korea (209th).

The rate for India, which is estimated to surpass China in population, is 2.2 (101st) and, for China, it is 1.7 (154th).

*1) The total fertility rate is directly calculated as the sum of age-specific fertility rates, assuming that women’s childbearing age is from 15 to 49 years old.

The UN is now instigating a sense of “food crisis” due to this massive population explosion and has established the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) for its purpose. It is another organization set up under the UN that runs a campaign with a message “Your support is needed now” and uses it as a pretext to collect money from the governments of various countries.

The lifetime number of births of African women mentioned above straightforwardly shows how population growth in Africa sticks out.

One factor of the high total fertility rate and birthrate in Africa that can be mentioned is the high infant mortality. It can be seen in the natural world that weak creatures give birth to many young to increase their chances to leave offspring, which is shown by how smaller fish spawn more eggs at one time than larger ones.

The reason for the conspicuously large average number of births in Africa is assumed to be the large number of deaths in infancy due to infectious, febrile and vernacular diseases. For these reasons, people in Africa are less familiar with the concept of natural death and constantly cheek by jowl with the death of relations, which has given them a peculiar view on religion and made them very sensitive to spells and spirits. It is a view of religion developed through the long history of Africa and different from a Western sense of value or view on religion.

However, Japan and the Western countries may also be seen as unconsciously forcing their own sense of value without making any effort to understand the party they intend to support, believing that it is all goodwill. It is a matter of course that introducing a Western sense of value into only part of the various ways of living and phenomena in the natural world will disrupt the balance. Reduction of infant mortality by vaccination and supply of food and medicine is great but, in reality, children who grow up to be 12 or 13 often become victims of rape and have a baby. Then, another round of vaccinations comes in, which marks the start of a “negative cycle.” Furthermore, the idea that women who give birth to many children are valuable is widely shared in Africa from the viewpoint of labor as well and polygamy is widespread, which has accelerated population explosion.

There have been many reports on women who became victims of sexual violence due to the conflict between Christianity and Islam and members of the UN Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) raped women or demanded sex in exchange for a piece of bread in Central Africa, where they were dispatched. The UN itself, which is forcing the Western or Japanese sense of value as it is without considering the overall balance, can be said to have become uncontrollable.

UNICEF, however, has continued to become “richer after a fire” to be an enormous interest organization with over 10,000 people as its staff alone. In addition, brainwashed volunteers, who are said to amount to hundreds of thousands around the world, are convinced that they are doing good deeds and are collecting money with “good intentions.”

2. Problems with child guidance centers, a form of Japanese administrative organs

Among the problems in Japan with which I have been involved since around 2019 is the child guidance center issue. The purpose of the child guidance centers is the same as that of UNICEF and their establishment was determined by the amendment of the Child Welfare Act in 1947, which said that it would give support to war orphans. Accordingly, the role of the child guidance centers is the same as that of UNICEF and the raison d'être of the facilities themselves was naturally lost 15 to 20 years after the war when orphans had grown up to be adults and become independent.

As with UNICEF, however, to continue their existence and maintain the employment of the staff, child guidance centers, which had already accomplished their role, gradually changed their purpose. Now, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare is mounting a major campaign with a message, “When you have spotted a child suspected to be abused, call #189 without hesitation, even if it may be wrong,” which has resulted in many children separated from their parents and housed in child guidance centers even though they do not need to be there. In addition, this reporting system is used by some people to harass neighbors whom they do not like. Furthermore, various human rights violations taking place in child guidance centers have been revealed. It is obvious that the changes in the child guidance centers have continuously led to the bloating of their bureaucracy, where increasing the volume of their operations causes the next year’s budget to increase, expanding the organization and multiplying the number of the employment positions. Conducting this massive campaign has not brought about any decrease in the number of deaths due to child abuse as compared with the situation before the campaign. It is the most decisive evidence that children who do not need to be housed in child guidance centers have been separated from their parents, which raises the suspicion of human rights violations taking place.

The problems with child guidance centers are extremely complicated and serious and are impossible to detail in this study. The biggest problem is that even courts of justice assume that “what the administration is doing is never wrong” and continue to “stamp their seals mechanically” without properly listening to the parties immediately concerned. I believe that turning a blind eye to institutional fatigue and systematic fatigue, where organizations do more harm than good, signifies degeneration of the Japanese society.

Together with members of the International Research Institute of Controversial Histories and groups in a cooperative relationship, I participated in the UN Human Rights Council and Human Rights Committee sessions held in October 2022 at the UN Office in Geneva, Switzerland. Regarding the child guidance center issue, along with various other problems that the Institute has taken up so far, I worked with organizations in Japan specializing in this problem to submit a proposal to the UN and successfully obtained recommendations from the UN to the Japanese government. This child guidance center issue can be said to be “group bullying” of couples and parents by the administration and courts. As I participated in the sessions, I found it ironical that the UN, which is suffering institutional fatigue, was the only one that could discuss the problems with child guidance centers suffering institutional fatigue in the same way and put pressure on the Japanese government.

Chapter 3 Measures and Conclusion

I believe that readers of this study have understood that now, 77 years after the end of the war, various organizations and systems established immediately after the war are suffering institutional fatigue and systematic fatigue.

I also trust that the readers have understood: 1. The reason why the UN Charter cannot be amended is the same as the reason why the Constitution of Japan cannot be amended (change in the situation that the victor nations did not expect at the time of establishment occurred, causing dysfunction); and 2. The root of the problems of UNESCO, a UN organization, and the child guidance center issue of Japan and the problem posed to them at present (reproduction of rights and interests of a bureaucracy on an enlarged scale) are the same, regardless of the size of the organization.

I believe that, in a trend in the age of globalization, preserving institutions and organizations that are out-of-place holdovers from the age of internationalization is exactly a retrogression of human society. They have built up organizational corruption, institutional fatigue and systematic fatigue over 77 years, leading to exposure of new problems.

For making them into organizations that meet the demands of the present age, what is necessary is to provide global human resource education that begins with knowing the other party first from childhood in various parts of the world starting at as young age as possible and use their wisdom and courage to transform these harmful institutions, systems and organizations suffering organizational corruption and institutional fatigue into organizations that are truly useful for the human race, or build totally different organizations.

The reason for this is that I think nobody is evil from the moment of birth. Due to the education given in their childhood, certain children unconsciously direct their hatred to people of other countries, whom they have never met or talked to, because religious reasons or one-sided interpretation of historical issues have been forced on them in that education. Before that happens, it should be necessary to make both parties understand the “existence of opinions and values different from those of themselves” by education, make them recognize that it is natural and lead them to acquire wisdom of seeking overall optimization. Global leaders need to be developed who guide toward the right direction with courage.

As described earlier, it is important for both the camp of the Free World and the camp of totalitarianism to share the recognition that the systematic fatigue and institutional fatigue exist. While the Japanese government strengthens approaches to various countries for ensuring implementation of the UN reform proposed by Prime Minister Kishida, the G7 or other party must build an organization under a new framework, which meets the demands of the present age and nations can switch to in the future, to strengthen its influence on the UN, or weaken the UN and strengthen the new framework for a switchover.

The Japanese government suspended the payment of its contribution JPY 3.85 billion (second largest amount among the member nations, accounting for 9.6%) to UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) in 2016 for about eight months. In the same way, it suspended the payment of its contribution the next year. The first suspension was because a decision was made to inscribe the Nanking Incident, which was forged by China, on the Memory of the World (documentary heritage) Register of UNESCO. The second suspension in the following year was intended for UNESCO reform led by Japan, which proved effective and resulted in incorporation of reform including: “It should be clearly stated that the objective of the documentary heritage is ‘preservation of history’ and not for interpretation or putting an end to historical controversies. Applications submitted for documentary heritage will be promptly published, to which objections will be accepted, and opinions from nations concerned will be discussed in the Registration Subcommittee as information for making a decision on registration,” “Dialogues among the concerned parties will be encouraged if the parties develop conflicting opinions. Joint application by concerned parties or registration with the addition of opposing opinions is possible” and “If no agreement is reached among all parties concerned, the Advisory Council will make the final recommendation to the Director-General of UNESCO, subject to discussion assumed to last up to four years.”

Japan took the initiative in the UNESCO reform. The result of this reform has led to suspension of the registration of the comfort women issue forged by South Korea, China and others and, while the time is yet to be determined, a decision has been made to hold dialog between the parties.

It has shown that, if the Japanese government desires reform in earnest, some positive results can be expected. Therefore, concerning the UN, I regard it as a possible option left for Japan to show a strong intention of UN reform while it is still the third largest contributor and, depending on the circumstances, implement reform by suspending the payment of contributions or in other way.

The US, which is the largest contributor (accounting for 22%) also suspended the payment in 2011 to object to the joining of Palestine to UNESCO. After that, it has suspended the payment of its contribution whenever possible.

In this way, it is customary for nations in the world to bargain for the nation’s own interest.

Incidentally, I may add that no punitive measures for suspension of contribution to the UN have been provided for regarding the participation, a vote or veto in the Security Council, not to mention a vote in the General Assembly. Nations with a large amount of arrears include the US and Brazil, which is apparently not because of financial difficulties. Many African countries also have a large amount of arrears but have a vote despite the arrears, as mentioned above. Japan has paid a larger amount of contribution to the UN than three of the five permanent members (equivalent to about JPY 31 billion/year).

This suspension of the payment of contribution to UNESCO was implemented under Kishida Fumio, the then Foreign Minister in the Abe administration (current Prime Minister). In addition, Prime Minister Kishida advocated in the general debate of the 77th session of the UN General Assembly held in September 2022 after he took office as Prime Minister “reform of the UN including the Security Council and strengthening of functions of the UN itself including disarmament and nonproliferation.” Since Kishida was the one who has suspended the payment of contribution to UNESCO twice, he should have some idea about its method, effect and reaction, which makes me place my hopes on him.

【日本語版】https://i-rich.org/?p=1352

Senior researcher

Sawada Kenichi

February 2023

Scientific fact that the Ainu are not an indigenous people of a different ethnic group but the same as the Japanese people

In May 2019, a joint study team composed of the National Museum of Nature and Science, the University of Tokyo, Kanazawa University and others made an important announcement: “The Ainu people have 70% of the nuclear DNA of the Jomon people[a1] [q2] .”[i] This is a fact, scientifically demonstrated; the Ainu are infallibly descendants of the ancient Japanese Jomon people, who have lived in Hokkaido since the Jomon period. Therefore, the assertion that the Ainu are a northern people who came to settle in Hokkaido from the Middle Ages onwards has been proven to be entirely false.

Furthermore, in the contents of study of “Human history of East Eurasia revealed by the genome analysis of the Jomon people,” it is stated that Honshu Jomon IK002 (female Jomon skeleton unearthed at Ikawatsu kaizuka (shell mound) in Aichi Prefecture) is included in Ainu cluster (or group). This result agrees with the analysis of the entire genome of Hokkaido Ainu people and shows that it is highly probable that the Ainu people are the oldest inhabitants of the Japanese archipelago and at the same time a direct descendant of the first group of East Eurasians.[ii]

In addition, the announcement from the University of Tokyo states, “The genome of the Jomon IK002 is an old group that can be said to be rooted in East Eurasian and the southern route [of migration], hardly affected by the northern route [of migration].” In other words, the Jomon people (including those would be later called “Ainu”) are a people who originated from the southern route. This challenges the assertion made by Japanese archeologists that “the Ainu are a northern people”.

What these facts tell us is that the Ainu people are descendants of the Jomon people who lived in Hokkaido since the Jomon period and that they mostly originated from people who migrated from the south, not the north, and very probably those who migrated to the continent mixed with East Eurasians.

Russia’s move, Putin’s assertion and internal left-wing power play

In Russia, however, assertions not based on science have been made. In December 2018, it was reported that Russia’s President Putin intended to acknowledge the Ainu people as indigenous Russians.[iii] Furthermore, in April 2022, vice-chairman of the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian Parliament, Sergei Mironov reportedly stated, “According to certain experts, Russia owns all rights in Hokkaido.”[iv]

Also in April 2022, “According to Regunam News [Russian web-media], political scientist Sergei Chernyakhovsky maintained that ‘Tokyo [the Japanese Government] improperly retains Hokkaido, which was politically Russian territory.’[v] Referring to the assertion made in the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between Japan and Russia concluded in 1855, the report stated: “There [in Hokkaido] the Ainu people lived. They are the same people that live in Sakhalin, in the suburbs of Vladivostok and in the south of the Kamchatka Peninsula and are one of the peoples of Russia.”

Let us put President Putin’s assertion in the current context. In September 2022, he stated a new diplomatic policy, called “Russia’s World” and stipulated that Russia will intervene in countries in support of Russian inhabitants.[vi] And according to another report, Russia planned to militarily intervene in Hokkaido before it invaded Ukraine.[vii]

In response to these Russian intentions, in Japan, there was some leftists called up on Putin for assistance. In January 2019, a group calling themselves Moshirikoru Kamui no Kai (its representative director Hatakeyama Satoshi, Ishi Pompei as vice director) issued a “written request to President Vladimir Putin.”[viii] In this request, they asked President Putin to consider “inclusive security management” of the Shiretoko Peninsula [Hokkaido], in addition to making the Kuril Islands [or Chishima Retto] an Ainu autonomous zone. It sounds as if this group was gladly offering Hokkaido to Putin.

Japanese conservative journalists and the Japanese Government’s confusion of the Ainu invites crisis

Unfortunately, the thinking that the Ainu are a “northern” people is not monopolized by Russians and Japanese leftists. In fact, many Japanese conservative journalists also believe this. The most radical among them is Mr. Matoba Mitsuaki. In 2019, Mr. Matoba stated in his book: “Mr. Shinoda [Shinoda Kenichi, director of the National Museum of Nature and Science] concluded that modern Ainu people, influenced by people of the Okhotsk ethnic group turned out to be genetically related to indigenous Siberians. This turns out to be perfectly consistent with the archaeological study reports so far, without the least contradiction.”[ix] Moreover, elsewhere, he stated, “The Ainu are not the descendants of the Jomon people.”

Matoba’s assertion coincides exactly with what President Putin stated. This assertion was made despite his knowledge of many recent studies of ancient DNA. Mr. Matoba lives in Hokkaido and is considered as a conservative Hokkaido journalist. In other words, a conservative journalist in Hokkaido and a Japanese leftist group share the same thinking, that “the Ainu are a northern people.” This is more than Putin could have asked for.

Moreover, the Japanese Government’s view of the issue will invite further misunderstanding. For instance, regarding “measures related to the Ainu in the website of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transportation and Tourism, “In view of history from the end of the Middle Ages onwards, the Ainu people are considered to have indigenously lived with relation to ‘Wa-jin [ancient Japanese people]’ at that time.” This passage invites the misunderstanding that the Ainu are not Japanese. The government’s account is based a report from the “Advisory Panel of Experts on Measures to be Taken for Utari [brethren or fellow countrymen]” issued April, 1996, over a quarter century ago.[x]

In addition, a “Resolution to Decide That The Ainu Are An Indigenous People,” adopted by regular sessions of both the House of Representatives and the House of Councilors, simultaneously in June 2008, used the same wordings and stated that the Ainu are an indigenous people who inhabited the northern part of the Japanese archipelago, particularly Hokkaido, and that they are an indigenous people having their own language, religion and culture.

That “the Ainu are a northern people, different from the Japanese people” which is held to be true by many scholars is groundless yet this assertion was backed by the Government of Japan and by both Houses of the Diet.

To not make Hokkaido a second Ukraine

Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine in the name of protecting Russians. It was nothing but a unilateral accusation, totally ignoring historical facts, the actual situation and the assertion on the part of the other. In other words, without considering the views of other countries, Russia will invade other countries if the cause is to protect its own people (even if it is contorted or false).

Russia made up the pretext, that “the Ainu are Russian”, and began to outrageously state that “sovereignty over Hokkaido belongs to Russia.” If such a ridiculous assertion becomes acceptable within Russia, Russia will start to assert its sovereignty over Hokkaido. Should this become a reality, an invasion of Hokkaido would be as sure as an invasion of Ukraine.

This time, I used genetics to show the commonality of the Ainu and the Japanese. I will add that there is much more evidence to prove that the Ainu are descendants of the Jomon people.

Under this grave situation in which dangerous statements are made lies the Japanese Government’s ambiguous Ainu policy. The Japanese Government must correct its past mistake which ignored the science. Instead, the Japanese Government must recognize the Ainu based on the science. The government should never acknowledge diversity for its own sake. The Japanese Government should recognize the Ainu as Japanese people.


[i] “The origin of the Jomon people consecutively revealed through genes—the Jomon people’s highly accurate genomes successfully obtained.” Independent Administrative Agency National Museum of Nature and Science, May 13, 2019.

[ii] “Human history of East Eurasia revealed through the analysis of the Jomon people’s genomes.” The University of Tokyo, the graduate school of the University of Tokyo, Kanazawa University, August 25, 2020.

[iii] “The Ainu people are Russia’s indigenous people,” Hokkaido Newspaper, morning edition, December 19, 2018.

[iv] “Owning rights in Hokkaido, Russian political world aims to check Japan’s movement.” Jiji.Com, April 9, 2022

[v]“‘Hokkaido’s rights belong to Russia’, Russian Parliament member claims amid the confusion caused by the war. On what grounds?” J-Cast News, April 7, 2022.

[vi] “President Putin approves a new diplomatic policy, emphasizes support of “comrades” living overseas.” Newsweek, Japan edition, September 6, 2022.

[vii] “Russia prepared to attack not Ukraine but Japan. The Newsweek obtained email of a betrayer within FSB (Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation). Newsweek, Japan, November 25. 2022. 

[viii]“Written Request Addressed to President Vladimir Putin,” Moshirikor Kamui no Kai Society, January 11, 2019.

[ix] “Scientific denial of the theory that the Ainu are an indigenous people,” written by Matoba Mitsuaki, published by Matoba Mitsuaki Office, November 1, 2019, first edition, pp.224-225.

[x] The “Advisory Panel of Experts on Measures to be taken for Utari (meaning brethren, fellow countrymen)” chaired by Ito Masami, professor emeritus, the University of Tokyo, April 1, 1996,


 [a1]Paper from this group says “arctic” and not Jomon, Can you check again?

 [q2]The paper says “Jomon” not arctic.

See attached.