コンテンツへスキップ

月: 2024年1月

公開日

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories

Senior researcher

Shoichiro Kawahara

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

1. The result of the 2024 Taiwanese Presidential election

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Armed unification and Taiwan’s statehood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. The Taiwanese Strait and the East Asia in future

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

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

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

公開日

令和6年（2024年）1月

国際歴史論戦研究所　上席研究員

河原昌一郎

【英語版】https://i-rich.org/?p=1802

１　2024年台湾総統選の結果

　2024年台湾総統選では、与党・民主進歩党（以下「民進党」）の頼清徳候補が約40％の得票率で当選した。選挙戦では野党第一党・中国国民党（以下「国民党」）の侯友宜候補と野党第二党・民衆党の柯文哲候補と三つ巴の争いとなり、頼清徳候補がやや有利と見られたものの最後まで予断を許さない状況であったため、今回の結果に、欧米諸国をはじめ民主主義陣営に属する人々はひとまず胸をなでおろしたことであろう。ただし、同時に行われた立法院の選挙では、民進党は過半数を割り込んでおり、今後の台湾政治の不安定要因となることが懸念される。

この度の選挙戦で最大の争点となったのは、中共との向き合い方であった。

　民進党・頼清徳候補の対中共姿勢は、基本的に現在の蔡英文政権の路線を継承し、中共とは一定の距離を保ちつつ、その圧力には屈しないというものである。

　これに対して、国民党・侯友宜候補は、中共との融和路線を基本とし、中台間での話合いを通じた経済関係の強化・拡大を強調する。

　また、民衆党・柯文哲候補は、両候補の間をとり、米国と中国との橋渡しをすると主張した。

　こうした三者による選挙戦が進む中で、中共は台湾に親中政権を樹立するため、親中派である国民党・侯友宜候補に票が集まるよう、選挙干渉のためのあらゆる活動を行った。軍事的圧力、貿易制限、報道機関への干渉、フェークニュースの流布、台湾有力者の中国招待、台湾企業家への経済的便宜、台湾若者の中国留学、等、等である。

それでは、中共は、なぜそこまで躍起になって台湾に親中政権を樹立しようとするのだろうか。それは、そのことが中共の台湾統一シナリオに直結しているからである。以下で、そのことを見ていきたい。

２　中共の台湾平和的統一シナリオ

　中共の台湾統一シナリオには平和的統一と軍事的統一の２つのシナリオがある。巷間、よく議論されるものは軍事的統一シナリオであるが、軍事的統一は言うなれば最後の手段であり、平和的統一がまず追及されるべきシナリオである。

　台湾の平和的統一で、中共がこれまで対立していた国民党を逆利用することを思いついたのは、国民党が初めて野に下った2000年代初めのことであった。当時、国民党は政権を失った打撃が大きく、困窮していたが、そこに手を差し伸べて国民党の取込みを図ったのが中共であった。その総仕上げとも言うべきものが2005年4月29日の連戦国民党主席と胡錦涛共産党総書記との国共トップ会談である。同会談は第三次国共合作とも称された。同会談では五項目の共通認識（以下「五大願望」）が表明されたが、五大願望はまさに中共の台湾の平和的統一シナリオを明示したものである。その内容は、①両岸の協議を再開させること、②両党で定期交流の場を持つこと、③台湾の国際活動のあり方を協議すること、④両岸の全面的な経済貿易協力関係を形成すること、⑤両岸平和協定を締結すること、であった。

　2008年に政権を回復した国民党の馬英九はこの五大願望を忠実に実行した。ただし、経済貿易協力関係については、2010年の経済協力枠組協定の締結で大幅な自由化が実現したものの、サービス貿易協定の承認が学生等による反対運動（ひまわり学生運動）で挫折し、発効しないままとなった。2011年には両岸平和協定を持ち出したこともあったが時期早尚の感が否めず島内で強い反発に会い、速やかに撤回せざるを得なかった。その後の蔡英文政権では、当然、サービス貿易協定も両岸平和協定もお蔵入りとなり、現在に至っている。

　中共の台湾での親中政権樹立の狙いは、まず、このサービス貿易協定を発効させること等により、台湾でのメディア、出版、金融保険等の分野での支配を進めることである。柯文哲候補と侯友宜候補は選挙戦序盤でこのサービス貿易協定の発効を主張していたが、このことからも両者が中共の「手の者」になっていることが窺がえよう。

　そして、台湾での言論を支配した上で、一国二制度の考えを台湾人に浸透させることである。中共の考えでは、台湾人の一国二制度に対する反発が台湾統合の妨げの要因となっている。その要因を除去しようというものである。そうして台湾人の抵抗感を極力低めた上で、平和的に両岸平和協定を締結する。

　もとより、現実に両岸平和協定の締結に至るには、想定不可能な極めて複雑な状況に遭遇することとなろうが、大筋のシナリオは以上のようなものとなろう。いずれにしても親中政権でなければこうしたシナリオの実現は不可能であるが、今回の選挙ではそれを実現させることができなかった。中共の目論みは頓挫したのである。

３　武力統合と台湾の国家性

　中共のとるべき残るシナリオは軍事的統一すなわち武力統合であるが、これについては台湾の国家性に関する扱いが事の成否を左右する重要な問題となる。台湾への武力行使に外国の干渉が国際法上許されるのかという問題である。

　中共は台湾の国家性は認めず、中共の台湾への武力行使は中国という一国家内の内政問題だと主張する。台湾政府は国内の反乱団体に過ぎず、これへの武力行使は内政問題であり、内政問題には他国は干渉できないはずだと言うのである。

　これに対して、台湾の民進党は、台湾は十分な国家性を有しており、実態として分断国家であるとする。両岸の現実は、台湾の中華民国と大陸の中華人民共和国がそれぞれ並列的に分断国家として存在しているのであり、中共はその現実を認識すべきであると主張する。これによれば、中共の台湾への武力行使は、明白に国連憲章第２条第４項で禁ずる他国への侵略行為に該当し、他国の干渉を受けてもやむを得ないこととなろう。

　ところが、同じ台湾の政党であっても、国民党はこれとは異なる考えを持っている。国民党は蒋介石以来の伝統として「中国は一つ」との党是を維持している。敢えて主張しなくなったが、台湾は大陸をも含む中国国家の一部だとする考えを捨ててはいない。

なお、民衆党は国家観については口をつぐんだままであり、見解を明らかにしていない。

　このように台湾内部で国家観が異なることには留意が必要であるが、この30年来の民主主義の実践を通じて、台湾人の圧倒的多数は自身が事実上独立した国家で生活していると認識しており、台湾が中国国家の一部だと考える人はごくわずかとなっている。

　台湾が実体的な独立国家であることは国際法上も是認されるであろう。モンテビデオ条約での国家の要件は、「永続的住民」、「明確な領域」、「政府」、「他国との関係を取り結ぶ能力」の４点であるが、台湾はこれらの要件を問題なく満たしている。また、この30年来の独立した民主国家としての台湾の継続した活動を知らない国はないだろう。台湾が事実として独立した国家であることは疑いようのない事実である。中共は詭弁を弄しているにすぎない。台湾を事実上国家として扱うことが台湾の国際的地位を高め、台湾の安全にも資するのである。

４　今後の台湾海峡と東アジア

　今回の総統選で、蔡英文路線を引き継ぐとする頼清徳候補が当選したことから、台湾海峡の情勢が急速に不安定化するという懸念は薄れたが、中国による台湾への軍事的圧力はますます強化され、両岸の軍事的緊張は強まるであろう。

　一方で、東シナ海、南シナ海を含めて、東アジアでの米中の対立が深まる中で、米国にとって、東アジアの民主国家台湾の防御価値はかつてなく高まっている。このため、中国の台湾への武力行使に米国が介入しないことはあり得ないだろう。台湾は、民主主義陣営を率いる現在の米国の東アジア政策の要となっており、台湾の放棄は米国のアジア政策の崩壊と敗北を意味する。 　こうした中、今回の総統選挙の結果によって、とりあえず中共の平和的統一のシナリオが進展することを阻止できたことは民主主義陣営にとっては朗報であった。ただし、繰り返しになるが、立法院選挙では過半数を確保できなかった。このことは、政権運営に多くの困難をもたらすこととなろう。頼清徳政権の今後は、決して楽観視できるものではないのである。

公開日

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories

Senior researcher

Yoshiaki Yano

日本語

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

公開日

著者：金柄憲（国史教科書研究所）

和訳：宮本富士子
英訳：史実を世界に発信する会

解題

本論文の筆者である金柄憲（Kim byungheon）氏は、成均館大学（Sungkyunkwan University）漢文学科博士課程を修了した韓国史の専門家であり、現在は国史教科書研究所の所長として、韓国教科書の問題に取り組んでいる。

彼は元慰安婦と称する人々とその支持団体が主張する「日本政府による朝鮮人女性強制連行説」があまりにも事実を歪曲していることに義憤を覚え、2019年12月に在韓国日本大使館前で、元慰安婦をめぐるさまざまな「嘘」を告発する記者会見を行った。

以来、正義連（The Korean Council for Justice and Remembrance）（旧挺身隊問題対策協議会（The Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery））が日本大使館敷地前で開く「慰安婦を称える水曜デモ」に対抗して、同じ場所で「反慰安婦団体デモ」を敢行し、慰安婦問題の虚構を訴え続けている。その活動範囲は韓国内に止まらず、昨年6月末には仲間と共にドイツのベルリンまで飛び、区内に慰安婦像設置を許可したミッテ区議会に抗議し、設置された慰安婦像の前で集会を開いて「慰安婦問題の嘘」をベルリン市民に訴えた。

さらに当国際歴史論戦研究所（iRICH）をはじめ、日本側の「慰安婦問題」の真実を追求する団体との協力も進んでおり、昨年8月に名古屋で開催された「表現の不自由展・その後」に対しては「なでしこアクション」と共に名古屋に駆けつけ断固とした抗議を行った。

また、同年11月にはIrichが東京で主催した、慰安婦問題の嘘を糺すための「日韓共同シンポジウム」に参加、韓国教科書に書かれた「嘘」を糾弾した。

同シンポジウムは本年9月にソウルで第二回目が開かれ、元延世大学（Yonsei University）教授の池錫春（Ji Seokchoon）氏や落星台経済研究所 （Naksungdae Institute of Economic Research）の李宇衍（Lee Wooyeon）氏らと共に韓国側代表として登壇し、慰安婦を巡る韓国小中学校の教科書の歪曲・捏造の実態を具体的に示し、これらを徹底的に批判している。

本論文は金柄憲氏が自己の主張するところを簡潔にまとめたものである。慰安婦問題の重要ポイントが網羅されており、元慰安婦や左翼市民団体の主張が、極めて論理的かつ緻密な分析によって完全に論破されている。 なお、本論考の英文、和文は「史実を世界に発信する会」からすでに公表されているので、ここではリンクを張っていることをご了解頂きたい。

本文（史実を世界に発信する会Webサイトより）　日本語　英語