月: 2025年2月

Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=2196

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

Don’t destroy the country while observing the Recommendations

In October 2024, at the United Nations Headquarters in Geneva, the 89th session of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women was held.　At that session, the issues of Japan were examined after an eight-year pause. I attended the meeting as an NGO member and participated in joint activities with several groups, which have a cooperative relationship with us. After the session was over, the Committee announced the overall statement. In the statement, the Committee mentioned various recommendations, including the one referring to the revision of the Imperial House Law that designates the male member in the male lineage of the Imperial Family as a successor to the throne.

The Committee on the Convention and NGO

The United Nations Committees on human rights treaties, conventions and covenants, are used as venues by various NGOs that are not satisfied with their countries’ current situation to initiate changes in the system or the laws. They appeal to the Committee as a victim or a supporter of a certain human rights issue. The Committee members follow the NGO statements on the premise that in those cases, citizens are oppressed by the State. The task of the human rights experts chosen from all over the world is to save the weak.

Every few years, states that conclude human rights treaties are to be examined by the committee on the treaty as to how the treaty is properly carried out. Everyone that claims to be an NGO member can attend the examination committee and speak at the session held at the United Nations, Geneva. The most active NGOs at the United Nations arena are the so-called leftist liberal civil groups. Particularly, Japan has the overwhelmingly large number of participating NGOs. At the Committee on the Elimination of the Discrimination Against Women, over 40 NGOs had submitted their statements beforehand. Roughly 30 NGO groups spoke at the Geneva session and there were nearly 100 participants at the examination meeting concerning Japan. Among them, the so-called conservative NGOs, including our Institute, were 13, which means that nearly 90% were leftist NGOs and those who are linked with them. Even so, in fact, ten years ago, there were no conservative NGOs among the attendants.

Recommendations announced by the Committee in its overall statement have no legally binding power. However, in Japan, where there has been deep-rooted worship for the United Nations, the U.N. Recommendations have overwhelming effect because many people misunderstand that if the UN Recommendations are to be left unfulfilled, Japan would be left behind by the international community.

First, there is a treaty and then follow up recommendations

It is extremely difficult to refute the issue that has been recommended in the overall statement and to have the recommendations withdrawn. That is because the recommendations follow the treaty. For instance, the Japanese military comfort women issue. However laboriously Japan explains that comfort women were not forcibly abducted nor sexual slaves and that they were licensed prostitutes based on the contract, the Recommendation asking for measures to save former comfort women is not to be changed. This is because in Article 6 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women states: “States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women.” If we make the point that allowing a husband and wife to have a different family name damages the traditional family bond and nullifies the family register system, the U.N. Committee still recommends that a husband and wife should have a different family name, citing Article 16-1 (g) “the same personal rights as husband and wife, including the right to choose a family name.”

In the sixty paragraphs of the overall statement issued this time, various other recommendations were included. For example, under the “sexual reproductive health right, girls aged 16 and older shall have access to birth control, abortion and abortive pills without the consent of their parent or spouse.” This recommendation is along Article 12-1: “...in the field of health care in order to ensure on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health care services, including those related to family planning.”

Recommendation related to the Imperial House Law

Japan concluded the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women in   1985. Prior to the conclusion of the Convention, on May 29 at the 102nd Diplomatic Committee of the House of Representatives, the then Foreign Minister Abe Shinzo stated regarding the relationship between the Convention and the Japanese Imperial House Law, “The succession to the Throne is restricted to a male offspring in the male line belonging to the Imperial Lineage and this does not constitute discrimination against women defined in Article 1 of this Convention.” The Japanese Government was aware of the possibility of raising a question related to the Imperial House Law, prior to the conclusion of this Convention.

In 2001, Princess Aiko was born and two years later, in 2003, Committee member Mr. Enrique A. Manalo from the Philippines during the examination meeting over Japan asked about the Japanese Imperial House for the first time. “Have the Japanese Imperial House and the Japanese Government ever discussed the revision of the Imperial House Law so that Princess Aiko may become female Emperor?” The overall statement that time did not mention the Japanese Imperial Law.

In the 2016 examination over Japan, no mention was made at all about the Imperial House Law. Nevertheless, the overall statement about to be announced after the examination was nearly ready to include a recommendation that “the male succession in the male lineage in the Imperial House Law is discriminatory against women.” To mention in the overall statement an issue which was not discussed during the examination creates a procedural problem. The Japanese Government protested the reference and the part in question was deleted before the public announcement.

Then, a surprise attack occurred. In the advance list of questions to the Japanese Government announced by the Committee dated March 9, 2020, a question was asked about the Imperial House Law, “Explain in detail measures to be taken anticipating that female succession to the Throne can be a possibility.” Japanese NGO, Public Incorporated Association “Jiyu Jinken Kyokai (Free Human Rights Association) had submitted their statement that “The Imperial House Law allows only a male member in the male lineage of the Imperial Family to succeed to the Throne and this is applicable to the definition of discrimination against women in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.” The Committee had taken up their statement for examination.

In response to the advance list of questions, the Japanese Government replied in the ninth Government report in September 2021:

“Our Imperial House system and Royal systems in various countries in the world have been maintained to this day, based on the respective national history and tradition, supported by the people. The method of succession to the Throne should be, as defined in the Imperial House Law, a fundamental matter concerning the foundation of the State. In the light of the objective of this Convention aiming to eliminate discrimination against women, it is not appropriate for the Committee to address Japan’s Imperial House Law.”

It was well anticipated that during the examination over Japan to be held in October 2024 in Geneva, the Committee would deal with the Imperial House Law. Hopefully, the Society of the People’s Union to Preserve the Imperial Lineage (male in the male lineage), led by Chairperson Ms. Katsuragi Nami, was to act against the Committee. They submitted their statement in advance, participated in the meeting, spoke as an NGO at the open session, submitted an additional statement and handed out a brochure to the Committee members. We hope the material and information explaining that the Imperial House Law has nothing to do with the discrimination against women were fully understood by the Committee members.

Against our efforts and expectation, the Committee made the following recommendation to the Japanese Government regarding the Imperial House Law in the overall findings announced after the examination session:

“The Committee recommends the State Party to pay attention to the good examples of other States Parties that have revised the method of succession to the throne to ensure the equality of men and women, revise the Imperial House Law so that the equality of men and women may be guaranteed in the succession to the throne.”

The Committee regarded the Imperial House Law as the issue concerned to Article 1 of the Convention, “equality of men and women in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field,” and Article 2 (a) “To embody the principle of the equality of men and women, in their national constitutions or other appropriate legislation.” Thus, it became clear again that the Committee does not consider the States Parties’ national character, culture, tradition or history.

Don’t destroy the country while observing the Recommendations  

My first visit to the United Nations in Geneva was in 2014 when the examination over Japan of the Committee on the Civil and Political Rights was held. My purpose was to convey our view that comfort women were not sexual slaves to the Committee that was led to hold the view that they were sexual slaves. The Committee members are experts chosen across the world. They had been informed one-sidedly by the Japanese leftist groups. We had expected that if we told them the truth backed by the right arguments, they would have better understanding of the issue. After we acted at several other Committees on the conventions, we came to realize that the real issue was the Convention itself. The Committee members’ work is to issue recommendations following the Convention. The members follow liberal feminist thinking. Under the red convention, members of red experts adopt Japanese red NGOs’ views and issue red recommendations. This is how the Committee works. They listen to the counter arguments but are never persuaded to take them into account. Is it a good idea for Japan to remain a State Party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women? If it is not a State Party, a state is not subject to the examination or recommendation. The recommendation related to the revision of the Imperial House Law this time totally lacks any respect or reverence to the Imperial House. I think it a sufficient reason to rescind the Convention. I have experienced the extremely abnormal atmosphere in the conference room where the examination over Japan was held at the United Nations, Geneva. I hope from the bottom of my heart to absolutely avoid such a situation in which Japan is covered up with that eerie atmosphere and ceases to be Japan.

Japanese https://i-rich.org/?p=2256

Kawahara Shoichiro
Senior Researcher
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories (iRICH)

1.The Trump administration and China-Twaiwan relationship

In the United States, Mr. Trump took the presidential office, and the second Trump administration started. Viewing the members of the Trump administration in terms of the China-Taiwan relationship, Trump picked Mr. Marco Rubio as Secretary of State and Rep. Mike Waltz as National Security Advisor, as well as other senior officials, who are hard-liners on China. In Taiwan, most people expected Mr. Mike Pompeo to be reappointed Secretary of State, but it can be said that the Trump-picked lineup leaves nothing to be desired.

The China-Taiwan policy of the second Trump administration will basically follow the first -term hard line that confronted China with additional tariffs. Mr. Trump invited former Prime Minister Abe’s widow to his home and talked with her, prior to meeting with Prime Minister Ishiba, which has profound significance. One thing can be said that Mr. Trump will respect Mr. Abe’s policy-line on the diplomatic issues including how to deal with China from now on. Abe’s extremely pro-Taiwan policy was detested by the Chinese Communist Party and there was violent protest against it, which is fresh to our memory.

The great characteristic of Mr. Trump’s diplomatic policy is that he often shows little trust toward international organizations and acts unilaterally as a leader of the United States to solve the problem. Certainly, his way of dealing carries significant destructive power and is often very effective. In his first-term administration, he did not participate in the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement) promoted by Mr. Obama, his predecessor, and instead, applied the method of unilaterally sanctioning China according to the US Trade Law. China could do nothing whatsoever to cope with  these measures. Considering these circumstances, some predict that Trump may withdraw from the IPEF (Indo-Pacific Economic Framework) promoted by the Biden administration, of which the United States is a Party.

On the other hand, the China-Taiwan relationships have become increasingly tense. The Chinese Communist Party regards Mr. Lai Ching-te as Taiwan’s independence advocate and has been strengthening the military drill for the siege of Taiwan. In October 2024, in his presidential address marking the Double Tenth holiday (Taiwan’s National Day), President Lai referred to Taiwan as an independent state, which China regarded as totally unacceptable and conducted the largest ever military drill for the siege of Taiwan. CIA Director Burns said in February 2023 that President Xi Jinping ordered the Chinese Army to complete the preparation for invasion of Taiwan by 2027. If this is true, around 2027, China will most likely invade Taiwan.

2.The Chinese Communist Party’s scenario for the unification with Taiwan

The current key factor of the China-Taiwan relationships is the unification with Taiwan planned by the Chinese Communist Party, which has two scenarios, peaceful and military ones. These two scenarios are not to be carried out alone, but reciprocally and accordingly to the respective situation at the time.

The peaceful scenario is basically stated in the “Five-Article Common Recognition (Five Great Hopes)” agreed upon during the top meeting between Lien Chan, Chairman of the Kuomintang (Nationalist Party) and Hu Jin Tao, the general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party in 2005. According to the “Five Great Hopes,” Taiwan is to be economically incorporated and become highly dependent on China and then conclude the peace agreement to complete the unification of Taiwan with China, which is exactly the Chinese Communist Party’s scenario to unify Taiwan. Mr. Ma Ying-jeou, who restored the Kuomintang government in 2008, faithfully carried out the Five Great Hopes. And in 2011, adding the finishing touch to the Five Great Hopes, Mr. Ma proposed the peace agreement across the Taiwan Strait. The Taiwanese most strongly opposed the proposition, and Mr. Ma was obliged to withdraw his proposal immediately.

Later, in 2016, Ms. Tsai Ing-wen of the Democratic Progressive Party became the president, and the peace agreement across the Taiwan Strait was strictly sealed by the revised law that prohibits the peace agreement from being discussed as an agenda. In the following 2024, Mr. Lai Ching-te of the Democratic Progressive Party won the presidential election and succeeded the political position held by the Tsai Ing-wen administration.

Under such circumstances, the military unification scenario came to attract the people’s attention. The Chinese Communist Party, in view of the planned military attack on Taiwan, has been rapidly increasing military strength. Communist China’s military drills expand in scale, every time one takes place, it covers Taiwan wider and wider, threatens the Taiwanese people and incites fear.

3.Mr. Trump and the strategical ambiguity  

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal (digital edition) in October 2024, being asked how he would respond if China should blockade Taiwan, Mr. Trump said that if China should enter Taiwan, he would impose 150% to 200% tariffs on China. Instead of immediately resorting to military force, he would counter by additional tariffs, which would totally destroy the Chinese economy. This would be an effective deterrent. When asked directly if he would employ military force to cope with the siege of Taiwan, he said that there would be no need to use military force, because Mr. Xi respects him and knows that he is extraordinary. This probably means that if the United States should use armed force, that would be far more powerful than an ordinary deployment. Mr. Trump contrasts with Mr. Biden, who immediately answered that he would when asked if he would use military force in carrying out use of force. Mr. Trump thinks it better to leave certain strategical ambiguity at the time of Taiwan emergency.

4.The recognition of Taiwan’s statehood and national security

Like in the first one, in the second Trump administration, the policy of prioritizing Taiwan will be maintained, and arms sales and other measures will be actively conducted. There is one important issue the second Trump administration may possibly face. That is the issue of the recognition of Taiwan’s statehood as former Secretary State Pompeo advocates.

On May 7, 2022, while visiting Taiwan, Mr. Pompeo said that the United States should immediately carry out what it should have carried out much sooner. That is to recognize Taiwan as a free sovereign state. He also said that the recognition of Taiwan’s statehood is the largest security for Taiwan.

Mr. Pompeo has been energetically acting to achieve that goal, lobbying the United States authorities for the recognition of Taiwan’s statehood. During a meeting at the Hudson Institute, Mr. Pompeo said he encourages US officials to visit Taiwan more often, even though doing so would incite threats from the CCP. “I hope more other senior American officials will join me in this, because I think it will create noise,” he said. “There will be angst, the Chinese Communist Party will bluster and threaten, but that clarity will provide the call for the world to accept the fundamental truth, that fundamental reality.”

That “reality” is that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country, he said.

The Chinese Communist Party does not accept Taiwan’s statehood. According to the CCP, the use of armed force against Taiwan is a domestic issue within the state called China. In other words, any use of armed force against Taiwan is a pure domestic matter and other countries should not interfere in a country’s domestic policy.

Looking at the reality of the Taiwan Strait, anyone cannot help but feel that the Chinese Communist Party’s assertion that Taiwan is part of China is a sheer sophistry. According to international law and the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, the criteria for statehood are (a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, (c) government and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. Taiwan satisfies all these qualifications without any problem. Anyone knows Taiwan’s steady and continuous activities over the last thirty years as an independent democracy. It is undeniable that two states exist across the Taiwan Strait. Therefore, the Chinese Communist Pary’s use of force against Taiwan clearly violates the United Nations Charter Article 2-4: All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

However, at present, Taiwan is not permitted to join the United Nations and is disqualified as a member of any United Nations organizations. The rights of the population of 23 million Taiwanese are damaged in many ways.

In reality, any state that intends to recognize Taiwan as a state should be fully prepared for severance of its diplomatic relationship with China as the Chinese Communist Party’s retaliatory measure. Therefore, no state is willing to recognize Taiwan’s statehood for fear of such diplomatic risk. The only state that can risk such a diplomatic disadvantage is the United States. However, the current difficult global circumstances would not allow the United States to take such a risk. It would be either when the China-Taiwan relationships are stressed to the extreme or the use of force becomes reality that the United States will step forward to recognize Taiwan’s statehood. In that case, the United States would be requested to recognize Taiwan’s statehood in view of securing the rightfulness of the use of force under the international law and obtaining due agreement from other countries of the world.

Aside from the prospect of whether the critical situation between China and Taiwan occurs during the second-term Trump administration, the recognition of Taiwan’s statehood is a crucial issue directly affecting the entire world. The United States will further deliberate the Taiwan issue from now on. It is not at all desirable to leave China’s sophistry as it is, which clearly contradicts the reality of the Taiwan Strait and violates the Taiwanese rights. While expecting Mr. Pompeo and his supporters to make further efforts, in Japan, we should promote the awareness of this issue so that the recognition of Taiwan’s statehood may be realized as soon as possible.