Kuno Jun, Guest Fellow, Associate Professor, Japan University of Economics
It has been already a year since Russia invaded Ukraine. During all this time, I have been consistently expressing my view at every opportunity as a scholar of modern history. The point in question is not to decide which side is in the right, but to use this occasion to start a serious discussion, based on history, about what we should do for the interest of our country.
Being “based on history” does not mean that we can ignore what is going on at present. Even today, the Japanese Northern Territories and the Chishima Islands (Kuril Islands) are still illegally occupied by Russia. Making things straight, let me explain that the four northern islands of Etorofu, Kunashiri, Habomai and Shikotan were unlawfully occupied by the Russian Army after the end of the Greater East Asian War. The Kuril Islands legally became Japanese territory by the treaty of exchange between Sakhalin and Kuril concluded in 1875 and South Sakhalin legally became Japanese territory, following the Portsmouth Peace Treaty in 1905. In addition to the Russian illegal invasion, the issue of the detention of Japanese prisoners of war in Siberia after World War II remains unsettled, without any apology nor compensation for the illegal detention on the part of the Soviet Union/ Russia in the postwar years. In other words, Russia has been violating Japan’s sovereignty to this day, ignoring the act of violation of Japan’s sovereignty in the not so distant past by the Soviet Union, from which Russia inherited the status as a legal state. (Further back in the past, before the modern period, there was an incident of Russian invasion (1806-07), which is not to be mentioned any further here.)
While it is natural that there are many varying views and assertions when it comes to diplomatic dealing with Russia, it goes without saying that it is indispensable to recognize the historical facts and the present situation in order to consider any realistic policy toward Russia. And in order to affirm Japan’s international position that Japan will protect its national interests from now on and will not allow Russia to commit any further oppressive acts, it is our country’s duty to inform the international community of the violation of other countries’ sovereignty on the part of Russia. We cannot help but admit that the Japanese government in the postwar years failed to make any serious efforts to convey the historical facts even domestically in Japan.
Speaking of my personal experience, at an elementary school I attended in Nara Prefecture they taught social class using a sub-textbook titled “Living in Nara Prefecture.” I clearly remember that the textbook said, “Totsukawa Village (located in Nara Prefecture) is the largest village in Japan.” Certainly, this description is right in view of the data available then about the ranking of municipal areas. In fact, however, villages like Rubetsu, Shana and Shibetoro in Etorofu Island and Yorubetsu in Kunashiri Island are bigger in area. The author of the textbook may have had no malicious intention, but the fact that textbook publishers continue to use such false description and that public education continues to use such textbooks with wrong information makes me wonder whether similar flawed approach is adequate with respect to the protection of our country’s territories. On the other hand, seen from the Soviet Union/ Russia’s perspective, such passivity may create the impression that Japan has no intention to recover its territories unlawfully occupied by another country. I came to be closely interested in the territorial issue in later years, not through school education or forced hard work for the entrance examination, but through study out of my own interest.
As of the Russian invasion of Ukraine this time, first of all, it is naturally important to stand resolutely with the international community against the violent and lawless Russian invasion. Essentially, now that Russia is in a predicament due to difficulties in winning the war and it spends huge amounts of resources in military actions, it is a good opportunity for Japan to retrieve its Northern Territories and the Kuril Islands or at least to lay the foundation for the retrieve. This may sound a little bit indiscreet. However, have peaceful measures taken at peaceful times been ever successful in moving forward the process of retrieving our land so far? Of course, the Japanese Government is not solely to blame for the failure due to its tactlessness, but another big issue is also general public’s lack of awareness or historical recognition of the situation. I do not totally deny the importance of economic aid and human exchanges. However, after all those ineffective efforts on the part of Japan, for nearly eighty years, part of Japan has been lost. Japan must be determined, once and for all, to change its thinking and tactics.
And one more thing to worry about is that there are those who loudly speak for Russia among conservatives, yet they should raise their voices to defend the national interests. In other words, some argue that President Biden is to blame for the outbreak of the Ukrainian War, criticizing political corruption and diplomatic blunders on the part of Ukraine, while putting President Putin’s aggressive acts in relative perspective. In such arguments, actors like American Deep State (Dark Government) appear often and some even seem to collaborate with speakers who usually regard prewar Japan as “evil.” Of course, such arguments did not suddenly appear last year, but there had been already prototypical believers, saying “To criticize Russia over the Northern Territories issue is exactly what the United States wants, trying to prevent Russo-Japanese cooperation.” However, I cannot help but wonder if such argument is beneficial to Japan’s national interest or it can be helpful in promoting the retrieve of the Northern Territories.
I am not pro-America at all. When I was in elementary school, I was taught by a private tutor that “the attack on Pearl Harbor might have been a plot by the United States.” Around that time, I witnessed with my own eyes incidents of the U.S. pressure on its free importing issue. Ever since then, I have been sheerly doubtful about the United States policies. And at the International Military Tribunal for Far East a.k.a. Tokyo Trials led by the United States (although it was partly influenced by a non-dominant faction of the US), many innocent Japanese were executed, which I can never forgive emotionally.
I cannot agree with either the idea of vindicating Russia or the “Deep State” theory. There is no definite proof that “it was entirely the doing of the Biden Administration from scratch,” and I don’t think it is good for the Japanese to believe such a story. As I mentioned earlier, I do not believe in the United States, but I do feel it necessary for Japan to do the minimal duty when it comes to the U.S.-Japan alliance. If not, no decent country would agree to build an alliance with Japan. Of course, through such a process (including international intelligence war), it is necessary to obtain the support of the international opinion, and there is no probability that sympathizing with Putin as things are now should lead to it.
In the modern history of our country, there always has been temptation toward an “anti-American” impulse, especially after the Soviet Union was established through the Russian Revolution. The Soviet Union and the communist power, which were the true enemies of Japan, conspired to alienate Japan from the United States for their own survival. It worked, up until the conclusion of the Anti-Comintern Pact between Japan, Germany and Italy (1937), but after signing the Tripartite Pact between Germany, Italy and Japan plus the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact (1941), the policy against communism was practically abandoned. The failure of the Japanese diplomacy at that time was not militarism but that Japan entered the war against the United States and Britain at the most suitable timing and following the most suitable composition for the Soviet Union, believing in the Soviet Union, a communist state. Consequently, the neutrality pact with Japan was abandoned by the Soviet Union, whom Japan expected to become arbitrator immediately before the end of the war, instead, it invaded Japanese territories without any provocation. And the Soviet aggression continued after the war officially ended. Thus, Japan’s Northern Territories remain unreturned at present. Japan of the Reiwa era must not forget the history of bitter betrayal by the Soviet Union. The issue of returning Japanese territories unlawfully occupied by Soviet Union must not be slighted. After the Greater East Asian War ended, the unit under the command of Higuchi Kiichiro of the Fifth Area Army courageously fought against the dominant Russian Army in Shumushu Island in the northernmost end of the Kuril Islands and all the surviving officers and soldiers were harshly detained in Siberia and thus saved Hokkaido through their courage and sacrifice. Japan must not nullify their gallant fight and sacrificial efforts. In the advent of the tragic invasion of Ukraine, although I am not at all hoping the conflict to last much longer nor victims’ number to further increase, we must do all that we can to solve the territorial issue, which still has not been resolved. This attempt is not Japan’s ill-willed revenge against the unlawful invasion of the Soviet Union committed 78 years ago, taking advantage of Japan’s worst predicament at that time. This is a good opportunity for Japan to make Russia, which has been historically menacing peace and to which the right opinion of the international community seems to mean nothing, recognize the right opinion, based on history, in cooperation with other countries concerned. The Japanese Government should appeal to the world for the solution of the urgent issue of returning the Japanese Northern Territories, explaining how it happened in the first place, following the Ukraine problem.
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
IntroductionPurpose 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 1Distortions 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
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.
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 2Distortions 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 3Measures 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.
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?
On May 10, the Yoon Suk-yeol administration was born in South Korea. During his presidential campaign, Yoon Suk-yeol pledged to “work to restore the relationship between South Korea and Japan if elected,” which has elicited in some people in Japan the optimistic expectation that he was a pro-Japanese person and the Japan-South Korea relationship would take a turn for improvement. However, this was a big mistake and in reality, the confrontation between Japan and South Korea will enter a crucial phase from now on.
It is true that Yoon Suk-yeol’s father is an expert on Japan who once taught at Hitotsubashi University and Suk-yeol himself also has an experience of visiting Japan when he was younger. However, “knowledgeable about Japan” does not equal “pro-Japanese.”
One of the ancestors of the Yoon family was Yoon Bong-gil, who committed the Hongkew Park Bombingnote 1) in Shanghai in 1932 that killed and injured many people, including civilians. He, a merciless terrorist, is praised in South Korea as an anti-Japanese hero and a proud precursor of the Yoon family. It was natural that Yoon Suk-yeol chose the Yoon Bong-gil Memorial Hall as the venue of the press conference for announcing his candidacy for the presidential election.
In addition to his descent, Yoon Suk-yeol is from a generation that has been receiving intense anti-Japanese education since childhood, which has prevented the formation of any pro-Japanese ideas. Regarding the comfort women issue, he is convinced that “200,000 Korean women were forcibly taken away by the Japanese government and made into sex slaves.” He visited the “comfort women museum” in Daegu City, took the hand of Lee Yong-soo, who claims to have been a former comfort woman, and went so far as to pledge by hooking each other’s little finger to “obtain an apology from Japan for certain and heal the psychological wounds of you all.”
The Yoon administration has a rocky road ahead. There is no way that President Yoon Suk-yeol can solve structural problems overnight, such as the widening economic and social disparity, declining birthrate, and deteriorating export competitiveness. It is obvious that, if nothing is done, the Yoon administration will be held back by the opposition party, which has an overwhelming majority in the parliament, and lose the trust of the people, being unable to take effective economic measures.
If he cannot score points with internal affairs, the only way left is diplomacy. Yoon Suk-yeol should be thinking that, for the Yoon administration to maintain its approval rating, the most effective way is to normalize the extremely chilly relations between South Korea and Japan in line with South Korea’s point of view and make a display of his victory in diplomacy toward Japan.
He claims to “improve the relationship between South Korea and Japan” not because he is sympathetic toward Japan but because he has scrupulously calculated that it will bring him a diplomatic victory and strengthen his administration’s reputation.
Yoon Suk-yeol, well-versed in the Japanese ways of thinking, is assumed to know the “essence” of how to cajole the Japanese people. He is more likely to be a tough opponent for Japan than the former president Moon Jae-in, who was “simply anti-Japanese.”
The Yoon administration is anticipated to launch a major offensive concerning history issues soon after taking office.
And its preliminary skirmishes have already begun. Yoon Suk-yeol sent a “delegation for policy dialogue” to Japan toward the end of April and Chung Jin-suk, the head of the delegation, made a statement to the media at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, urging Japan to compromise on history issues: “No sound can be made with one hand. The two nations must make sincere efforts.”
In addition, foreign minister-candidate Park Jin stated at a personnel hearing held in the National Assembly of South Korea on May 2 that he would “respect the decision of the judicial branch” concerning the wartime workers’ trial. He also mentioned that Japan’s apology was required for solving the comfort women issue. That is, he declared that his office, as a representative of the Republic of Korea, would not compromise on the history issues.
Up to now, the government of Japan has maintained its legitimate perspective that “the Japanese Annexation of Korea was lawful,” “no forcible taking away by the Japanese authorities took place” and “the claim rights issue between Japan and South Korea has been resolved” based on historical facts. In order to undermine this, the Yoon administration aims to use backdoor tactics to involve Japan with the comfort women and wartime workers issues.
First, Yoon will throw the ball to Japan’s court saying that he “will make efforts to improve the relationship between Japan and South Korea but wants Japan to cooperate as well regarding the comfort women issue, wartime workers issue and Sado Gold Mine issue.” No doubt he also will ask the US President Biden for “cooperation to urge Japan to compromise because he wants the ‘Japan-US-ROK’ partnership reinforced in terms of security.” That is what the US wants, and the US may also put pressure on Japan saying that, if the ball is in Japan’s court, Japan should take South Korea’s claim into account to strengthen the partnership. The defense and offence may change positions in diplomatic negotiations.
If that happens, the public opinion of Japan will also change. If the opponent was Lee Jae-myung, who repeats his anachronistic assertion that they should “be prepared for Japan’s invasion of the continent,” few Japanese would have been sympathetic to South Korea. However, with Yoon Suk-yeol, who apparently takes a conciliatory stance toward Japan, public opinion may be split. Major mass media under the control of the leftists will start a chorus of “The Japanese government should lend an ear to South Korea’s claims.” It is expected that, in talk shows, commentators who disregard the national interest will make one hypocritical remark after another that misleads the people such as “The Japanese government should not persist but get along well with the neighbor.” There is a possibility that public opinion may come around to Japan-Korea reconciliation at once.
However, at the root of South Korea’s logic is the historical perception that “the Japanese rule of Korea was unlawful colonial occupation and all activities conducted by the Japanese government and businesses were unlawful.” That is why they are making far-fetched claims that “free recruitment,” “official placement” and “requisition,” which were conducted lawfully, were all “unlawful forced mobilization.” If Japan lends an ear to South Korea’s claims and makes any concession, it will mean that Japan has empathized with South Korea’s logic of “unlawful colonial occupation.” That is, Japan will be considered to have voluntarily withdrawn its legitimate view maintained in the negotiations for the Japan-Korea Basic Relations Treaty that “the Japanese rule was lawful also in terms of international law.”
This is quite appalling. Tax collection and draft by the Government-General of Chosen will all be declared unlawful, and the profits made by Japanese businesses in the Korean Peninsula during the period of occupation will be labeled as “exploitation.” Everything may become a target of lawsuits and compensation on the ground that it was against Korean people’s will, not to mention the comfort women and wartime workers issues. The idea of no statute of limitations for crimes against humanity is becoming international common sense and South Korea may endlessly keep demanding apology and compensations from Japan. The honor of Japan will be impaired and a reconciliation between Japan and South Korea will never be reached.
Then, what should be done is to formally communicate Japan’s legitimate perspective that “everything has been resolved” to Yoon Suk-yeol before it is too late and secure South Korea’s commitment to observance of treaties and agreements concluded between Japan and South Korea. He was once the prosecutor general and should be unable to argue back if challenged based on law.
On that basis, Japan should candidly say to Yoon Suk-yeol that the main culprit of the hostility between Japan and South Korea is South Korea’s historical perception that twists the facts. If he cannot understand 100%, it will be sufficient if he recognizes that the two countries have their own positions and how meaningless it is to unconditionally force the logic of the one on the other. If he is a “man of faith,” there is a possibility that he will persuade the people, have the comfort women statues, a nasty harassment to Japan, removed, and resolve the issue of compensation to wartime workers internally to pave the way to true reconciliation between Japan and South Korea.
This is a crucial point for the Japanese government. Diplomacy is a pushing contest and not a compromise at all. Easy concession and consideration will only show weaknesses to the other party. For realizing true friendly relations between Japan and South Korea and for the national interest of Japan and the future of our children and grandchildren, the Kishida administration now must take a firm attitude to make a point to South Korea that Japan’s intention is to “never accept unreasonable demands based on twisted history” without being misled by any cajolery or sophistry of South Korea and without playing up to frivolous public opinion.
Note 1) Shanghai Hongkew Park Bombing A terrorist bombing incident that occurred in Hongkew Park in Shanghai on April 29, 1932. A ceremony to celebrate the birthday of Emperor Showa was held on that day, in the presence of leaders of Japan gathered on the stage. While the national anthem Kimigayo was being sung in unison, Yoon Bong-gil threw a powerful bomb toward the center of the stage. The victims are as listed below. Killed instantaneously: Kawabata Sadaji (doctor), Chairman of the Administrative Committee of the Japanese Resident's Association of Shanghai Seriously injured: General Shirakawa Yoshinori, Commander of the Shanghai Expeditionary Force (died of the injuries one month later) Lieutenant General Ueda Kenkichi, Commander of the 9th Division of the Imperial Japanese Army Imperial Japanese Navy Vice Admiral Nomura Kichisaburo, Commander of the 3rd Fleet (lost an eye) Shigemitsu Mamoru, Japanese Envoy in Shanghai (lost a leg; later successively served as the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Hatoyama and other cabinets) Murai Kuramatsu, Japanese Consul-General in Shanghai Tomono Shigeru, Chief Secretary of the Japanese Resident's Association of Shanghai
Yoon Bong-gil, the culprit, attempted to kill himself on the spot, when he was caught and arrested by the military police of the Shanghai Expeditionary Force and, after a court-martial, he was executed by a firing squad at Kanazawa Prison on December 19.
< Supplementary note: This article is to the same effect as the opinion in writing dated March 30, 2022, sent to Sakurai Yoshiko, President of the Japan Institute for National Fundamentals, which has been revised in accordance with the inauguration of the new President of the Republic of Korea. >