カテゴリー: 論説

Nonoda Takahiro
Researcher
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

Japanese https://i-rich.org/?p=2129

1. Introduction—the popularization of the Internet and the present

The commercial use of the Internet was authorized in 1994, and since then the Internet has been an indispensable infrastructure in our present-day social life. An ubiquitous society where everything is inter-connected through a network, which this author referred to in the iRICH statement of December 2022 that Professor Sakamura Ken conceived “a society where everything is connected to a network” (ubiquitous or later, IoT (Internet of Things)[i], has been realized more than thirty years after the TRON project (The Real-time Operating System Nucleus) launched.

In this paper, bearing in mind that with the Internet the way information is disseminated and shared has drastically changed, let me discuss the aggregated information in the World Wide Web (WWW) and its relation to historical controversies.

2.From Web1.0 to Web3.0 

In Web1.0, many individuals have their own website and disseminate diary entries, photos, hobbies and other things of interest. The characteristic of WWW during this phase was that “sender” and “receiver” were clearly present. In this WWW generation, expertise and information were completely within the individual website and the necessary information was being accessed through search engines.

In Web2.0[ii], a large volume of information is concentrated into an information-disseminating platform. YouTube and Wikipedia serve as such platforms. Social networking services, such as Facebook, Instagram and Line attract many users, and information is disseminated toward bilateral directions. These platforms are provided by private companies and naturally, companies providing infrastructure to run such platforms become prevailing.[iii] The so-called GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft) companies are famous and control information in the name of “community rules.”

Web3.0[iv] intends to be free from dependance on platforms. Ultimately, this invention can be considered an effort to make WWW free space by eliminating the need for GAFAM. Concretely, they try to become less dependent on platforms by setting up information diversely.

3.World Wide Web and historical controversies

At the time of Web1.0, individual or group disseminators expressed their own views in the form of a website and the information was posted diversely. In that way, few arguments occurred and even if they did, they were dealt with within the individual website and no all-out argument involving the entire WWW could occur.

In Wikipedia, as an example of the platforms of the Web2.0 period, users post articles on a specific issue and the information is put in order after users’ reviews are posted and the ultimate agreement is reached. In Wikipedia, according to their rules[v], it is required to allow posted information to be cited by viewers and to clearly specify websites, academic papers and publications as information sources. Since there is a risk of authors of articles having partial information sources, to brush up articles with respect to impartiality, a reviewing process is very useful, contributing greatly to this effort. If arguments go the wrong way, Wikipedia information can become biased or misleading or even fake. When getting information from Wikipedia, users should be aware of this risk.

4.Historical controversies in generative AI

Information produced by generative AI, as mentioned in the previous section, largely depends on “teachers’ data” and “machine learning.” Brushing up by machine learning is “expected”, but since this is based on the “view of human nature as fundamentally good,” there is a risk of fake information to be provided by ill-intentioned users. Generative AI has a grave technical issue of how to eliminate ill-willed users.

5.Conclusion

Thus, the history of the World Wide Web has been briefly explained. While information is integrated and stored as a mammoth date file, it is eventually used by a system like generative AI, which extracts information from the gigantic database and presents it as transformed texts.

In historical studies, false study results have been disseminated to the world, and to correct such false results, not only researchers but also the public should realize that in pursing true historical studies, the use of AI has certain limitations. “Teachers’ data” which are the basis of the conclusion generative AI extracts are mostly based on wrong study results in the past, so generative AI makes conclusions based on wrong data and naturally, such conclusions induced by generative AI are wrong. Let me conduct a case study on a theme the International Research Institute of Controversial Histories deals with.

[Case Study]: Evaluation of generative AI in the “comfort women issue”

As an example of generative AI, let me put a question to the two versions of the typical general AI system ChatGPT and examine the results. Let us ask the generative AI system an ambiguous question. The purpose is to analyze in how many sentences the AI answers the question and whether the answer is based on multiple-phased viewpoints (unbiased). As generative AI, ChatGPT is used with the versions GPT-3.5 and GPT-4o.

GPT-4o is a later-versioned AI system, which is equipped with consolidated teachers’ data and tuned-up generative AI engine.

Question: About Comfort women in the Greater East Asian War

Answer (GPT3.5)

The issue of comfort women during the Greater East Asia War (Pacific War) refers to the Japanese military establishing comfort stations in war zones and forcibly mobilizing women (especially those who served during the war) to be used as sexual slaves. This is considered a form of military sexual exploitation and human rights violation during wartime. The Japanese government has previously taken steps to apologize and provide compensation for this issue, but there remain differences in recognition and historical perspectives among the victims and involved parties.

Author’s analysis and consideration:

The contents closely resemble the likely words inscribed on the comfort woman statues built in the United States. The answer is short in less than 200 words. The answer is written only from the viewpoint of the victims and remains a one-sided account.

Answer (GPT-4.0)

The comfort women issue during the Greater East Asia War (World War II) is a historical problem involving the forced use of women as sex slaves by the Japanese military during the war. Below is an overview of the issue.

Background

Comfort women refer to women who were forced to work in comfort stations set up to provide sexual services to Japanese soldiers. These women were gathered not only from Japan but also from Korea, China, the Philippines, Indonesia, and other regions occupied by Japan.

Recruitment Methods

Many comfort women were forcibly taken through violence and deception. The recruitment involved the military and government, and women were often tricked into going by promises of good jobs.

Conditions in Comfort Stations

Life in the comfort stations was extremely harsh. The women were subject to daily sexual violence, and their health deteriorated. Many of them could not return home until the war ended, and even after returning, they continued to suffer from psychological and physical trauma.

Postwar Response

After the war, the Japanese government denied or downplayed the comfort women issue for a long time. However, in the 1990s, former comfort women began to speak out, attracting international attention. In 1993, then Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono issued the “Kono Statement,” acknowledging the Japanese military’s involvement and coercion, and apologized. However, the issue remains unresolved, with ongoing debates over historical recognition and compensation.

Current Situation

The comfort women issue is a particularly important topic in Japan-South Korea relations. In 2015, the Japanese and South Korean governments reached an agreement for a “final and irreversible resolution,” but there has been strong opposition to this agreement, and the issue remains unresolved.

The comfort women issue needs to continue to be discussed as an important historical matter, respecting the dignity and human rights of the women who were victims of the war.

Author’s analysis and consideration:

There are 723 words, three times more than the other answer. However, this answer leaves much to be desired, with a lot of grave fake statements and misinformation. Wrong expressions mentioned are “sex slaves” and “Many of them could not return home until the war ended.” If the person who asked is well-informed, mistakes are easily detected. The answer is mixed with fake information, as mentioned in the statement. It is important to nourish media literacy.

Conclusion of the case study

We can clearly see that in obtaining information regarding controversial historical issues, through generative AI, overseas views of history are strongly reflected, and the system is not yet sufficient to disseminate Japanese views of history to the world. However, information disseminated from Japan came to be adopted among teachers’ data, which helps improve the situation. Therefore, it is important to disseminate Japanese views of history widely in English.

As shown by the case study, the ability to discern the authenticity of information or consider the bias is strongly required of an individual. As information along the line of the receiver’s intention is presented on a priority basis,[vi] it is necessary for the receiver to bear this preference in mind and always be careful about whether the obtained information is biased.

---

[i] YRP Ubiquitous Network Laboratory, greeting from the director (online), cited on July 27, 2024, https://www2.ubin.jp/overview/greeting/.

[ii] O’Reilly Tim. What is Web2.0. (online), cited on July 26, 2024. https://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.

[iii] Iseki Yosuke. World-class cyber jurist discusses “the problem of Web2.0 before the launch of Web3.” Forbes (online), cited on July 27, 2024. https://forbesjapan.com/articles/detail/48144.

[iv] ecbeing. What is Web3.0(Web3)? Dispersive next-generation Internet-ecbeing (online) cited on July 26, 2024. https://www.ecbing.net/contents/detail/318.

[v] Wikipedia. Wikipedia: policy and guideline. Wikipedia(online) cited on July 26, 2024. https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E6%96%B9%E9%87%9D%E3%81%9D%E3%81%A8%E3%82%AC%E3%82%A4%E3%83%89%E3%83%A9%E3%82%A4%E3%83%B3.

[vi] Kaonavi. What is filter bubble phenomenon? Counter-measures using easy examples, kaonavi(online) cited on July 26, 2024. https://www.kaonavi.jp/dictionay/filter-bubble/.

Hiromichi Moteki
Senior Researcher
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

Japanese https://i-rich.org/?p=2133

1．How do junior high school history textbooks describe the Marco Polo Bridge incident and the Second Sino-Japanese War?

How do school history textbooks of respective publishers deal with the Marco Polo Bridge incident that triggered the Second Sino-Japanese War and the ensuing expansion of the war?

Tokyo Shoseki: In July 1937, on the event of armed clash between the Japanese and Chinese Armies around the Marco Polo Bridge in the suburbs of Beijing (the Marco Polo Bridge incident), the Second Sino-Japanese War broke out. The conflict spread toward Shanghai in central China to become an all-out war.

Teikoku Shoin: In July of the following year (1937), triggered by the Marco Polo Bridge incident in the suburbs of Beijing in which the Japanese and Chinese Armies clashed, the Second Sino-Japanese War started. The Japanese Army also invaded from Southern China and occupied Shanghai and Nanjing, the then capital of the Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang) Government.

Kyoiku Shuppan: In July 1937, triggered by the Marco Polo Bridge incident in which the Japanese and Chinese Armies clashed, the Second Sino-Japanese War started. In August, the battle spread to Shanghai and without declaring war, the Japanese Army incessantly strengthened forces and expanded the war front.

Yamakawa Shuppan: Amid the worsening relationship between Japan and China, in July 1937, at the Marco Polo Bridge in the suburbs of Beijing, the Japanese and Chinese Armies clashed (the Marco Polo Bridge incident). Coping with this situation, Prime Minister Konoe Fumimaro adopted at first a non-expansion policy. However, under the pressure from the military and in the face of the nation supporting the military, he changed the original policy, increased the forces and expanded the war zone into an all-out war.

Nihon Bunkyo Shuppan: In July 1937, at the Marco Polo Bridge in the suburbs of Beijing, an incident of military clash occurred between the Japanese and Chinese Armies. This incident triggered a war between Japan and China and in August, which spread to Shanghai. Thus, Japan and China entered an all-out war without declaring war. (The Second Sino-Japanese War).

Ikuho-sha: InJuly 1937, amid the growing tension between Japan and China, the Japanese Army stationed in Beijing was fired at by unknown perpetrator while training near the Marco Polo Bridge in the suburbs of Beijing and a battle started between the Japanese and Chinese Armies (the Marco Polo Bridge incident). The Japanese Cabinet of Konoe Fumimaro adopted a non-expansion policy but then decided to increase the forces. In August, the Chinese Army killed a Japanese military officer in Shanghai, which triggered a battle between the Chinese Army and the Japanese Army stationed in Shanghai.

Reiwa Shoseki: And in July of the following year, 1937, the Marco Polo Bridge incident occurred. At that time, the Japanese Army was stationed in Beijing, following the treaty concluded after the Boxers Rebellion which took place in 1900. Japanese troops, engaged in a night drill near the Marco Polo Bridge, were attacked by an unknown shooter. At dawn on the following day, the Japanese Army attacked the base of the Nationalist Revolutionary Army, which escalated into a battle between the two Armies. After this incident, those who were against escalation and wanted to resolve the matter promptly and those who supported escalation to defeat the Nationalist Revolutionary Army on this occasion conflicted with each other. In due time, cease-fire agreement was reached, but Prime Minister Konoe decided to dispatch troops to the Chinese North. In August, when a battle broke out in Shanghai, Prime Minister Konoe abandoned the non-escalation policy and entered an all-out war.

2．The cease-fire agreement on the scene (July 11) tells the very truth about the Marco Polo Bridge incident

We have seen the respective publishers’ descriptions. Tokyo Shoseki, Teikoku Shoin, Kyoiku Shuppan, Yamakawa Shuppan and Nihon Bunkyo Shuppan unanimously write that a military clash incident between Japan and China at the Marco Polo Bridge led to the total war, without mentioning which side attacked first as if the incident happened accidentally and then the incident grew into a bigger conflict.

Ikuhosha, unlike the above mentioned six publishers, writes that the Japanese military “was shot by someone unknown”, but does not at all mention “from which side.”

Reiwa Shoseki also mentions “being shot by someone,” but does not mention at all “from which side,” either.

In fact, there is extremely powerful evidence regarding “which side opened fire.” It is the “on-the- spot cease-fire agreement,” exchanged by both parties on July 11, four days after the incident. It was a paper agreed to by both parties, the Japanese Army (China Stationed Army (6500 strong) and Chinese 29th Army (100,000 strong) and is very important as such. The agreement consists of the following three paragraphs:

1. The representative of the 29th Army expresses regret to the Japanese military, punishes the one in charge and declares with responsibility that an incident like this shall never occur again in future.
2. The Chinese Army is stationed too close to the Japanese Army at Fengtai, which may easily lead to a conflict, therefore, troops will not be stationed at the east bank of Youngding River near the Marco Polo Bridge and peace and order will be kept by security troops.
3. Considering that the incident was provoked by the so-called Blue Shirts Society, the Communist Party and other anti-Japan bodies, measures shall be taken against them, together with a complete crackdown.

In the first paragraph, the Chinese Army apologizes, admitting that the responsibility for the incident rests on the Chinese side and promises to punish the one in charge. It is not to specify the “perpetrator,” but since the Communist Party can be a possible suspect, they promise to conduct thorough crackdown. In either way, China apologizes for the fact that the perpetrator was Chinese.

Despite the presence of such a clear fact, publishers do not refer to this agreement at all but write ambiguously that “The Chinese Army and Japanese Army clashed,” as if out of the blue, which seems to be an attempt to conceal the true perpetrator. In gist, they neglected the most important “on-the-spot cease-fire agreement” only because they wanted to assert that “the perpetrator was the Japanese Army” intending to escalate the conflict into a total war.

In fact, the description of Jiyu-sha used to mention the on-the-spot cease-fire agreement but did not put the original text of this agreement. They were afraid if they had put it, the textbook would surely fail the accreditation of the China-conscious Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.

In the revised textbook this time, they put this agreement in the column of the textbook with firm belief that it is perfectly adequate to put the solid fact.

Fortunately, the textbook passed the accreditation and the historical fact revealing the truth about the Marco Polo Bridge incident is duly presented in a junior high school textbook.

3．It was not due to “the expansionist” that the war expanded 

Next, what is wrong is that “each of the publishers writes about the reason why the war expanded as if the war escalated in a natural course or that there were expansionists in the Japanese Government and urged by the military and civilian supporters of the expansion policy, war was expanded into a total war.

Here, the very important fact is decisively overlooked. It is the fact that mass murder of civilians was committed by the Chinese Army on July 29 (Tongzhou mutiny), as Frederick Vincent Williams put, “to be recorded in history as the worst mass slaughter ever committed since the ancient time to this day.” As calls “to punish China the outrageous” rose across Japan, the Japanese Government made an epoch-making peace plan (Funatsu Peace Plan) on August 5. The government subdued the voices that demanded “to punish China the outrageous” and maintained the non-expansion policy. The theory that the Japanese people’s anger at the massacre at Tongzhou led to the expansion of the Second Sino-Japanese War is completely wrong.

Based on this peace plan, the first negotiation was held on August 9. However, on the evening of that day, First Lieutenant Oyama of Navy Land Battle Army and First Class Seaman Saito were brutally killed in Shanghai. This atrocity was committed by a power willing to prevent the peace-making efforts. According to the book Mao: the Unknown Story written by Ms. Jung Chang, the murder incident was ordered by Commander Zhang Zhi-zhong of the Nanjing and Shanghai Defense Army, a crypto-Communist Party member. The peace negotiations failed, but it was not because Japan got angry and expanded the attacks. In this case, too, it was the Chinese side that plotted the attack. On August 13, four days later, the 30,000-strong Regular Chinese Army hiding in the demilitarized zone in Shanghai started a total attack on the 4,500-strong Japanese Navy Land Battle Army stationed in Shanghai to protect 30,000 Japanese civilians. Japan could not overlook Chinese negligence of the safety of Japanese residents and the agreement and decided to dispatch two Divisions from mainland Japan. Thus, the decisive expansion of war was plotted by the Chinese side and it never caused by the Japanese expansionists. In addition, on August 15, China issued the National Mobilization Order.

Such important facts are not at all written in school textbooks, but it is written as if “expansionists” and Japanese people’s anger caused the war to expand. How deplorable!

In the first place, in the Tokyo Shoseki textbook, at the beginning of the section “the Second-Sino Japanese War and the War-time regime,” it is asked, “How Japan came to wage the Second-Sino Japanese War and how the war affected the Japanese people.” The textbook ignores the fact and on the premise that Japan started the Second Sino-Japanese War explains the Marco Polo Bridge incident and how things went afterwards. What a pity that such literally “anti-Japan” and “anti-fact” descriptions pass the accreditation of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology!     

Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=2054

International Resarch Institute of Controversical Histories
Senior Researcher Shunichi Fujiki

A body called “Japan Alliance for Truth about Comfort Women” was established on July 29, 2013.

This author had been working on the comfort women issue in various ways before that event and knew about the creation of the new body but wondered why it was necessary to establish a new one when there were already so many.

It was around the time when I was in the United States and stayed overnight to visit the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for the confirmation of the United States archives, on the ground of which we intended to prevent the installation of a comfort woman statue (Statue of a Girl of Peace) slated in the city of Glendale, California, in cooperation with Mr. Tony Marano (a.k.a. Texas Daddy) who lived in Texas.

In September 2013, when I was back in Japan after having completed my investigation in the United States, Mr. Sato Kazuo, secretary of this action body contacted me and asked if I would join the body. Mr. Sato told me that one group organized a panel exhibit of the comfort women issue while another investigated the issue, but since each was acting separately, there was loss in momentum, and that in order to bring the separate efforts together, his organization held a monthly meeting, serving as a window for information sharing, mainly in the form of a mailing list.

Thinking that through information sharing, it would be possible to act more effectively than as an individual body working on its own, I accepted to join this action body, as a representative of Texas Daddy in Japan and personally as a secretary of this body.

The birth of the International Research Institute of Controversial Histories (iRICH)

It goes without saying that the Japan Alliance for Truth about Comfort Women had harvested many fruits since its establishment. During a meeting held at the early stage of the foundation, we discussed the problem that the comfort women were called sexual slaves at the United Nations and that this term was disseminated to the world and then decided to form an investigation team, “Japan Alliance for Truth about Comfort Women United Nations Investigation Team.” This author became a member of the team and participated in the meeting of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women held in July 2014.

To our great surprise, what they discussed at the UN was not only the comfort women issue, but almost everything, ranging from the LGBT issue, which was hardly ever talked about in Japan, to gay couples’ trouble getting into the public housing, the same-sex marriage, Okinawa issue, Ainu issue, “Buraku (segregated village)” issue, the issue of Korean schools in Japan and the most extreme was a claim that the Japanese Imperial Household commits discrimination against women. These were brought to the United Nations by leftist NGOs, including the one organized by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations. We witnessed scenes at which these NGOs were brainwashing the UN Committee members who had little information about Japan.

We also came to learn that Mr. Kaido Yuichi, head of the Japan Federation of. Bar Associations (JFBA) and de facto husband of Ms. Fukushima Mizuho, member of the Japanese House of Councilors, acted like a tour guide for more than a hundred Japanese NGO members and controlled the speech sphere in the United Nations at his will.

This author was totally appalled to find that besides the comfort women issue, these other issues were secretly brought to the United Nations and Japanese domestic laws were drastically changed by these forces. They started acting in the United Nations nearly forty years ago and have been spreading false information that Japan is a terrible country, both domestically and internationally.

Upon returning to Japan from the United Nations, this author reported at the immediate monthly meeting about this situation and proposed to set up an international committee within our alliance body so that when issues other than the comfort women issue come up, we would be able to fully cope with them, without being restricted by the appellation carrying “comfort women.” My proposal was duly accepted.

Later, in November 2017, the international committee became iRICH International Research Institute of Controversial Histories and then it obtained the status of General Incorporated Association in April 2022.

Ten years since our action started

It’s been full ten years since we went to the United Nations for the first time in 2014. During these years, we attended annually almost all meetings related to human rights, held three to five times at the United Nations European Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. We also attended meetings held at the New York Headquarters.

We participated as a team, session by session, and in some cases this author attended alone. Even during the Covid-19 pandemic disaster, we never failed to attend meetings whenever there was a meeting at the United Nations, going through PCR testing many times.

During this period, related to the comfort women issue, besides this author, Sugita Mio, member of the House of Representatives (at that time, out of office), Ms. Yamamoto Yumiko of Nadeshiko Action (Director of this Institute), Mr. Fujioka Nobukatsu (Senior Researcher at this Institute), Mr. Matsuki Kunitoshi (Senior Researcher at this Institute), Mr. Tony Marano (Texas Daddy) and others energetically took part in coping with the issue.

We have worked with many great people: related to the abduction and comfort women issues, Mr. Fujii Mitsuhiko (Refutation Project) also acted at the United Nations several times; related to Okinawa issue, Mr. Nakamura Satoru (Senior Researcher at this Institute) of the Japan Okinawa Policy Study Forum and Ms. Ganaha Masako; related to the Ainu issue, Mr. Sawada Kenichi (Senior Researcher at this Institute) and Mr. Onodera Masaru (former member of Hokkaido Legislative Assembly); related to the mobilized workers and comfort women issues, Dr. Lee woo-youn, researcher at Naksungdae Institute of Economic Research and Korean scholar on Japan; and related to China’s pressure over Hong Kong, we invited activists from Hong Kong and Japan. Thus, we have devoted ourselves to activities to protect Japan in our capacity as civilians.

For the first several years, we had much financial assistance from benefactors and then have continued to work on our own financial strength and have also received support from individuals.

There are many reasons for our consistent activities at the United Nations and we act mainly because it is necessary to obtain information regarding leftist operations at the UN, refute them on the spot and prevent the UN from issuing wrong recommendations, inform the Japanese people of such adverse operations and take prompt measures against them.

In addition, our efforts include establishing prestigious status for conservative Japanese NGOs within the United Nations.

The bond among the leftist frequent visitors to the United Nations is considerably firm. Judging from my ten-year experience at the UN, I have noticed that the leftist groups have two kinds of objectives.

First, they aim to advertise the individual or groups’ names by asserting that they successfully induce the UN into issuing recommendations or Japan into changing its domestic laws. And second, they aim to destroy Japan as a state, using funds provided within or outside Japan or appropriating Japan’s national budget or groups’ money.

We can give as an extreme example of the first case, a group led by lawyer Ms. Ito Kazuko of Human Rights Now, which brought an issue to the United Nations, in their capacity as lawyers, claiming that performance of group gymnastics during an elementary school sports day constitutes child abuse. Against their assertion, this author refuted them, saying, “The performance has been maintained since the Meiji era as physical and mental training for children,” “Needless to say, teachers attend the performers with much care and once they discern any danger, they try to reduce the tiers of a human pyramid,” “In view of fearing lest children should get injured, it is far safter to have them stop riding a bicycle.” Ms. Ito’s assertion was absurd to such an extent. Of course, no U.N. recommendation was issued following her assertion. If a recommendation had been issued and a law had been revised as she required, lawyer Ito would have risen in the public esteem more than a lawyer who just made a new precedent. During these exchanges at the UN, I found out that in its actions, her group cooperated with a certain Japanese mass medium.

Second, there are those who question the Imperial House Law and those against the U.S. military base in Okinawa.

When Okinawan activist Yamashiro Hiroji came to the United Nations, this author refuted Mr. Yamashiro on the spot and prevented a UN recommendation from being issued.

The Sankei Newspaper of June 18, 2017, reported as follows:

“Defendant Yamashiro appealed in front of the crowd of about fifty media and NGO people, saying, “It is no doubt that the improper treatment against us was warning or threat to the Okinawans resisting the Government’s political pressure.”

“However, when asked about the video showing defendant Yamashiro and others inflicting violence upon staff of Okinawa Defense Agency of the Ministry of Defense, defendant Yamashiro evaded the question, saying, ‘I am being advertised as if I were No.1 terrorist in Japan.’ He seemed embarrassed having the fact revealed that he was a ‘perpetrator.’ It was the moment when a lie disseminated by some Japanese through the United Nations was refuted.”

In October last year, Okinawan Governor Tamaki Denny asked Citizens' Diplomatic Centre for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Japanese leftist NGO, for support using the Prefectural taxpayers’ money and made a speech at the Human Rights Council. This author was singularly participating in the meeting and exposed the governor’s lie and deception on the spot. Of course, no UN recommendation came to be issued related to this matter.

The leftist powers have been conducting such activities for forty years. Since this author began regularly visiting the United Nations, in a group or on my own, we have continued working, refuting issues these leftist groups bring to the UN and preventing the UN from issuing inadequate recommendations. If we had not continued working, there would have been many things far beyond our understanding.

At one time, South Korea attempted to register the official U.S. military documents written in 1944 related to the comfort women issue to the UN-affiliated UNESCO’s “Memory of the World.” Against this attempt, Director Yamamoto and others came up with a plan to apply for registration of the same documents under a different interpretation and carried it out successfully. In addition, the Japanese Government led by Prime Minister Abe stopped submitting Japan’s contribution to UNESCO, proposing to reform UNESCO, which was duly realized. This was because the United Nations and its affiliated organs are supposed only to provide the platform for consideration but not to judge which side is correct when it comes to historical issues.

In our opinion, it is no exaggeration to think that our various activities brought about the correction and apology regarding the false reporting of the comfort women issue on the part of the Asahi Newspaper.

Devitalized current leftist activities at the United Nations Human Rights Council

Originally, it cost us 350,000 to 400,000 yen per person to attend a meeting at the United Nations. Currently, under the weak yen, it costs us dearly to act in Switzerland, where prices are highest under the inflated economy. At present, the cost is 800, 000 to 1,000,000 yen per person. Leftist groups have access to abundant money while we, the orthodox campaigners, have to cover our own expenses. We are supported by assistance from benefactors and public donations. Therefore, we cannot afford to engage in activities unless they bring fruits. The leftist groups, based on lies and distorted data they bring to the United Nations, brainwash and lead the ill-informed UN Committee members to issue various recommendations at their will. They could accomplish these results due to their abundant monetary resources.

Maybe, however, as the results of our activities over the decades or because they have judged that the cost effectiveness does not work as well as before, the leftist activities at the United Nations have been remarkably devitalized since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The self-proclaimed disciple of the then lawyer Totsuka Etsuro, who succeeded in defining comfort women as “sexual slaves”, former Professor Maeda Akira of Tokyo Zokei University (currently Professor Emeritus of the University and lecturer at Korean University in Japan) participated in the Human Rights Council to the last, incessantly fabricating stories but has not shown up in the Human Rights Council in recent years.

Besides the Human Rights Council, the United Nations holds the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), which takes place every four or five years against all member countries, in addition to respective UN Convention, Treaty and Covenant-related committees.

Now that we can hardly see leftist activists at the Human Rights Council, it can be judged that the leftists are losing their momentum. Possibly, however, they may try to concentrate their activities on the UPR and respective convention committees. Still, we must be watchful and prepared to cope with them adequately from now on in case they become active again.