コンテンツへスキップ

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories
Researcher

Haruka Ikeda

Japanese Version

Introduction

On April 3 and 24, 2023, at the House of Councilors Committee on Audit, regarding the so-called Nanjing Incident, Councilor Wada Masamune asked Foreign Minister Hayashi Yoshimasa about the grounds for the Government’s view posted on the website of the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs: “The Japanese Government thinks it undeniable that after the Japanese Army entered the city of Nanjing in 1937, there occurred murders and acts of blunder against non-combatants.” Consequently, Minister Hayashi’s answer revealed that there were no evidential documents on which the Government relied for its official view. According to Ara Kenichi, researcher on the Nanjing Incident, it was in 1982 that the Foreign Ministry came to admit the occurrence of the alleged Nanjing Incident. This decision was probably made, catering to the external pressure and public opinion amid the fading memory of the battleground.

Now, let us examine the ground on which the common theory that “there was Nanjing Incident” is based. The Nanjing Incident is believed to have really taken place primarily because of the third-party witnesses to the effect. At that time, those who condemned the Nanjing Incident through various media were Europeans and Americans staying in Nanjing, and at the Tokyo Trials held after the War, the most powerful claims that the Nanjing Incident did happen were statements by the assumingly neutral third-party Europeans and Americans. After the War, those Chinese who suddenly came forth in their old age claiming to be victims associated themselves with the European and American records and asserted the authenticity of their own statements.

In such a verification process of the Nanjing Incident, although statements made by Europeans and Americans who were there in Nanjing at that time were decisively important, the studies on the nature of those statements are surprisingly few. So, this paper confirms the origin of those third-party statements based on the European and American documents at the time and indicates that those original sources were American missionaries who remained in Nanjing and clarifies those missionaries’ activities, intentions and backgrounds.

Hopefully, this paper will reveal the hidden truth of the Nanjing Incident and fundamental errors of the common theory and the Japanese Government’s view.

  1. Examination of the original disseminators of the Nanjing Incident   
  2. Who were the third party remaining in Nanjing?

First, let us confirm the third party (Europeans and Americans) in Nanjing at that time.

In order to witness or examine an incident, one needs to be there on the spot. On December 13, 1937, when the Japanese Army entered the walled city of Nanjing, and for a while after that, there were 22 Europeans and Americans staying in Nanjing. Among them, there were 14 Americans (the majority group) and all of them were missionaries. Besides them, there were 5 Germans, 1 Austrian and 2 White Russians, all of whom were in Nanjing on business. Besides these businessmen, there were 2 Europeans (1 Dane and 1 Briton), who temporarily came to Nanjing and left, and they were also on business. There were five newspaper correspondents (1 Briton, 4 Americans) who left Nanjing a few days after the Japanese Army entered Nanjing. On January 6, 1938, and thereafter, diplomats from respective countries returned to Nanjing, but there were no reports of their witnessing massacres. So, the civilians mentioned above were the third party who might possibly have seen the Nanjing Incident.

  • The examination of the original disseminators

Bearing those remainders in mind, let us now examine some of the well-known disseminators of the reports and statements related to the Nanjing Incident.

  • The first news report of the Nanjing Incident

Articles written by those correspondents who left Nanjing on December 15, 1937 (The Chicago Daily News, the New York Times, etc.) are said to have been the first report. However, it is confirmed that the original source of these articles was the statement made by American missionary Miner Bates (1897-1978), through Missionary Bates’ letter.[i]

  • The theory of 20,000 victims of the massacre stated by Koo Vi Kyuin at a League of Nations conference

At a League of Nations conference in Geneva on February 2, 1938, Chinese Delegate Koo Vi Kyuin (1888-1985) quoted from the Daily Telegram and Morning Post of January 28, 1938: “The number of Chinese civilians killed by Japanese in Nanjing was supposedly twenty thousand.” To confirm the newspaper’s article, it said, “One missionary estimates the number of Chinese slaughtered at Nanjing at 20,000.” As previously mentioned, since missionaries staying in Nanjing then were all American, the original disseminator of this article was an American missionary.

  • Records of incidents by the International Committee and the Diaries of Rabe

For the protection and safety of civilians, the American missionaries established the Nanking Safety Zone and the International Committee to administer the safety zone. The records of incidents within the Safety Zone compiled by the Committee[ii] were filled with cases of atrocities committed by the Japanese military. But the Committee was under the control of the American missionaries who held the majority power among the remaining foreigners. Practically, the Committee report was disseminated by the American missionaries.

The Diaries of German John Rabe (1882-1950), who was set up as chairman of the International Committee, was published after the War.[iii] The diary contains many records of massacres committed by the Japanese Army submitted by various missionaries but no records of his own witnessing massacres. The records of massacres in Rabe’s Diary were also originally disseminated by American missionaries.

  • Statements made at the Tokyo Trials

After the War, the Nanjing Incident was examined at the Tokyo Trials. There were three Westerners who appeared in the court in person and stated that the Nanjing Incident had taken place and they were American missionaries.

With what I have stated so far, I hope it is understood that the original disseminators of the Nanjing Incident were entirely American missionaries.

  • The reason why American missionaries disseminated the Nanjing Incident to the world
  • The true purpose for the establishment of the Nanking Safety Zone

The purpose of the American missionaries who remained in Nanjing was nominally to establish the neutral and demilitarized Nanking Safety Zone for the safety and protection of the citizens. However, during a meeting held to report on the plan for establishing a safety zone, missionary Mills stated to the contrary effect: “At our meeting Mr. Mills expressed the longing that instead of having all educated people trek westward that it would be far better for a group to go down and try to encourage and comfort the Chinese army and help them to see what disorder and looting among even a small group means to China.”[iv]

Missionary Mills was the central figure (Presbyterian) among the American missionaries in Nanjing and the mastermind of the establishment of the Nanking Safety Zone.[v] Neutrality and one-sided support cannot stand together. From these words of missionary Mills, it becomes clear that the Nanking Safety Zone was established not for the protection of civilians but for the support and protection of the Chinese Army. In fact, there is record that within the Safety Zone, during battles, Chinese artillery operated[vi] and after battles, Chinese soldiers infiltrated into the safety zone and hid themselves there.[vii]

  • The Nanjing Incident to justify the Nanking Safety Zone    

From these records, supposedly, the dissemination of the Nanjing Incident by the American missionaries was part of protection and support measures for the Chinese Army. The missionaries needed to disseminate the Nanjing Incident. It was because the Nanking Safety Zone was not an officially acknowledged establishment, unlike the Shanghai Safety Zone, which was officially approved by both Japan and China.[viii]

Since the Nanking Safety Zone was dubious in terms of neutrality, the Japanese authorities did not recognize it but during battles, Japan would avoid attacking it so long as it was not militarily necessary. After the battles ceased, the unauthorized Nanking Safety Zone had no longer a reason to exist. After entering Nanjing, the Japanese Army immediately ordered the Zone to be dissolved, which the missionaries refused to follow. On the other hand, the missionaries decided to support and protect the Chinese Army within the zone as missionary Mills had stated and conveyed their intention to Huang Jen Lin (1901-1983),[ix] Chiang Kai-shek’s right-hand man. It was necessary for the missionaries to maintain the safety zone under their control in order to secretly protect Chinese soldiers in Nanjing. So, to make up a pretext for keeping the safety zone, they needed to fabricate a story of atrocities committed against citizens by the Japanese Army, namely, the dissemination of the Nanjing Incident.

We can judge whether the missionaries’ claim that the safety zone was necessary to protect citizens from the atrocities committed by the Japanese Army was reasonable or not, based on the situation after Nanking Safety Zone was dissolved. On February 4, 1938, the Japanese Army ordered the citizens within the Safety Zone to go home, and practically, the Safety Zone disappeared. On February 8, non-substantial International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone was renamed the Nanking International Relief Committee, having the term “the safety zone” removed. If the missionaries’ claim had been right, after the Safety Zone disappeared, Nanjing would have become a worse hell. However, on March 4, 1938, Chancellor Paul Scharffenberg for the German Embassy recorded, “...we no longer hear of atrocities, and order is also being restored in general.”[x] As a matter of fact, the missionaries’ assertions were not correct.

These documents indicate that the Nanjing Incident existed only when the American missionaries supported and protected the Chinese Army in the Safety Zone. Sabotages by Chinese soldiers hiding within the Safety Zone and fictions made up by the American missionaries in order to justify the existence of the Nanking Safety Zone were all that was to the alleged Nanjing Incident.

  • The background for the creation of the Nanjing Incident

By the way, while French Catholic Father Robert Jacquinot (1878-1946), who established the Shanghai Safety Zone kept neutral, why did the American missionaries (Protestants) in Nanjing support and protect the Chinese Army? In the background, there was a resolution clearly showing the relationship between the Chinese Protestant Church and the Chinese (Chiang Kai-shek’s) government:

“Recognizing in the ideals of the New Life Movement many of the same objectives that Christians have always sought, Christians, whether individuals or church groups, be urged to co-operate in the New Life Movement program as far as possible.” (National Christian Council Biennial Meeting, May 6, 1937).[xi]

The National Christian Council is a body representing the Protestant churches in China. And the New Life Movement was substantially Chiang Kai-shek’s political activity for nation building. Therefore, this resolution stated the overall cooperation on the part of the Protestant churches in China as their consensus for the Chiang Kai-shek’s political activity in the name of the “New Life Movement.”

The slogan of the New Life Movement was the “three Life transformations,” namely, “Militarization of Life, Productivization of Life, and Aestheticization of Life [or Rationalization],” Productivization meant participation in productive activities and Aestheticization or Rationalization dealt with upbringing. However, clearly, it started with militarization which meant the movement anticipating the military mobilization of the people. In fact, after the Second Sino-Japanese War broke out, the movement included the support for the Chinese Army.

And the missionaries knew that the New Life Movement was a dangerous activity ensconcing a military element.[xii] While they recognized well the military and political colors of the movement, they resolved to totally cooperate with it. The reason was evangelical motives. The missionaries regarded Chiang Kai-shek, who had converted to Protestantism after his marriage to Soong Mei-ling and reawakened to religious worship while he was held under detention during the Xi’an Incident, as a true Christian[xiii], expecting that if Chiang Kai-shek representing the Nationalist Party Kuomintang was to rule China, a Protestant State of China would be born. Thus, they resolved to fully cooperate with the New Life Movement, which was deeply tinted with the military color. In the extension of this resolution lied the American missionaries’ support and protection of the Chinese soldiers in Nanjing.

This relationship between the resolution made by the Chinese National Christian Council and the activities by the American missionaries in the Nanking Safety Zone can be clearly explained. The previously mentioned Mr. Huang Jen Lin, Chiang Kai-shek’s right-hand man, with whom missionary Mills shared the American missionaries’ plan to support and protect the Chinese Army within the Nanking Safety Zone, was fully in charge of the New Life Movement. The fact that the American missionaries’ support was carried out as a part of the activities to support Chiang Kai-shek’s New Life Movement by Protestants was proved by the very existence of Mr. Huang Jen Lin.

4 Conclusion

The Nanjing Incident was a complete fiction created by the American missionaries. The Nanjing Incident was created by the American missionaries pretending to be the third party who under the great policy of the Protestant Church to protect Protestant Chiang Kai-shek remained in Nanjing to support the Chinese Army. China merely used it.

The true players behind the Nanjing Incident were neither Japan nor China. They were American missionaries, who have been regarded as the third party so far. This is the reason why at the time the Nanjing Incident was widely reported in the United States, fully used by the United States, the victor of World War II, during the Tokyo Trials, and the truth about it remains still unrevealed to this day.

The Japanese Government of 2023 should seriously accept the truth about the Nanjing Incident, immediately remove the view that lacks any solid grounds posted on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and show the historical truth both at home and abroad for the honor of the Japanese people.


[i] S. M. Bates, “Circular letter to friends,” April 12, 1938

[ii] “Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone” (1939), Kelly & Walsh

[iii] John Rabe, “Der gute Deutsche von Nanking” (1997), Hrsg. Erwin Wickert, VA(German)

[iv] Vautrin, “The Diary of Wilhelmina Vautrin,” November 18, 1937

[v] “Address of John Rabe at farewell party by staff of Nanking Safety Zone,” February 21, 1938

[vi] John Rabe, December 9, 1937

[vii] New York Times, January 4, 1938

[viii] “Telegram from American Embassy in Shanghai to Nanking Safety Zone Committee,” December 2, !937

[ix] Vautrin, “The Diary of Wilhelmina Vautrin,” November 18, 1937

[x] John Rabe, “Der gute Deutsche von Nanking” (1977), Hrsg, Erwin Wickert, VA(German)

[xi] “The China Christian year book 1936-37 (1937), Arthur H. Clark Company, p.77

[xii] Ronald Rees, “China Faces The Storm” (1938), Edinburgh House Press, p.61

[xiii] Ibid. Ronald Rees, p. 48

For details, refer to the book Primary Historical Sources Reveal the Truth about the Nanjing Incident, unraveling the Curse of the American Missionaries’ View of History written by Ikeda Haruka, 2020, published by Tenden-sha.

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories

Senior researcher

Nakamura Satoru

日本語

The biggest crisis in Okinawa

Now, Japan is facing its biggest crisis in the postwar years over the issue of the national security. And Okinawa is the main problem. Not only is Okinawa exposed to a military threat from China, but it also is the subject of a history war. However, the Japanese Government has failed to effectively cope with the grave situation. Therefore, Okinawa has become Japan’s largest national security issue. Ever since the clashing incident of a Chinese fishing vessel off the Senkaku Islands took place in 2010, China has been continuously disseminating propaganda to the effect that “Ryukyu has been a member of the Chinese nation since ancient times and now is struggling for independence against the United States and Japan, which China should support.” China’s most important  basis for the claim is the historical view of the “Ryukyu disposal.” According to the Chinese propaganda view of history, Japan has kept Okinawa under its colonial rule ever since the “disposal of Okinawa” in 1879 (the twelfth year of Meiji). On the other hand, in Japan, in 2006, Suzuki Muneo, a member of the House of Representatives, submitted a statement of inquiry to the House of Representatives: “At the time when the Japanese name of era was changed to Meiji in 1868, did the Japanese Government recognize the Ryukyu Kingdom at that time as an indivisible part of the State of Japan? We ask the Government for a clear answer.” The response of the Government was, “Regarding Okinawa, it is difficult to definitively state since when Okinawa became part of Japan. But it is certain that Okinawa was part of Japan at the latest when early in the Meiji era, the Ryukyu Domain became Okinawa Prefecture.” This is extremely ambiguous and void of trustfulness, I must say. Such an ambiguous historical view is greatly favorable to China, which desperately wants Okinawa.

The positioning of the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture among the Japanese people

Here, let us consider the position of the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture, which is termed as “Ryukyu disposal.” The term “Ryukyu disposal” may give a negative impression as if the Ryukyu Kingdom was ruined. Certainly, in Okinawa, Ryukyu disposal generally meant that the Japanese Army came to Shuri Castle and forcibly took over the castle and sent the then head of the Ryukyu Domain, King Sho Tai, to Tokyo. But to be fair, it was not Okinawa alone that had its castle taken over but the same happened at Domains all over Japan. Castles of Kumamoto, Himeji and Matsumoto followed the same fate after the decree of “Abolishing Domains and Establishing Prefectures” was proclaimed and the respective Heads of Domain turned over their castles throughout Japan. Also, after the Heads of the Domain came to Tokyo, they were treated the same way and raised to the peerage. Currently, the present heads of the Shimazu Family and the Tokugawa Family are alive and so is the present head of the Second Shu Family, the descendant of the Ryukyu King. The Ryukyu disposal does not mean that people living in Okinawa were annihilated or the lineage of Ryukyu King had perished. Essentially, the construction of a modern state by the Meiji Restoration was the transition from the feudalistic system of ruling the country by a “family” to the modern ruling by the government. The rule by the Tokugawa Family was gone and in the 300 domains throughout Japan, the rule by the family of the domain head was abolished, and equally in Okinawa, the rule by the Sho Family ceased. And instead, prefectural governors sent by the Ministry of the Interior were placed in charge of the administration throughout Japan.

The Meiji Restoration started with the crisis in Okinawa and ended with the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture

Looking at the Meiji Restoration from the perspective of Japan’s defense of Okinawa, we can find new significance. In the school history textbooks and history books on the shelves of bookstores, it is interpreted that the Meiji Restoration started with the arrival of the foreign black ships in 1853 at the end of the Edo period and ended with the Seinan Civil War in 1877, the 10th year of Meiji. And as the national border designated after the Meiji Restoration was completed, the Okinawa disposal (the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture) emerged. The Meiji Restoration and the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture were recognized as separate events, which led to the historical view that “as the result of the Meiji Restoration, the Ryukyu Kingdom perished,” and such a view supported the assertion made by a certain power that Okinawa was victimized by Japan or that people of Ryukyu-Okinawa are an indigenous people in Japan. In fact, however, the Meiji Restoration started in Okinawa, the stronghold of the national defense at that time. Patriots in the Satsuma Domain began to feel threatened by the Western Powers when they obtained information that the Chinese Qing dynasty was defeated by Britain in the Opium War in 1842. Two years later, the threat became real. In 1844, French battleship Arcmere came to Ryukyu and its crew demanded that the kingdom open its port. At that time, following the Treaty of Nanjing, the Qing opened her five ports to the Western Powers and Western ships came in a row, approaching Ryukyu. The five ports were Guangzhou, Fuzhou, Shanghai, Ningbo, and Amoy. Look at the East China Sea on the map. On the way from these five ports to Japan, there is Ryukyu (currently Okinawa), which is best situated as the base for opening Japan to the world. The man who most seriously perceived the crisis and contemplated about what path Japan should follow was Lord Shimazu Nariakira of the Satsuma Domain. As soon as Nariakira became the Lord of Satsuma in 1851, he launched the Shusei-kan enterprise of building Western-style ships, reverberatory furnaces and blast furnaces, manufacturing land mines, torpedoes, glass, gas lamps and so forth in order to build a rich and strong military country by promoting modern industries. Two years prior to Perry’s appearance off Uraga, the original framework of the policy to establish a rich and strong military state was implemented in Satsuma (presently Kagoshima), the southernmost part of Japan. The original idea was drafted by Godai Hidetaka, father of Godai Tomoatsu, who led Satsuma’s enlightenment policy after Shimazu Nariakira died. The afore-mentioned Arcmere left, predicting the reentry of a bigger battleship a year later. The Bakufu Government (Tokugawa Shogunate) ordered Satsuma to send guard soldiers to Ryukyu. A member of the personnel who were ordered to sail to Ryukyu asked how to solve the Ryukyu issue and Hidetaka wrote the “Ryukyu secret plan.” The plan specifically stated in the question-and-answer form how to cope with the French military pressure on the part of the Satsuma Domain. The gist of the plan was: in disposal of Ryukyu, implement two alternative policies of refusal and conciliation, 1) refuse to open the country, citing any thinkable excuses and 2) when refusal would not work, then open the country. But never resort to the means of war. And once Japan is opened, Japan must have more powerful military force than the Western countries. Ryukyu disposal was not a plan to destroy Ryukyu, but to protect Ryukyu. That was the root of the secret strategy--the idea of “open the country and become rich and strong military power.” Thus, the Meiji Restoration started with the crisis in Okinawa.

Ryukyu Cannon Ship

There is a ship that confirms the fact that Shimazu Nariakira felt threatened with respect to the defense of Okinawa. That was the Shohei-maru. At that time, it was impossible to build a huge military ship. The Bakufu Government prohibited the building of large ships as one of the regulations of Buke Shohatto, laws prohibiting the military families from conducting several activities  in order to keep them under control. The laws did not change even when Western battleships started to appear along the coast of the Sea of Japan. Nariakira, worrying about the defense of Ryukyu, consulted with the Shogun’s senior councilor Abe and started building the “Ryukyu cannon ship” at Kinko-wan Bay (presently Kagoshima Bay) in 1853 in order to defend Ryukyu. It was three days prior to Perry’s appearance off Uraga. Later, Nariakira remodeled the ship into a Western-style one, renamed it Shohei-maru and dedicated it to the Bakufu Government in 1855. Shimazu Nariakira’s policy of a “rich and strong military state” can be applied to the present-day Japan. As it was at the end of the Bakufu Government, at present, Okinawa is the front of Japan’s defense, and the present Government lacks the strength to protect Okinawa. At the end of the Bakufu Government, a political idea of opening the country and making it rich and militarily strong was born in the Satsuma Domain, which was held responsible for the defense of Ryukyu. Satsuma, after toppling the Edo Bakufu Government, became the center of the Meiji Government, built the Japanese Army, and implemented the policy of making the whole Japan rich and militarily strong, which was the meaning of the Meiji Restoration. Japan lost the power to protect Okinawa on her own, due to the defeat in the Greater East Asian War, and another restoration is indispensable so that Japan may be reborn to become competent enough to protect Okinawa once again. However, the Satsuma Domain does not exist anymore. Japan urgently needs to create a power capable of rebuilding the country’s capacity to defend Okinawa.

*Reference

Tha Secret Plan of Ryukyu [ Original Document ] [ Colloquial Translation ]

【日本語版】https://i-rich.org/?p=1495

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories

Director

Yamamoto Yumiko

May,2023

A totally unimaginable and unprecedented movement concerning the comfort women issue, which has been the anti-Japan symbol in Korea, is developing now. It is the emergence of South Koreans who clearly respond with, “Lies are lies,” to the lies regarding the Japanese military comfort women which many South Koreans believe to be true. Many Korean women are participating in this movement.

Overseas, on the other hand, “comfort women” are still defined as “sexual slaves” and nothing has changed when it comes to the wrong perception of the Japanese military comfort women. The anti-comfort women education planting lies and hatred in children’s minds remains a grave concern. Initially, it was some Japanese that ignited the comfort women issue. In collaboration with the brave, new movement in South Korea, we must put a period to the comfort women issue.

Widely installed comfort women statues overseas in the 2010s

A comfort woman monument was built for the first time overseas in 2010 in Palisades Park City, New Jersey, USA. It was the outcome of the local Korean American citizens’ movement for the installation. In the following year, 2011, a South Korean organization, the Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan (presently the Council for Justice), installed the first comfort woman statue in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul, Korea. A replica of this statue was first established overseas in 2013 in Glendale City, California, USA. This was also led by local Korean American citizens. At present, there are about 30 comfort women statues or monuments at both public and private sites overseas, in the United States, Canada, Australia and Germany. In Korea alone, there are reportedly more than 140 statues.[i]

The words inscribed on these statues and monuments are objectionable. Japanese military comfort women are described with lies such as “sexual slaves,” “forced abduction,” “comfort girls,” “two hundred thousand or several hundred thousand comfort women,” “the largest-scale human trafficking,” and “most of them were killed during the war.”

The emergence of South Koreans who say, “Lies are lies.”

Then, in 2019, a totally unexpected incident occurred. Koreans who can say, “Lies are lies” appeared. In Korea, in July, the book Anti-Japan Nationalism became a best seller. And in December, a movement started against the demonstration by the Council for Justice that took place every Wednesday in front of the comfort woman statue, asking for the removal of the comfort woman statue. It was simply amazing that South Koreans themselves voiced “No!” against the comfort woman statue.

Brave actions taken by the Korean civil group led by Mr. Kim Byeong Heon and others

One of the leaders of this movement to eliminate the comfort women statues is Mr. Kim Byeong Heon, Representative, Korean History Textbook Research Institute. He led the formation of the “National Action to Abolish the Comfort Women Act” and “The Alliance to End Comfort Women Fraud” and since 2019 he has led the protest movement asking for the elimination of the comfort woman statue for one hundred and fifty or so times. They proclaim, “What’s great about holding up signs of fraudulent claims of ‘Forced abduction! Sexual slaves! War criminals!’ and building comfort women statues everywhere in the world?” It is truly risky, and it can even endanger their lives to say these things aloud in Korea. And yet, the activities of Mr. Kim and his group are not limited only within Korea. They went to Berlin, Nagoya, and Tokyo. They sent a statement of protest to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, where they planned to install a comfort woman statue and made a statement to the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

Mr. Kim Byeong Heon published a book titled Red Wednesday—Lies of Comfort Women Campaign Alive for 30 Years in 2021. The Japanese version of the book was published in 2022 by Bungei Shunju-sha. What is common between the two books, Red Wednesday and Anti-Japan Nationalism, is the assertion that Korea must stop lying in order to become a trustworthy and respectable country.

Serious influence of school textbooks stating lies about the comfort women

Regarding the comfort women issue, the most serious problem are the school textbooks. Mr. Kim Byeong Heon stated during the Japan-Korea symposium held in Tokyo in November 2022[ii]

   In Korea, school textbooks from the elementary to high school state fallacies as established facts, such as abduction, rape and murder of comfort women by the Japanese military, and disseminate, wide and large, these fallacies and teach them to pupils and students. What is written in the textbook for South Korean children about the comfort women are all lies that help them embrace vague hatred against Japan, a friendly neighbor, which is a criminal act. To teach lies and hatred to the future generation yet to grow up is to sow the seed of struggle and conflict between Japan and Korea.

Japanese who ignited the comfort women issue and continue to provoke the Koreans

In the first place, it was Japanese that set fire to the comfort women issue and spread it to Korea, the United States and the international community. In 1992, at the United Nations Human Rights Committee (presently the Human Rights Council), a Japanese lawyer Mr. Totsuka Etsuro dubbed comfort women “sexual slaves” without much consideration. It was “just an idea,” but it was the very beginning of the comfort women fuss.[iii]

In the following year, 1993, the Japan Federation of Bar Associations submitted a statement “Counter Report by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations—Human rights in Japan are questioned,” to the examination meeting of the 49th session of the United Nations Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[iv] This was supposedly the first NGO statement regarding the comfort women issue submitted to the human rights treaty bodies. According to the statement, the Japanese military “took the policy of ‘Three Annihilation Operations of Kill All, Rob All and Burn All’ and invaded in the beautiful names of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere and the Liberation of Asia,” “forcibly mobilized people in the colonial and occupied regions into the war as soldiers, military employees and comfort women as well as workers at the war industries, causing them enormous pain,” and “as to the military comfort women issue, not only Korean and Chinese women, but also women in the occupied regions in East Asia and civilian women from Netherlands and Australia were forced into sexual slavery, which caused many tragedies totally unforgivable in terms of humanity.” The statement was made by lawyers representing Japan. Who would think what was stated to be a lie?

And in October 2020, nearly 30 years after the event, I participated in the examination meeting concerning Japan of the 136th session of the Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The same discussion went on and Japanese asserted, the same as ever, “Comfort women were Japanese military sexual slaves” and criticized “those who try to deny the history by attempting to erase the description from the textbook and removing the comfort women statue.” Thus, Japanese who had ignited the comfort women issue keep propagating the story of comfort women being sexual slaves even today.

For the future generation, put a period to the comfort women issue

Mr. Kim Byeong Heon concluded his speech during the Korean Conservative Great Talk Rally held in Seoul, in January 2021:

Hopefully, on the day when the Council for Justice that has been consistently lying for thirty years disappear from here, justice will justly stand here and the Korea-Japan relationship, which is on the verge of bankruptcy, will recover and become as solid as an iron wall. For that bright day to come, let us all unite and make efforts together. The future of the Republic of Korea is in our hands.[v]

The comfort women issue is one of the causes of the troubled Japan- Korea relationship. There are brave South Koreans who fight to remove distortion and fabrication related to the comfort women issue. Comparing to the courageous actions taken by Mr. Kim Byeong Heon and others, I cannot help but feel angry at those dishonorable Japanese who gladly work to denigrate their own country. As for this matter, I feel totally sorry for our great ancestors.

Japan and Korea must cooperate in order to stop the lie that “comfort women were sexual slaves.” I believe that it is our generation’s responsibility to do so for our children on whom the future depends. As specific tasks, I am thinking of supporting the Korean civilian activities like Mr. Kim Byeong Heon’s, publishing the Japan-Korea joint study and statement, holding international symposiums at home and abroad and working on the United Nations in our collaborated efforts. 


[i] The Sankei News, December 13, 2021. Comfort women statues, 160 statues in 10 years, Conflict over the statues in South Korea.

https://www.sankei.com/article/20211213-NMKYUMBBGFIXBFUWU3SBZLVLGQ/

[ii] Material from “Japan-Korea Joint Symposium” sponsored by the International Research Institute for Controversial Histories on November 16, 2022, at Bunkyo Civic Sky Hall, Tokyo.

https://i-rich.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2022.11.16_Symposium.pdf

[iii] The Lie of “Comfort Women Being Sexual Slaves” Spread to the World by the United Nations—Report by the United Nations, Geneva, delegation, published by Jiyu-sha, May 29, 2016

[iv] The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (counter report to the 3rd session) “Counter Report by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations: Human rights are questioned,” compiled and written by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, published by Kouchi-shobo (sold by Kiri-shobo), 1993.

https://www.nichibenren.or.jp/activity/international/library/human_rights/library_report-3rd_jfba.html

[v] Mr. Kim Byeong Heon’s speech “Only when the Council for Justice and Remembrance disappears, the Korea-Japan relationship will be resumed” at the South Korean Conservative Great Talk Rally

http://nadesiko-action.org/?p=17750

【日本語版】https://i-rich.org/?p=1439

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories

Senior researcher

Matsuki Kunitoshi

April 5, 2023

During the meeting between Japanese Prime Minister Kishida Fumio and South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol held on March 16, Prime Minister Kishida welcomed the solution of the issue proposed by the Korean Government that the Korean Supreme Court’s order for the Japanese companies to compensate should be subrogated by a foundation under the control of the South Korean Government. In addition, Prime Minister Kishida told the Korean President that “his government duly follows the historical recognition held by the consecutive Japanese Governments which states that Japan owes Korea apologies.” Some appreciated the efforts made by President Yoon in that he tried to tackle the issue of the mobilized worker. and did not ask Japan for direct responsibility related to the issue. However, the solution this time cannot fundamentally solve the issue and may create a serious problem for Japan in the future. Rather, I must say, it was a diplomatic blunder on the part of Japan. I will explain the reasons for my opinion.

The “solution by subrogation” means that the payment of compensation demanded from the Japanese companies by the South Korean Supreme Court shall be temporarily carried out by a South Korean foundation.

However, trials of “former mobilized workers” of the same nature were held also in Japan and the Japanese Supreme Court finally judged that the defendant companies were not responsible for compensations, dismissing the complaints by the plaintiffs. There is no need at all for the Japanese companies, which essentially are under no obligation to pay compensations, to be subrogated in the payment of compensations by a Korean foundation.

Nevertheless, should the Japanese Government accept the proposed “subrogated payment” by a Korean foundation, it would mean that the Japanese Government admits that the Japanese companies are responsible for the compensations. If so, it would appear that the verdict of the South Korean Supreme Court supersedes the verdict of the Japanese Supreme Court, which is nothing short of “abandonment of sovereignty” on the part of Japan.

Moreover, this “solution by subrogation” is, in itself, extremely unrealistic. However earnestly President Yoon Suk-yeol may say that Korea does not think of demanding compensation from Japan in the future, as long as it is “subrogation,” the claims for compensation will remain valid. And it is extremely important that President Yoon Suk-yeol has not referred to “the abandonment of the claim for compensation” so far.

Five of the fifteen plaintiffs who claim to be former mobilized workers have already stated that they refuse to receive compensation from the foundation and on March 24, a lawsuit was filed, demanding the seizure of the patent right of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and cashing in. However, the South Korean Government has no legal grounds for forcibly preventing the cashing in of the defendant company’s assets based on the court ruling. According to a public opinion poll conducted immediately after the meeting of the Japanese and South Korean leaders, 53% of the Korean people clearly opposed to the solution proposed this time. There is little possibility for the Yoon Suk-yeol Administration to successfully persuade the plaintiffs into following the Government’s policy, against the persistently adverse public opinion.

As with the case of the agreement over the comfort women, South Korea is a non-modern “state governed by emotion,” where public opinion is put before agreement reached by states. It is very likely that “the solution by subrogation measure” itself may be withdrawn because it is difficult to obtain the agreement of the alleged victims and that South Korea will demand apology and compensation from the Japanese companies.

In fact, South Korea’s largest opposition party’s leader Lee Jae-myung announced that in case of the change of administrations, his administration will exercise the compensation right. Under these circumstances I cannot help but wonder how on earth this could be a “solution.”

It is equally wrong that during the top meeting Prime Minister Kishida stated he would follow   the historical recognition of the consecutive Cabinets that obliged Japan to apologize to Korea. The issue of the mobilized workers is purely and strictly the South Korean domestic issue and in no way a Japanese Prime Minister should declare that Japan will continue to apologize to South Korea. What’s more, an easy apology may result in the adverse effect of authenticating Korea’s own distorted historical view that “Japan’s governance was an illegal colonial rule”. If this “solution by abrogation” is withdrawn and things get back to the deadlock, it will remain factual that the Japanese Government accepted for the time being the Korean Supreme Court’s decision of “illegal colonial rule.” And the Japanese Government promised to follow the past apologies. This is the defeat on the part of the Japanese diplomacy, isn’t it?

If Japan’s governance had been “illegal colonial rule,” then everything that happened during that period could become the target of lawsuits. Taxes collected by the Office of the Korean Governor General and profits made by Japanese companies would all fall into “illegal exploitation,” and in terms of the judicial logic, they become targets of anti-Japan lawsuits. Moreover, if the Korean court returns a guilty verdict, the consequence of the verdict is to be effective domestically in Japan, and the Koreans will have everything their way, filing one random lawsuit after another.

The Japan-South Korea relationship will be bankrupted, and the two countries will collapse together.

In order to avoid such catastrophe, the Japanese Government should straightforwardly point out the false Korean historical recognition, ascertain their view of history and establish an equal and normal relationship between Japan and South Korea. “Japan’s annexation of Korea” was the lawful unification of Japan and the Empire of Korea duly following international law and absolutely not a colonial rule. As to the issue of the claims between the two countries, it was “completely and finally” resolved by the Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Settlement of Problems in Regard to Property and Claims and Economic Cooperation, concluded by both Governments in 1965. We must appeal to the world to learn these facts and endeavor to have South Korea accept them.

In addition, the South Korean judicial judgments should never be applied in Japan. Therefore, the Japanese Government should make the two points perfectly clear with the Korean side that the Korean Supreme Court’s decision invalidates the international treaty between the two countries and therefore the Japanese Government cannot accept the verdict and that the issue of the mobilized workers should be settled domestically within South Korea, based on the theory of governance, on the responsibility of President Yoon Suk-yeol, who is held ultimately responsible for the state. And above all, we sincerely want Prime Minister Kishida to review the incorrect historical recognition held by the consecutive Cabinets that eternally dooms our future generations to endless apologies, once and for all, and recover the confidence and pride of the Japanese people. This is the exact way to resuscitate Japan and recover from the total defeat.

【日本語版】https://i-rich.org/?p=1406

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.

【日本語版】https://i-rich.org/?p=1329

Fujiki Shunichi, Senior Research Fellow

International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

January 10, 2023

• Introduction Purpose of This Study

• Chapter 1 Distortions in the Macroscopic Domain

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

A. Procedure for amending the UN Charter

B. Procedure for amending the Constitution of Japan

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

• Chapter 2 Distortions in the Microscopic Domain

1. Problems with UNICEF, a UN organization

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

• Chapter 3 Measures and Conclusion

Introduction Purpose of This Study

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

Chapter 1 Distortions in the Macroscopic Domain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Procedure for amending the UN Charter

 Article 108

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

 Article 109

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

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

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

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

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

B. Procedure for amending the Constitution of Japan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 2 Distortions in the Microscopic Domain

1. Problems with UNICEF, a UN organization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 3 Measures and Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

【日本語版】https://i-rich.org/?p=1352

Senior researcher

Sawada Kenichi

February 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To not make Hokkaido a second Ukraine

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

See attached.

【日本語版】https://i-rich.org/?m=202205

Senior Research Fellow

Matsuki Kunitoshi

May 2022

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. >

【日本語版】https://i-rich.org/?p=868

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories

President

Sugihara Seishiro

August 2022

It was in early 1970s that I visited South Korea for the first time. Then I had just begun teaching at a university. At that time, the compulsory education in South Korea was up to the elementary school. As evening neared, I saw children of junior high school ages vending newspapers in the street. I found the scene very strange because I had never seen children working in the street in Japan. I enjoyed walking down the street lined with art dealer stores selling excellent ink paintings, for I like ink paintings and felt familiar there. On the way from Seoul to Busan by train, I saw houses with sharp roof tops and felt a kind of nostalgy as the train neared Busan passing the Japanese-like scenery.

I visited Bulguksa, a large temple in Gyeongju to the north of Busan and saw many stone Buddha statues in the neighborhood and realized that Buddhism in Japan would have never prospered without its passage through Korea. At the time of my first visit to South Korea, Koreans over the age of fifty spoke Japanese. Even those Koreans who pretended not to speak Japanese began talking to me in Japanese when we were alone.

I specialize in education and once I studied the moral education in South Korea. For the first time during Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s cabinet, Japan included moral education in the school curriculum and made moral education textbooks. Throughout the post-war years, moral education was entirely excluded from the curriculum and there were no moral education textbooks in Japan. On the other hand, in South Korea, moral education was a required subject and there were moral education textbooks. Studying the latter, I found that the Korean moral education textbooks had inherited the tradition of “shushin” (moral training) introduced during the Imperial Japanese rule and that they were very good textbooks. In Japan during the occupation period after the Pacific War, “shushin” was abolished by the Allied Occupation Forces (in fact by those Japanese who have benefited from the war defeat) and there was no longer a subject of moral education taught at school, nor were moral education textbooks. However, the heritage of the pre-war Japanese “moral training” has been passed on to South Korea in the form of “moral education.”

As a scholar on education, I published the book Nihon no dotoku kyoiku wa kankoku ni manabe—dotoku kyoiku he no shishin [Learn from South Korea in Japanese Moral Education—Guideline for making moral education a school subject] (published by Bunka Shobo Hakubunkan-sha, 2007).

Now, South Korea, which I dearly remember, and Japan, my home country, are conflicting with each other over various issues. Above all, the most serious is the issue of mobilized workers. On October 30, 2018, the South Korean Supreme Court by its ruling ordered Japanese companies to compensate former workers and seized the companies’ properties. It is feared that the seized properties will be cashed shortly.

In terms of international law, the issue was completely settled between the two countries by the Agreement made in 1965 regarding the claims. Nevertheless, the South Korean Supreme Court overturned the agreement and made it an issue of conflict between Japan and South Korea. We cannot help but question the legal sense of the South Korean Supreme Court. Under the rule of law, South Korea, as a civilized nation, should duly understand that the issue caused by the South Korean Supreme Court’s decision is a purely domestic issue within South Korea, and the Korean Government as the executive organ should be fully responsible for the resolution of the issue. Should the Japanese companies’ properties be cashed following this court decision, Japan and South Korea would surely enter a serious conflict.

As for the Japanese Government, this time, it does not show any sign of concession, after having been bitterly betrayed and let down over and over again in the past by South Korea. The conflict between Japan and South Korea may further lead to the worst consequences, such as severing the diplomatic relations. However, as always, the Japanese Government may come up with the last minute’s compromise and bring up an extraordinary solution.

What I really want to say here is that I’m going to propose that it’s better for both Japan and South Korea to confront each other as strongly as possible, up to the point of severing their diplomatic relations.

After the end of World War II, Korea became independent as the Republic of Korea, and South Korea seems to have been too emotionally dependent on Japan. In order to unite the people as a new nation, since the time of President Syngman Rhee, South Korea intentionally implemented fanatic anti-Japanese education as a policy. This was nothing but emotional dependence on Japan. On the presumption that Japan never fights back, any action that South Korea attempts to take against Japan, has been undertaken for the sake of its own national unification. Clearly, this is emotional dependence on Japan.

On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of the Japanese people have been indifferent to South Korea. The Japanese people have hardly any knowledge regarding South Korea and remain uninterested in South Korea. Together with this indifference, the self-deprecating view of history which has been deeply imprinted on the Japanese mind throughout the postwar years, the Japanese tend to think that Japan has done the Koreans totally wrong things and in consequence, Japan has tried to settle everything peacefully by immediately apologizing for whatever happened between the two countries and succumbing to whatever unreasonable demand may come from South Korea and thus resolving the situation. This can be said to be somewhat insulting to South Korea.

After all, such flattering or catering responses on the part of the Japanese Government have been the biggest cause of the complicated relationship between Japan and South Korea. If Japan had known South Korea well enough and been interested in South Korea, Japan should have dealt reasonably with what South Korea demanded, clearly stating what is right and what is wrong and have gotten angry when the anger was the right answer. In fact, however, Japan has been ignorant of South Korea and indifferent to it and influenced by the self-deprecating historical view, which the post-war Japanese have been imbued with. Thus, Japan always tried to solve whatever issues it may be confronted with, by immediately apologizing and responding.

I think that South Korean anti-Japanese actions have become massive, group-like, social, national, and common characteristic of the South Korean people and when it comes to national characteristics, the Korean people will surely participate in anti-Japanese movements, through anti-Japanese education implemented since the establishment of the Republic of Korea. However, when it comes to simple, emotional daily life, they are rather sympathetic and friendly toward the Japanese people and not at all anti-Japanese. Otherwise, South Koreans would not enjoy Japanese songs and animations so much, or so many South Korean tourists would not visit Japan for sightseeing. Anti-Japanese education has forced South Koreans to participate in anti-Japanese activities under certain circumstances.

Recently, anti-Korean sentiments began to arise among Japanese people due to one problem after another South Korea inflicts upon Japan. This situation is exactly what we fear should have never happened.

Therefore, here is my proposition in addressing the issue of the mobilized workers. Japan and South Korea had better confront each other to an extreme until there is nowhere to go. When both sides come to such desperate point, South Korea will realize that it should stop anti-Japanese education and Japan will realize that it should stop being indifferent to South Korea and looking at South Korea based on the self-deprecating view of history

When it comes to national security, South Korea and Japan share a common destiny. No South Korean hopes to fall under the military control of the Communist Party ruled China. On the verge of the national crisis of collapsing diplomatic relations, South Korea should learn what is wrong with its inadequate response against Japan so far and find a new, effective way to deal with Japan. Japan should learn how to seriously deal with South Korea, determined to genuinely get angry at the right thing at the right time and sincerely admit that it has apologized to South Korea unreasonably. Then, both sides will develop in a better way and be able to establish a sound relationship with each other.

Bear it in mind that the current conflict over the mobilized workers should be thoroughly addressed by both countries. Especially, on the part of the Japanese Government, I propose that Japan should be fully determined and prepared to implement a firm policy toward South Korea in resolving this issue.  

【日本語版】https://i-rich.org/?p=853

Fujioka Nobukatsu

Senior researcher

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories (iRICH)

July , 2022



Inevitability of Japan’s nuclear armament

Japan is located near three nuclear powers, namely China, Russia and North Korea, and has been made a target of possible nuclear attacks. The character of all these countries is authoritarian, autocratic and dictatorial. Russia is slightly different from the other two because its top leadership is chosen by election, but its political culture obviously differs from that of the so-called West.

Unless Japan, in this position, arms itself with its own nuclear weapons, it may eventually be deprived of its national independence and robbed of the lives and property of its people by nuclear attacks or nuclear threats from these three countries. The biggest lesson learned from the Ukraine war is that the US has been confirmed to be reluctant to fight squarely against countries with nuclear weapons. Therefore, nuclear armament is meaningless unless it is acquired and owned by the country that is under threat. This has been pointed out by Emmanuel Todd, a French demographer.

Based on these circumstances, it is self-evident that, for Japan to remain an independent country, the possession of its own nuclear armament is necessary. It is indisputably clear in the same way as one and one makes two. In short, the national defense problem is the issue of Japan’s nuclear armament.

Faced with the harsh realities of the Ukraine war, the Japanese, peace addicts as they are, are apparently waking up to the national defense issue. For example, in an opinion poll taken in a Fuji TV show in June asking the viewers about the pros and cons of the “proposal to raise Japan’s defense budget to 2% of its GNP,” as many as 90% of the respondents agreed to the proposal and 7% said the current level of 1% of the GNP should be maintained, overwhelming the 3% who said it should be reduced.

This gave me the hope that some candidates would possibly appear in the House of Councillors election in July who would raise openly the issue of defense, including nuclear armament. It is because politicians truly willing to take the responsibility for the security of the nation and the people should be bound to reach the conclusion mentioned above. Seeing that the Japanese people have “experienced” the Ukraine war, it was a golden opportunity to awaken the people to the problem. It is politicians’ job to give substance and direction to indefinite “public opinion.” Otherwise, public opinion that has finally risen would eventually lose all its momentum.

Certainly, there were candidates in the election who touched on “the defense budget at 2% of the GNP” but I could not find any candidates who came to grips with the nuclear issue and made all-out appeals. My expectations were betrayed. It is still a taboo for politicians to openly avow Japan’s nuclear armament. The election made me aware anew that the defense issue would not attract votes after all.

Japanese mentality posing the biggest difficulty in national defense

Nuclear armament of Japan involves numerous difficulties. The biggest point is whether the US would permit Japan’s nuclear armament. While it depends on the nature and policies of the administration in power at the moment it is not easy judging from the historical context up to now.

In the first place, the Japanese Self-Defense Forces are forced to use US-built weapons as basic equipment, which hinders the development of domestically-produced weapons. Accordingly, these armament policies have been designed by the US armed forces with the intention to make the Japanese Self-Defend Forces dysfunctional. The national leader is required to have the political skills for realizing the country’s goals while adeptly getting around any problems. We need the advent of a politician with strong leadership skills capable of handling all these adversities.

These obstacles alone are no easy matter but let’s say that the problems mentioned above have been solved. Even so, I cannot help but think that the final force to obstruct the nuclear armament of Japan will be the Japanese people themselves. Judging from the disposition, nature and thought process of the Japanese people as a group, securing national consensus as to nuclear armament is a very difficult task.

 Studying the developments of the Tongzhou Massacre, in which Japanese were cruelly and horrifically killed by Chinese, and the behavior of the Japanese regarding this incident, inevitably makes me aware of the difficulties described above. Let me point out two problems. First, the Japanese are unable by nature to look squarely at cruelty. Secondly, the Japanese tend to leniently drop their grudges and refrain from retaliating, no matter how severely they are made to suffer, rather than burning with the desire for revenge.

● Japanese culture tabooing the disclosure of cruelties

Let me start by discussing the first problem. I would like to make it clear in advance that my discussion is about a group attribute of the Japanese people, it is in their nature to avoid contact with cruelties and place them under a taboo. The Japanese cannot withstand those things. This is probably closely linked to the Japanese culture that shuns impurity. It is in the basis of Shinto. The difference between cruel and non-cruel peoples has sometimes been explained by the difference between meat-eating culture based on cattle-raising and plant-eating culture based on agriculture but whether this opinion is well-founded is unknown. Instead, more directly, there seems to be a stronger relation with the fact that the society taboos involve the perception of cruelties.

To the morning edition of the Tokyo Asahi Shimbun dated November 1, 1937  when the Tongzhou massacre occurred, musician Konoe Hidemaro contributed an article entitled “Taigai Senden Shikan (Personal Comments on External Propaganda).” Konoe Hidemaro was a paternal younger brother of Konoe Fumimaro, the then Prime Minister. Konoe Hidemaro, who lived abroad for a long time and was familiar with the Western European affairs, made an issue of “ineptness of propaganda and news coverage on the Japanese side” and commented as follows:

“The Tongzhou mass murder incident must exactly be the biggest material for making known worldwide how reasonable the fury of all Japanese is. The photographs of the real disastrous scenes need not be imported to mainland Japan. None of our fellow countrymen would probably be able to look straight at them and everybody would look away. However, hiding from foreign countries this violence, which is worth being described as fiendish beyond inhuman, would instead make the sacrifice of the many fellow Japanese victims wasteful.”

“In fact, news films on the Chinese side show piles of corpses of coolies allegedly killed by Japanese troops, a close-up of a dead body with its head cracked open using a Chinese falchion and brain fluid oozing out and so on, and make every effort to make themselves look weak despite the fact that they made defensive preparations that extremely troubled the Imperial Army in North China and Shanghai. In contrast, Japanese propaganda only shows marches and banzai cheers with the Rising Sun flag fluttering animatedly on the top of a castle and it is only natural that China automatically attracts sympathy.”

Accordingly, Konoe Hidemaro states, “we should think that, photographing how each and every person subjected to anguish in Tongzhou was killed from a forensic perspective, for example, is not disrespectful to the deceased as long as it can serve as a salvation from a crisis for the nation at any rate” and called for “countering Chinese propaganda” by “dismissing old ideas.”

I perfectly understand how he felt. When I worked to publish Sasaki Ten’s testimonies as an independent reprinted booklet (“Tsushu Jiken - Mokugekisha no Shogen” published by Jiyusha)[1], I greatly hesitated. I made the firm decision on its publication thinking that, after all, the Japanese would forever be kept away from the knowledge of how dreadful the Chinese society is unless the truth is known, which would cause a serious problem from the viewpoint of national defense. It is not that I have a grotesque taste.
 
At present, a look around publications in Japan shows that fake photos of the Nanking Incident are being spread unchallenged with impunity, exactly as pointed out by Konoe Hidemaro. Iris Chang’s “The Rape of Nanking” was sold at airport kiosks around the world. In contrast, no collection of testimonies, not to mention atrocious photos, of the Tongzhou Massacre has ever been published. “Shimbun ga Tsutaeta Tsushu Jiken [The Tongzhou Massacre Covered by Newspapers] 1937 - 1945” (Shukousha), which has recently been published, is the very first collection of materials about the incident. In these circumstances, there is no way that the true dreadfulness of the incident can be widely known among the Japanese people. This is a major dilemma.

● Leniency to forgive even if made to suffer

The second problem is the leniency of the Japanese, who will forgive no matter how badly they are made to suffer. What is conspicuous about the aftermath of the Tongzhou Masscare is that Japanese attempted no harm on Chinese, whose fellow countrymen committed such outrageous acts. F. Williams, an American journalist, wrote:

 “While this was taking place, and later, some 60,000 Chinese were living

  peacefully in the Japanese Empire… (omitted) I have walked through the

  Chinatowns of Yokohoma (sic) and other Japanese cities and watched the

  Chinese children at play without thought of fear or danger and while in China

 their countrymen were mobbing and hunting down Japanese children like themselves. (omitted) The very Chinese soldiers who perpetrated the massacre

 of the Japanese innocents at Tungchow were fed by the Japanese troops when captured and under the Sumarai (sic) code which condemns the offense but

 forgives the offender they were told to go and kill no more.” (Behind the

 News in China)

 The fact that not one of the 60,000 Chinese became a target of retaliation by Japanese is miraculous from the perspective of the international standard. Even more surprisingly, in Chinatown in Yokohama, a Japanese vigilante group was organized for protecting Chinese. Cooks in Tokyo who were advised to go home by the Chinese Embassy in Japan found it unwelcome because it was safer in Japan.

Should we be proud of a thing like this as a virtue representing the noble spirituality of the Japanese? My answer is “No.” The reason is that it is extremely risky from the viewpoint of national defense. It makes the other party assume that the Japanese will never strike back no matter what cruel treatment they are given. The Chinese are the type of people who, once they have decided that the other party is weaker, attack to any extent. Therefore, an excessive virtue like this is nothing other than a vice, in the sense that it leads to more Japanese victims. In order to suppress the other party’s aggression, you should be armed with fangs. This is the international standard, which the Japanese must meet by making conscious effort to transform themselves. Otherwise, Japanese nuclear armament will not be achieved.

In May, 2022 a play on the theme of the Tongzhou Massacre with Sasaki Ten as the main character was performed in Tokyo for the first time in history. One woman, who gathered her courage to watch it after hesitating to do so because of her psychological unwillingness to see cruelties, commented as follows: “It is unimaginable that the superb humanity of the Japanese would bring them agony. Where should we turn to find the means to protect the Japanese, a people with a kind heart rarely found in the world? Probably, the only means is nuclear armament as a deterrent.” To know the truth of the Tongzhou Massacre is significant in terms of national defense.


[1] English translation edition: Tongzhou Massacre: Testimony of an Eyewitness, Fujioka Nobukatsu,Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact, January 2020.