カテゴリー: English Articles

【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.

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.

【日本語版】https://i-rich.org/?p=942

Hifumi Tomoko

Senior researcher

International Research Institute of Controversial Histories (iRICH)

October ,2022

• General situation of Japanese language education

There are currently about 4 million Japanese language learners outside Japan (Japan Foundation 2020). It is an increase of over 30 times in 30 years since 1988. There are 160,000 Japanese language learners in Japan as well, an increase of about three times in 30 years (Agency for Cultural Affairs 2021).

The trend of Japanese language education in Japan has made changes with the change of the times. Until the 1970s, Japanese language learners were limited to only a fraction of foreigners such as researchers on Japan, businessmen and foreign students studying in Japan. However, Japanese language learners have continued to increase and also become diversified, while being influenced by the politics, economy and diplomacy at given times such as Japan’s high economic growth, the normalization of diplomatic relations between Japan and China (1972), the signing of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1981), the 100,000 Foreign Students Plan (1983), the revision of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (hereinafter “Immigration Control Act”) (1990), the Technical Intern Training Program for Foreigners (1993), the 300,000 Foreign Students Plan (2008), the EPA (Economic Partnership Agreement) (2008) and the Specified Skilled Worker system (2019). Nevertheless, Japanese language education, lacking in clear philosophy of itself, has been a history of struggle in the sense of haphazardness, being buffeted by extrinsic factors and completely taken up dealing with problems at hand, and there was no long-term strategy.

• Lack of a perspective of a national strategy

Growth in the number of Japanese language learners and in popularity of Japanese language education provide a perfect opportunity to make the Japanese language and culture widespread around the world and increase Japanophiles and Japanologists. However, despite the fact that the number of Japanese language learners has increased, it does not seem that Japan has become better understood or the number of Japanophiles and Japanologists has increased. While the number of Japanese language learners has increased, anti-Japan activities of neighboring countries still persist and misunderstandings of and prejudices against Japan are spreading to cause Japan to be exposed to unreasonable criticisms and malicious slanders. One major cause of the failure to win a correct and deeper understanding of Japan is that Japanese language education has been left to chance without any national strategy.

The Japan Foundation is Japan's only institution dedicated to promoting international cultural exchange. Ever since its establishment in 1972, it has carried out programs to support Japanese language education outside Japan. While the programs were initially intended mainly for developing researchers on Japan, the institution has recently been carrying out support programs to meet local demands of occasions or various reasons behind Japanese language learning (such as acquisition of advanced technologies, technical training and interest in pop culture). What it suggests, however, is a passive, halfhearted attitude of giving assistance to the other countries, which are interested in the Japanese language, according to their current conditions and demands and there is no further strategic perspective.

As the objective and philosophy of Japanese language education of the Association for Japanese Language Education and certain universities and Japanese language schools, phrases such as “for multicultural coexistence,” “for learning together and from each other,” “for mutual understanding and respect” and “for international exchange” leap to the eye. This way of Japanese language education, which may eventually contribute to Japan’s national interest, is too devious and as good as no strategy.

　The same applies to the Act on the Promotion of Japanese Language Education promulgated and enforced in 2020. The Basic Philosophy (Article 3) says: “The promotion of Japanese language education must be carried out in a way that ensures to the maximum extent possible the opportunities for foreigners, etc. desiring to receive Japanese language education according to their wish, situation and ability” and “The promotion of Japanese language education must be carried out in a way that deepens foreign countries’ understanding of and interest in Japan through Japanese language education outside Japan to encourage exchanges with foreign countries and that contributes to maintaining and developing friendly relations with foreign countries.” The provisions are acceptable more or less but there is hardly any strategic perspective of positively training Japanophiles and Japanologists who serve Japan’s national interest.

• Adverse effects caused by lack of philosophy

　As measures against the falling birthrate and aging population and against labor shortage, Japan has brought out one new measure after another from the 1990s to the present, including the revision of the Immigration Control Act, the Technical Intern Training Program for Foreigners, the 300,000 Foreign Students Plan, the EPA and the Specified Skilled Worker system. In reality, however, they function to supply cheap labor that Japanese workers do not perform, which may apparently seem to support Japanese economy but contributes to lowering Japanese wages and should be assessed as making Japanese economy unsound. This is assumed to be due to irresponsible response to economic problems with an absence of philosophy of Japanese language education.

Regarding the issue of education of foreign students and young people, on August 29, 2022, Prime Minister Kishida Fumio held a conversation with Nagaoka Keiko, the Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, and instructed to review the “300,000 foreign students in Japan” program and formulate a new plan to further increase foreign students. Of the many problems relating to education of foreign students and young people, here are two briefly mentioned as adverse effects caused by lack of philosophy.

1) Issue of education of young people

　Second-generation and third-generation Japanese born outside Japan have rapidly increased in number since the 1990s and are often accompanied by their families when coming to Japan. In recent years, taking families along is permitted even for foreign students and in the Specified Skilled Worker system. Children who have reached school age enter Japanese public schools but they are not only unable to understand classes because of lack of Japanese language proficiency but also fail to acquire sufficient ability in the Japanese language as well as their mother tongue. In the end, they often fail to enroll in compulsory schooling or even take to delinquency.

Meanwhile, the excessive burdens placed on teachers at schools that accept them should not be overlooked. They include special lessons for the pupils concerned (such as supplementary Japanese language lessons), teaching material development (addition of kana readings, English translations, summaries in the pupils’ mother tongues, etc.) and special treatment for examinations (addition of kana readings, permission of use of dictionaries, extension of the time, decreasing the number of questions, padding the scores, etc.). In addition, teachers are required to deal with irregular entrance and changing of schools due to the parents’ work. Yet another problem is to what extent special measures for addressing cultural differences should be permitted in view of fairness with Japanese pupils (pierced earrings, school meals, cleaning after school and participation in extracurricular lessons, etc.). In reality, problems are concealed under the find-sounding phrase “diversity provides richness.”

2) Issue of quality of foreign students

　In the 100,000 and 300,000 Foreign Students Plans, the numerical targets generate their own momentum to drive universities to secure certain numbers of foreign students even if excessive efforts are required.

This results first in the problem of imbalance of countries of the students’ origin. China accounts for 40% of the countries of foreign students’ origin. As a result, even a risk of secret information leaks has been generated. Despite this, Japanese universities have a sense of crisis low enough to think of human nature as fundamentally good and tend to even avoid viewing foreign students with suspicion. This is another result of lack of strategic perspective in Japanese language education in Japan as a whole.

Secondly, there is a problem of unavoidable acceptance of foreign students with low academic and Japanese language ability. Of foreign students whose original purpose is not studying, some devote themselves to part-time jobs without attending classes and even disappear unnoticed. Among universities, under the pretext of “internationalization of universities,” some increase the number of courses that can be taken in English for foreign students with low Japanese language ability or state that students can get a diploma by using English only even though they provide education for foreign students in Japan.

• Perspective of national strategy required for Japanese language education

China’s Confucius Institutes are organizations for Chinese language and culture education. They are said to engage in propaganda campaigns and espionage based on opinions of the Communist Party of China under the guise of education. Recently in Europe, vigilance against Confucius Institutes has increased and the organizations have been closed at one university after another. Having said that, the positive attitude of the Confucius Institutes toward spreading their own language and culture has points to learn from in terms of Japan’s national strategy. In order to train Japanologists with a deep understanding of the history, culture and sense of value of a country called Japan and Japanophiles with love of and respect for Japanese tradition and culture, rather than providing Japanese language education that simply meets the demands of the other countries or Japanese language education only for personal benefits such as obtaining employment, there is a lot to learn from Confucius Institutes.

As an idea, a system should be established of financing various universities in the world from the Japanese budget to open courses such as a Japanese culture course for learning the Japanese language and culture and dispatching teaching staff from universities and professional schools in Japan as required.

For that purpose, it should be necessary in training Japanese language teachers in Japan to have trainees fully understand what it means to become Japanese language teachers, or to give them a sense of mission to provide Japanese language education and become Japanese language teachers for serving Japan’s national interest. In addition, as a minimal level of grounding, knowledge about Japan should be cultivated after breaking away from a masochistic view of history. There is an endless list of what we can boast to the world, such as the world’s longest history ruled over by an unbroken line of Emperors, the achievement of a peaceful and recycle-based society spanning over 10,000 years called the Jomon period, tolerance toward religion, the spirit of harmony and democracy manifested in the Seventeen-Article Constitution, equality as seen in the Manyoshu and the high status of women symbolized by The Tale of Genji, just to name a few. Things like these are what should be acquired as a grounding first by Japanese language teachers themselves and this content should be adopted as the essentials in the curriculum of Japanese language teacher training and education offered by universities and professional schools.

This is only the author’s impression but those trying to be Japanese language teachers are often superior and full of the volunteer spirit and have lofty ideals such as multicultural coexistence and mutual respect. Therefore, if the content of Japanese language education is improved with national strategy, it is not too difficult to disseminate the Japanese language and culture with a sense of mission and increase the number of Japanologists and Japanophiles.

Japanese Content

December 14, 2022

Nonoda Takahiro, Researcher
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories (iRICH)

Introduction

This paper presents the battle for the market share in Japan between operating systems (OSs) for personal computers (PCs), which broke out due to technologies of OSs for PCs and the budgeting for educational PCs, the trade friction between Japan and the US that occurred concurrently and the accompanying trends in the Japanese computer industry. Through the course of these events, I’ll discuss the protection and advancement of Japanese technologies.

TRON and MS-DOS

The TRON (The Real-time Operating system Nucleus) Project started in 1984 as a project for developing Japan’s home-grown OSs [1]. The TRON Project produced various results and led to the development of OSs for home appliances control and PCs. Of these, ITRON, a product of the TRON Project, is still in use as an OS architecture for controlling home appliances [2]. The specification of ITRON and its emphasis on stability and instancy are a factor of its adoption. In 1989, the TRON Project released BTRON as an OS architecture for PCs. BTRON provides OSs that use a graphical user interface, which allows operation with a mouse on a graphical screen, as with the current Windows and Mac OS.

Meanwhile, in the US, Microsoft released the first version of MS-DOS in 1981. MS-DOS is an OS that uses a command-line interface, which uses command (character)-based control for PCs. The first version of MS-DOS was developed by purchasing 86-DOS, which was developed and marketed by Seattle Computer Products [3]. In the initial period after the establishment, Microsoft employed a method of purchasing existing products and modifying them to release as their own products.

In 1985, the Ad Hoc Council on Education of Japan formulated the Educational Method Development Special Equipment Grant five-year plan [4] and, for the first time, earmarked budget for introduction of computers into schools. In 1986, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Education established the Center for Educational Computing (CEC) (currently JAPET & CEC after merger with the Japan Association for Promotion of Educational Technology) [4] and started discussing BTRON as the standard OS architecture in Japan’s school education in order to standardize OSs for educational PCs of Japan [5]. It was difficult for US companies to enter because the capability of using the Japanese language was required for using PCs in Japan. Against this backdrop, manufacturers with the capability of the Japanese language other than NEC had very small market shares of PCs. PC manufacturers that joined the CEC attempted to acquire the market for educational PCs, which was secured by government expenditure, by manufacturing PCs conforming to the specification formulated for encroaching on NEC’s market share. By September 1987, of the major home appliance manufacturers with a membership of the CEC, 11 companies except NEC supported the adoption of BTRON [1]. For NEC, which had a considerable market share of PCs including educational ones, it was a period of transition from the PC8801 Series to PC 9801. PC-9801 employed Japanese language MS-DOS. For this reason, NEC was reluctant to adopt BTRON but, after negotiations for over a half year, decided to adopt a dual configuration of BTRON and MS-DOS [6].

Japan-US trade friction

What occurred between Japan and the US coincidentally with the period when the OS specification was beginning to be finalized in Japan was the Japan-US trade friction. Child as I was, I remember a scene aired on the TV where Japanese cars were being smashed.

In the National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers released by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in 1989 [7], TRON was listed in the Other Barriers section [8] and named as a candidate for sanctions under the amended section 1302 of the Omnibus Foreign Trade and Competitiveness Act (Super 301) [9]. The TRON Association sent a letter of protest to the USTR, claiming that it was a “misunderstanding,” and the USTR cleared up the misunderstanding to exclude TRON from the items subject to Super 301 at that time [10].

However, NEC took this opportunity to put off the adoption of BTRON. As a result, CEC gave up the idea of standardization by the BTRON specification [11]. Many manufacturers other than NEC had adopted OSs conforming to the BTRON specification but they were no match for NEC, which already had a wealth of data and programs, and ended up withdrawing one after the other. Through the course of these events, for OSs for PCs including educational PCs, the market share of MS-DOS, rather than BTRON, expanded.

Japanese government’s trade and diplomacy succumbed to pressure from overseas

The TRON Project submitted a letter of rebuttal to the USTR [10]. In response, the USTR withdrew the application of Super 301 to TRON. However, to the letter of rebuttal, it gave a response along the lines that “concerning educational PCs in the education market of Japan, it is unfair for the CEC, a Japanese government agency, and not the market itself, to choose the OS to use (thereby virtually keeping out OSs other than BTRON such as MS-DOS)” [1]. The fact that it is specified as an item subject to Super 301, regardless of the comment that the market itself should choose the OS, clearly indicates that a behind-the-scenes framework of protective trade of the US was in place in reality. The TRON Project again expressed its view to the response from the USTR [10], where neither the Japanese government nor the CEC rebutted again. Re-rebuttal by the government, in particular, seems to have been necessary. As a result, BTRON was brought back onto the list in the 1990 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers [1]. In the background of this is assumed to be the threat that the US felt of the degree of completion of the executed specification of BTRON, not to mention the OSs released. BTRON had technological superiority as compared with MS-DOS but virtually standardized OS, rather than the OS with superiority, would secure the market share. The project explored the technical ideal of computers and did not lend itself to use of the data assets of NEC PCs, which had been accumulated in abundance. BTRON never saw the light of day because, while the OS architecture boasted technological quality high enough to give threat to the US, MS-DOS became widespread as the de facto standard.

From the political aspect, on the other hand, I think that the cause was lack of the governments’ attitude of protecting and developing engineering technology of the industry and academia.

Poor treatment of engineers in Japan is another problem. One typical example is Nakamura Shuji, who is the first in the world to succeed in the development of the blue light-emitting diode, which has digitally enabled white color for the first time [12]. However, Nakamura, who was dissatisfied with his treatment by the company he belonged to at the time of the development [13] and seeking sufficient research funds, obtained US citizenship and moved out to get US research funding [14]. In addition, emerging nations keeping an eye on the high technological capabilities of Japan are also headhunting Japanese engineers [15], which has led to deterioration of the technological capabilities of Japan and overtaking by emerging nations.

How support is given to researchers must also be pointed out as a problem. Considering Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research, which are part of support for researchers, the amounts of Grants awarded for engineering research are small. While some humanities studies are awarded Grants of a few hundred million yen, Grants on that scale are rarely awarded for engineering studies. The screening system of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science is also assumed to have a problem.

Conclusion

This paper has mentioned the history of OSs in terms of technology and the Japan-US trade friction in terms of politics and discussed how one superior Japanese-made technology deteriorated as a result. It has shown that Japan’s intrinsic technological capabilities are very high but they are not leveraged due to inadequate treatment and support.

After the Great East Asia War, the relationship between Japan and the US seems to be one where Japan particularly tries to avoid displeasing the US and suit the convenience of the US in various ways. Examples include inequality arising from the Japan-US Status-of-Forces Agreement and cases in which Japan implement policies according to what the Annual Reform Recommendations say. In the background is Japan’s dependence on the US for security. In the 1980s, the US made an enemy of Japan in terms of economy in response to Japan’s economic and technological rise and attacked Japan. TRON discussed in this paper is the most conspicuous of the examples. For Japan to be a nation with sovereign independence, change of the mindset of the Japanese people and tenacious negotiations for demanding revision of the Status-of-Forces Agreement are required. For the Annual Reform Recommendations, it is important to show Japan’s decisive intentions in view of Japan’s national interest.

Sometimes specific industries got the raw end of the deal in exchange for political issues, as in the Japan-US Textile Negotiations [16]. The Japanese government is apparently continuing diplomacy that does not use the lesson learned from this experience. We should never let situations occur where the high technological capabilities of Japan flow out to hinder development in Japan. It is necessary to build an environment where technologies are evaluated from a long-term perspective and investments are made in technological development to allow playing in a free market.

One trade issue regarding new computer technologies is the Japan-US Semiconductor Agreement [17]. The second Semiconductor Agreement requires Japan to open up more than 20% of the domestic market share to overseas manufacturers. This caused an increase in the market share in Japan of semiconductors manufactured overseas, leading to the deteriorated production capabilities of Japan. This condition further accelerated and semiconductor production bases moved from Japan to overseas, which does not only pose an issue of outflow of manufacturing technologies but also has led to the present condition where semiconductors can no longer be manufactured in Japan. This impact is now decisive to whether Japan can maintain the design technology for semiconductors used exclusively for the supercomputer field, where Japan currently has an advantage. If technology like this flows out overseas, it is not exaggeration to say that Japanese computer technology has completely deteriorated. To prevent dropping out of the advancement of computer technologies, the Japanese government should give support anew to the development of technologies that provide competitiveness in a free market and improve the ability of diplomatic negotiations.

Cited literature

1. Kurata Keiichi. "Analysis of Success Factors in Standardization of the TRON Project," Nomi City, Ishikawa Prefecture : Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, 2005.

2. TRON Forum. ITRON (online). (Citation date: October 12, 2022)

3. Awano Kunio. What is MS-DOS?, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo: BNN, 1987.

4. Toida Daijiro and Goto Hiroyoshi. The Present Condition of Introduction of Computers into Schools: How Computers Will Change Schools, Teachers and Children. Benesse Educational Research and Development Institute (online). Benesse, 1992. (Citation date: October 31, 2022.)  https://berd.benesse.jp/ict/research/detail1.php?id=3315

5. Kurata Keiichi. Study on the De Facto Standard of the TRON Project (online). (Citation date: October 31, 2022.) https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/randi/16/0/16_193/_pdf.

6. TRON Forum. TRON Project 30th Anniversary. Thirty-year history of TRON Project (online). (Citation date: October 28, 2022.) https://30th.tron.org/tp30-06.html.

7. USTR. 1989 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. 1989.

8. Gen Tadao. Year 1989: Trade Problem Caused by Japanese-Made OS "BTRON." Nikkei XTECH (online) June 15, 2019. (Citation date: October 28, 2022.) https://xtech.nikkei.com/atcl/nxt/column/18/00215/060300034/

9. Trade Act of 1974 (online). (Citation date: October 12, 2022.)  http://customs.starfree.jp/Trade%20Act%20of%201974j.pdf

10. TRON Association. Background to Trade Issues (online). (Citation date: October 12, 2022.)  https://web.archive.org/web/20100714120633/http://www.assoc.tron.org/jpn/intro/s_301.html

11. Nikkei Computer. 1989.

12. Here's why the blue LED deserves a Nobel Prize. WIRED (online). October 9, 2014. (Citation date: October 31, 2022.) https://wired.jp/2014/10/09/nobel-prize-blue-leds/.

13. Nakamura Shuji. I Won't Lose!: What the Developer of the Blue Light-Emitting Diode Has to Say. Chuo-ku, Tokyo : Asahi Shimbun Publications, 2004.

14. Nobel Prize Laureate Nakamura Shuji Talks about Why He Obtained the US Citizenship.withnews (online). October 18, 2014 (Citation date: October 31, 2022.) https://withnews.jp/article/f0141018000qq000000000000000G0010401qq000010997A

15. Takahashi Fumitada and Saeki Shinya. Asking Three Japanese Engineers Why They Switched to Korean Companies. Nikkei Electronics (online) November 16, 2012. (Citation date: Octiber 31, 2022.) https://xtech.nikkei.com/dm/article/FEATURE/20121105/249381/

16. Ojimi Yoshihisa, Shiraishi Takashi and Mitsuhashi Tadahiro. Japan-US Textile Negotiations and Vision of the 1970s. Place of publication unknown: MITI Journal, December 1993. 17. Higashi Soichiro. Empirical Research on Capital Investment of Semiconductor Companies: Impact of the Japan-US Semiconductor Agreement. Nishinoiya City, Hyogo Prefecture: Kwansei Gakuin University Shogaku Kenkyu, 2015.

【日本語版】https://i-rich.org/?p=950

Moteki Hiromichi

Senior researcher

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories (iRICH)

November , 2022

1. Ukraine war: a war between globalism and nationalism?

As Fujiwara Masahiko says in his book Nihonjin no Shinka (True Value of the Japanese) (Bunshun Shinsho 2020) that “it is hard to believe that aggression as blatant as the Russian invasion of Ukraine takes place in the 21st century Europe,” many are surprised at how history has gone backwards by one century, so to speak.

However, some seem to support the view that this is a war of nationalism against globalism. Apparently, they see it as a confrontation of the Russian nationalism against American globalism led by the DS (deep state) but this raises a question of where Ukraine, the leading player, comes in. Do they mean that Ukraine is a voice of globalism supported by the US?

It is an outrageous idea to make light of the Ukrainians. Are they saying that Ukraine, fighting bravely and squarely against an all-out attack from Russia, which boasts overwhelming military power, are fighting for the US? I feel inclined to wonder if they are thinking of the Ukrainians as fools committing their lives to the US. Certainly, it is thanks to the enormous arms support from the US and other countries of the Western bloc that they have been able to repulse the main forces of the 200,000 Russian troops, protect the capital Kyiv, strike a blow at the Russian troops in the eastern and southern regions and recover lost territory. Who expected a wretched debacle of the Russian tank force of over 1,000 vehicles? No matter how much military aid is offered, fighting such fierce battles would be absolutely impossible without the determination to fight of the people who love and commit their lives to their country. Look at Afghanistan. They got themselves into such a mess despite the US troops that had joined them in addition to the arms support.

If the present war is a heroic war of nationalist Ukraine, what about Russia? Russia expressed as pretexts for invasion of Ukraine what can never suffice as reasons for all-out invasion, such as the “threat of neo-Nazism” and the issue of accession to the NATO but the true reason is Great Russianism: It is an all-out invasion aimed at the realization of Great Russia.

On February 26, in the initial period after the start of the war, RIA Novosti, a Russian state-owned news agency, said in an article under the title of “The advent of Russian new world”:

“Russia is restoring its historical fullness, bringing together the Russian world and the Russian people, namely the Great Russians (Russia), White Russians (Belarus) and Little Russians (Ukraine). If we had abandoned this and allowed the temporary division to take hold, we would not only betray the memory of our ancestors, but would also be cursed by our descendants for allowing the disintegration of the Russian land.”

It means that the Russian nationalist sense of mission was at the root of the invasion of Ukraine. However, this nationalism totally ignores the sovereignty of Little Russia, which is a sovereign country, and the will of the Ukrainians and one-sidedly forces Russia’s own nationalism. They do not hesitate to use armed force for that purpose. It is an extremely malicious and dangerous idea.

The “globalism” called the Great Russianism has now begun to claim that Russia has a right of possession even of Japan’s Hokkaido on the grounds of the Ainu issue (Deputy of the State Duma has stated openly that “Russia has all rights to Hokkaido.” The Sankei Shimbun June 11, 2020)

As Yoram Hazony discusses in his book The Virtue of Nationalism (Japanese version translated by Nakano Takeshi and Se Teruhisa, Toyo Keizai 2021), Nazism was not confined to nationalism but “transformed into globalism that takes on the nature of imperialism and forces own principles and culture on other countries.”

Just like this, the Great Russianism should be regarded as globalism clothed in nationalism. That is, the present war is more accurately a war of the Great Russianist globalism, rather than Russian nationalism, versus Ukrainian nationalism.

2. Threat of neo-Nazism: a complete lie

As a reason for starting a war, Russia put the main emphasis on the threat of neo-Nazism such as the Azov Regiment confronting the pro-Russian faction in Ukraine.

From 1932 to 1933 in the Soviet Union era, Ukraine was hit by a great famine. It was a tragic incident that caused starvation of 3.3 or even more millions of people but it was due more to the Communist Party’s self-justified authoritarianism than to the weather, as it was depicted in the famous movie Mr. Jones. This inevitably raised strong anti-Soviet emotions among Ukrainian nationalists and Ukrainian people. Therefore, when the German troops made inroads into Ukraine, many Ukrainians cooperated with the German troops. Against this backdrop, it should be natural that people like the Azov Regiment came into existence. In the present Ukraine, however, neither are the Azov Regiment’s illegal attacks against Russian residents officially approved nor are anti-Russian revanchist policies taken by the Ukrainian government. On the contrary, Russia has sent the Wagner Group’s unit of 8,000 mercenaries to the eastern part of Ukraine since 2014. Russia has long been engaged in acts of aggression. They are absolutely unqualified to mention neo-Nazism. Needless to add, it can never be a pretext for all-out invasion of Ukraine.

As another reason for starting the war, Russia mentions the threat of NATO. They claim that Ukraine’s refusal to give up joining NATO is a threat to Russia.

NATO has expanded and is still expanding. However, NATO has never waged war of aggression against any sovereign nation. The expansion of NATO is an increase of member states for avoiding the threat of an aggressive big power called Russia and not one country intends to join NATO to invade Russia. In response to Russia’s current act of violence reminiscent of the 20th century, Sweden and Finland, which traditionally took a neutrality policy, officially applied for the accession to NATO. This means that the reason for starting the war mentioned by Russia has produced a reverse effect.

That is, the reason for starting the war associated with neo-Nazism or with NATO can never be sufficient for providing justification for Russia’s one-sided all-out invasion.

3. Incorrect allegation over historical perception that the Pearl Harbor attack has something in common with Russia’s all-out invasion

President Zelenskyy of Ukraine spoke along the following lines in his online speech made to the US Congress on March 16:

Remember Pearl Harbor, the terrible morning of December 7, 1941, when your sky was black from the planes attacking you.

This is an absurd, incorrect perception. Very regrettably, however, a view that the Pearl Harbor attack is Japan’s one-sided act of aggression is mostly shared around the world in reality. Having said that, the “aggressor Japan” view is a total “fallacy,” as discussed by Henry Stokes, former Tokyo bureau chief for The New York Times, in his book Fallacies in the Allied Nations' Historical Perception as Observed by a British Journalist (Hamilton Books, New York, 2017).

What should be confirmed first is the fact that Russia, whose existence was not in a critical situation, waged total aggression against Ukraine, a minor power, resulting in the present Russian invasion of Ukraine. Moreover, they are outrageous enough to declare a nuclear threat.

It is true that the attack on Pearl Harbor was a preemptive strike, but the situation was totally different from the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Japan was faced with a genuine life-or-death crisis for the nation.

In July 1939, the US one-sidedly announced its abrogation of the US-Japan Treaty of Commerce and Navigation. It was “all the more serious because the denouncing of a commercial treaty for political reasons is almost unheard of in American diplomatic history,” as an article in the July 28, 1939, edition of The Manchester Guardian stated, and virtually a quasi-declaration of war. It gave the US the power to begin restricting exports to Japan six months later and the US started to restrict the export of scrap iron, alloys, refined steel, steel products, machines, etc., which at last led to the total embargo of oil in August 1941. Japan, whose oil supplies depended 90% on import, lost its sources of oil and was driven to the critical point of survival as a modern state because the Netherlands followed in the footsteps of the US to restrict exports. The situation was just the opposite of how Russia is conversely making use of oil as a strategic material to the West and using its export as a threat.

An economic blockade is warfare, as US Secretary of State Kellogg said on December 8, 1928, in the hearing for the ratification of the Pact of Paris proposed by himself, when he stated that an economic blockade is “An act of war, absolutely!” responding to a question from a senator. That is, the one that first committed an act of war called an economic blockade against Japan was none other than the US.

In addition, the US formulated an operation plan (JB355) to bomb the mainland Japan using long-range bombers, which was signed for approval by President Roosevelt on July 23, 1941. (The signed document has been published in the US National Archives.) It was four and a half months before the Pearl Harbor attack.

The Japanese government had been continuously negotiating to avoid conflict with the US but the Hull note, which was virtually an ultimatum to it, was submitted on November 26. Its content brought the results of negotiations up to then to almost nothing. Hamilton Fish, the Republican leader who approved of the declaration of war, made severe criticism after the war that none of the congress members was informed of the Hull note and said that it was wrong of himself to ask for the declaration without the knowledge of it.

While the US was already engaged in a virtual act of war by the economic blockade, Japan was seeking an avenue to reconciliation. For Japan, the loss of the possibility of reconciliation meant that there was no other way left but to take measures for self-defense. Japan had the right to use self-defense measures. Then, it decided to use self-defense measures, which was the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is not a response to a threat to their existence or use of the right of self-defense. President Zelenskyy and other people around the world should know that there is nothing similar about it to the Pearl Harbor attack. Very regrettably, the reality is that the view on the Pearl Harbor attack as Japan’s one-sided act of aggression is still mostly shared around the world. It is a perception that must be corrected.

- China Does Not Have a Legal Right of Possession of Taiwan -

【日本語版】https://i-rich.org/?p=886

　

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Kawahara Shoichiro

Senior researcher

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories (iRICH)

October , 2022

1　“Legal status of Taiwan undetermined” argument

　The question of whether China will invade Taiwan and, if so, when, has recently be raised with a sense of urgency by the mass media. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the question of Taiwan has come under more intense scrutiny, with comparison between Taiwan and Ukraine.

　A forced Chinese absorption of Taiwan, the so-called Taiwan issue, is the most significant issue in East Asia, as it has the potential to have a great impact, in terms of degree and extent, and will inevitably involve Japan as well as the US.

　Did you know that one argument underlying the Taiwan issue is that the legal status of Taiwan has yet to be determined, or “undetermined”, which seems to attracting attention?

　The view that the “legal status of Taiwan is undetermined,” simply put, is that Japan renounced its possession of Formosa (Taiwan) and the Pescadores Islands after WWII but only renounced its right of possession and did not specify territorial jurisdiction. Even now, determination of who holds the right of possession of Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands is pending, which necessitates certain procedures, such as holding an international conference to determine who bears the right of possession. That is, the Treaty of Peace with Japan (San Francisco Peace Treaty), which was concluded on September 8, 1951, merely stated that “Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores” in Article 2 Section b and other provisions are not mentioned.

　Both China and the Kuomintang (KMT), or the Chinese Nationalist Party of Taiwan, have rejected the “legal status of Taiwan is undetermined” view. At one time, during the KMT Ma Ying-jeou administration, the Chief Representative of the Interchange Association Taipei Office in Japan mentioned this “legal status of Taiwan undetermined” view and the relationship between Japan and Taiwan temporarily deteriorated.

However, the Democratic Progressive Party of Taiwan has not stated its attitude toward the “legal status of Taiwan is undetermined” view and, conversely, is presumed to embrace it from the perspective of Taiwanese independence. The US held the view that the “legal status of Taiwan is undetermined” up until US-China rapprochement. However, Henry Kissinger, then Special Assistant to President Nixon, promised verbally to then Premier Zhou Enlai that the US would subsequently cease to assert that the “legal status of Taiwan is undetermined”. The US has not raised this view ever since.

In Japan, those engaged in Taiwan-related affairs and research are aware of the “legal status of Taiwan is undetermined” view and nothing more. This is also true worldwide—awareness with no further discussion. Therefore, the meaning of Article 2 Section b of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, in the context of a special international situation remains unexamined. Accordingly, the current paper intends to revisit this matter and make clear that China has no legal right of possession of Taiwan based on Article 2 Section b of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. I will point out that, after all, this issue boils down to a question of Taiwanese nationhood.

　

2　The Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration

　In terms of the right of possession of Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands, it is necessary to see how Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands were treated in the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration before looking at the provision in the San Francisco Peace Treaty. 　

The first instance when the Allies took up the issue of Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands, which were in Japan’s possession, was in the Cairo Declaration, issued on December 1, 1943. The signatories of the Cairo Declaration were the heads of the US, the UK and the Republic of China. The Declaration stated:

“It is their [the Allies’] purpose … that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China.”

　This provision in the Cairo Declaration was assumed by the Potsdam Declaration, which was issued jointly by the US, the UK and Republic of China (and later joined by the USSR) on July 26, 1945. In the Potsdam Declaration, Article 8 stated:

“The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.”

　As is well known, Japan accepted the Potsdam Declaration. Acceptance obliged Japan to carry out the provisions of the individual Articles in the Potsdam Declaration including the fulfillment of the Cairo Declaration. However, this does not immediately evoke legal transfer of the right of possession of Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands.

　Pro-China parties and scholars argue that the acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration evoked transfer of the right of possession of Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands and so there is no basis for a “legal status is undetermined” view—which is obviously not valid. Transfer of a right, based on international law, does not come into effect unless a treaty is signed by government representatives and ratified by its council. Acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration merely obligated Japan to carry out the obligations in it and does not evoke a legal transfer of the right of possession. The obligations in the Potsdam Declaration were in fact fulfilled, in all forms, by Article 2 Section b of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. If acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration induced transfer of the right of possession, the relevant provision in the San Francisco Peace Treaty would have been pointless and the provision should not have been made. The provision is there in the Treaty because Japan still had the right of possession at the time of the conclusion of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

3　Occupatio

　Now, let’s go back to the discussion about the provision of Article 2 Section b of the Treaty of Peace with Japan. This Section provided that Japan renounces the right of possession of Taiwan and the Pescadores and the land of which the right of possession was renounced becomes terra nullius. The principle of law based on international law concerning terra nullius is occupatio, which means that a nation can acquire ownership of terra nullius as its territory by exercising control over it before other nations do. What “exercising control” means is arguable but let us say that it refers to the state in which sovereignty is peacefully and continuously exercised over terra nullius without objection from other nations.

　Article 2 Section c of the San Francisco Peace Treaty prescribes renouncement of sovereignty over the Kurile Islands and Sakhalin and Article 2 Section f prescribes renouncement of sovereignty over the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands. However, there is no provision concerning their territorial jurisdiction. Of these lands, at present, the Kurile Islands and Sakhalin are possessed by Russia and possession of the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands are contested by six nations, a result of application of occupatio. That is, these lands were rendered terra nullius on April 28, 1952, the day that the Treaty of Peace with Japan took effect, but the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin was under control by the USSR at that point, and ever since, and no nation has raised an objection to the USSR possessing the Kurile Islands and Sakhalin. As for the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands, since these lands became terra nullius, no nation has exercised control over these lands without objection from other nations, leading to on-going dispute.

　What about Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands? These lands were occupied by the Republic of China (the Government of Taiwan) when they became terra nullius. However, the People’s Republic of China (the Government of China) claims to possesses the lands. The current situation can hardly be said to be peaceful “exercising of control" and there is doubt of whether the Government of Taiwan possesses Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands.

　At the same time, the Government of China does not even occupy Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands; the Government of China is not “exercising control” over Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands. Based on occupatio, the Government of China has no legal right of possession of Taiwan.

4　Conclusion

　One could comment on my conclusion: This conclusion springs form the view that the Government of Taiwan and the Government of China are treated as separate nations. If there is one, unified China, of both mainland China and Taiwan, and the Government of China and the Government of Taiwan represent local governments of a unified China, then all lands can be regarded as territories of the unified China, which includes land possessed by the Government of Taiwan. That is, the right of possession of Taiwan belongs to a unified China.

At the moment, however, the Government of Taiwan does not accept this view and the international community does not accept this view either. In the US’s One China policy, the US acknowledges that the Government of China maintains there is “one China”, which includes Taiwan, and there is no further debate. Japan has practically taken the same position as the US.

　In the end, it should be clear that the issue boils down to a question of Taiwanese nationhood. If the Government of Taiwan is recognized as a nation, then the Government of Taiwan can claim the right of possession of Taiwan based on occupatio and furthermore, the Government of China has absolutely no right of possession.  However, if Taiwan is not recognized as an individual nation, then there can only be “one China”.

　In the future, with increasingly strained relations between China and Taiwan, the question of Taiwanese nationhood will add even more tension. I hope that the current paper, which raises anew the “legal status of Taiwan is undetermined” view, will be a starting point for discussion concerning future diplomatic recognition of Taiwan.

--The nuclear power balance tilting against the United States and the path to securing a reliable nuclear deterrent --

【日本語版】https://i-rich.org/?p=803

Yano Yoshiaki

Senior researcher

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories (iRICH)

June 30, 2022

As we have seen during the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine, it is getting more and more difficult to secure completely the international order, maintained through the U.S. nuclear deterrent power, against attempts to change the status quo.

Guarantee of “nuclear umbrella” for Ukraine was not fulfilled

Ukraine used to own approximately 1,400 nuclear warheads and ranked the third “nuclear power” after Russia and the United States at the time when it became independent from the Soviet Union. However, in 1994, the United States, Britain and Russia, fearing nuclear proliferation from Ukraine, made Ukraine agree to the plan to transfer all its nuclear warheads to Russia on the condition that Ukraine be provided security.

However, after the virtual annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014, the United States and Britain did not provide protection under their nuclear umbrella for Ukraine’s security as it had been promised. When Ukraine was invaded and threatened with a possible nuclear attack by a nuclear power country, the nuclear umbrella assurance the United States had guaranteed to Ukraine did not work effectively.

As if they anticipated the failure of the “nuclear umbrella” security, China, Russia and the DPRK (North Korea) are strengthening their show of force and nuclear intimidation around Japan.

It is time for us to reexamine the policy of total dependence on the United States with respect to nuclear deterrent, reevaluate the need to keep the Three Non-Nuclear Principles and to seriously discuss the necessity and possibility for Japan to possess its own nuclear deterrent power.

Deterrent power has several levels. The highest level is nuclear weapons and below it come biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. Under that level, there are conventional, regular weapons. Below weapons level, there are non-military tools, like diplomacy, economics, scientific technology, intelligence and other means of deterrence.

Deterrent will collapse if at any level, one’s power is weaker than that of the opponent. Even if a conflict occurs and escalates, the possession of a more powerful force at a higher level, makes it possible to prevent the conflict from escalating further.

Namely, if a country owns its own nuclear force, theoretically, it can keep the conflict from escalating any further or refuse to accept the plan to end the conflict as the other side wishes, by employing nuclear intimidation at the time when both sides start using regular weapons and the other side is doing better.

The nominal “Three Non-Nuclear Principles” and the lost U.S. “Nuclear Umbrella” reliance

Following the Sato Cabinet decision on October 9, 1972, Japan has been advocating for the “Three Non-Nuclear Principles.” However, the United States itself has kept an ambiguous stance regarding these principles. The U.S. neither denies nor affirms whether the U.S. nuclear submarines carry nuclear weapons. Japanese officials cannot go aboard U.S. submarines passing through the Japanese territorial waters and verify if the submarines carry nuclear weapons or not. This means that the principle of not allowing the entry of nuclear weapons into the country is not enforced.

In the terms of real politics, Japan has been thoroughly dependent on the United States when it comes to nuclear deterrence. The U.S. assurance that it would provide a nuclear umbrella (Extended nuclear deterrence) is the major reason why Japan does not intend to possess its own nuclear capability.

However, the military nuclear power balance between the United States, China and Russia has already been tilting against the United States. The war in Ukraine further consolidated the ties between Russia and China. It is highly probable that in terms of nuclear strategy, Russia and China secretly agreed to cooperate. A U.S. expert estimates that in the field of strategic nuclear force, if China and Russia join hands and regard the United States as their common enemy, the nuclear power balance will be 2 to 1 in favor of Russia and China.

Regarding Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF), China, without being restricted by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, has unilaterally augmented INF and obtained an advantage in the Indo-Pacific region. As of the short-range nuclear forces, Russia considers them very important in defending its long border line, and it is estimated that Russia has more than 1,800 of them, four to five times as many as the U. S. does.

It is not known how many nuclear forces China owns, but at each level, clearly, China and Russia excel the United States in the number of forces. Despite President Biden’s statement during his visit to Japan and on other occasions, in realistic comparison of forces, it seems evident that the U.S. Nuclear Umbrella has lost its reliability.

If so, Japan has only two options left. To acquire nuclear deterrent power at least as strong as that of Britain and France or to try to augment its conventional armament without the possession of nuclear weapons.

High probability of Japan’s possessing nuclear forces and the U.S. change of policy to acquiesce that Japan and South Korea may possess nuclear arms on their own

American and Japanese experts agree that Japan is potentially capable of possessing nuclear arms on its own. Japan could produce nuclear bombs within several days and owns nuclear fission materials that can be used as fuel for nuclear bombs.

Highly sophisticated technology is not needed and it does not cost much money to design and produce a nuclear bomb. Japan can develop nuclear warheads using super computers without conducting a nuclear test.

Japan owns solid-fueled rockets for civilian use, which can be converted to inter-continental ballistic missiles. Japan will be able to develop nuclear submarines, which can carry submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) and deploy them within five years. Japan has the ability to develop and manufacture the re-entry part to be used in the ballistic head. This technology, as well as the guidance technology, has been tested successfully by “Hayabusa,” the robotic spacecraft, when exploring the tiny asteroid Itokawa, and others.

The United States has not been successful in deterring North Korea from developing nuclear missiles. In March 2022, North Korea launched successfully an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) named Mars 17, with a range capable of reaching the entire U.S. territory. In addition, North Korea is developing hypersonic weapons which cannot be counterattacked by the current missile defense system and may carry out its seventh nuclear testing.

Against such threat posed by the North Korean nuclear attack capability, the United States has shifted its policy toward allowing the South Korean possession of nuclear arms.

In 2017, President Trump admitted that the U.S. would lift the restraint on South Korea to build nuclear submarines, Korean ballistic missiles’ ranges and weights of ballistic heads. Following this, South Korea introduced a plan to build a nuclear submarine and in September 2021, launched successfully an SLBM from under the water.

The U.S. policy change to allowing the South Korean possession of SLBMs in the future will be probably applied also to Japan. To possess SLBMs means loading of nuclear warheads, possession of nuclear arms and nuclear proliferation, which the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) prohibits. However, allowing Japan’s possession of nuclear forces will be a rational strategy, considering the inferior U.S. position in terms of present and future nuclear strategic balance against China and Russia.

That is because if the U.S. would not permit Japan’s possession of its own nuclear forces, Japan may succumb to the nuclear intimidation on the part of China and Russia. Regular weapons would hardly enable Japan to cope with the several million-fold destructive power of the nuclear weapons. If Japan should succumb, it would become a subordinate to China and be obliged to serve as a place for China’s military bases. Then, the United States would be destined to lose its hegemony over the Western Pacific.

Without allowing Japan’s possession of nuclear forces, if the U.S. tries to avoid Japan’s capitulation to the nuclear intimidation by China and Russia, the United States would be obliged to send its large-scale ground forces to Japan and fight against the Chinese military to defend Japan.

After all, the only reasonable choice for the U.S. would be to let Japan possess SLBMs carried aboard nuclear submarines with the highest survivability as at least possible nuclear deterrent and means of transportation, in order to protect the U.S. national interest on the verge of life or death, minimizing the risk.

The change in the Japanese people’s awareness and the most reliable way for Japan to obtain its own nuclear forces

With looming crises in the Taiwan Strait and the Korean Peninsula, and facing the worsening situation of collaboration among China, North Korea and Russia, the hitherto-held allergy against nuclear forces by the Japanese people and the anti-nuclear sentiment would no longer sound persuasive. Voices calling for effective deterrent measures and military forces capable of fighting against invasions will become louder, especially among the young generations within Japan.

If Japan’s domestic public opinion changes, possession of its own nuclear forces will be discussed as a realistic political matter. Once it is politically decided, Japan will be able to produce within several weeks reliable nuclear weapons without conducting nuclear testing and acquire the most reliable deterrent—possession of nuclear forces of its own.