コンテンツへスキップ

【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.

【英訳版】https://i-rich.org/?p=1362

令和5年(2023年)2月

    上席研究員

澤田 健一

アイヌは異民族の先住民族ではなく日本民族であるという科学的真実

 2019年5月に国立科学博物館、国立遺伝学研究所、東京大学、金沢大学などの共同研究グループが、『アイヌは縄文人の核DNAを70%受け継いでいる』という重大な発表をしている[i]。これが科学的に証明された真実であり、アイヌは少なくとも縄文時代から北海道に住み続けている縄文日本人の末裔で間違いないのであり、アイヌが中世以降に北海道に入ってきた北方民族であるとする主張は完全に誤りであることが証明された。

 更には、2020年8月に公表された、東京大学、東京大学大学院、金沢大学による「縄文人ゲノム解析から見えてきた東ユーラシアの人類史」の「研究内容」には、『本州縄文人であるIK002(注:愛知県伊川津貝塚出土の縄文人骨)は、アイヌのクラスター(注:グループ、系統)に含まれた。この結果は北海道縄文人の全ゲノム解析と一致し、アイヌ民族が日本列島の住人として最も古い系統であると同時に東ユーラシア人の創始集団の直接の子孫の1つである可能性が高いことを示している』と記載されている[ii]

 しかも、当該発表では、『縄文人骨(IK002)のゲノムは、東ユーラシア人のルーツともいえる古い系統であり、南ルートに属し、北ルートの影響をほとんど受けていない』と明記している。つまり、縄文人(後にアイヌと呼ばれるようになる人々を含む)は南ルートの人々なのである。これは、これまでに日本の考古学者などが展開してきた『アイヌは北方民族である』との主張が、科学的に否定されたことを意味する。

 これらの科学的に証明された真実が語っているのは、アイヌとは縄文時代から北海道に住み続けている縄文日本人の末裔なのであり、しかも北方民族などではなく南方ルートの人々であって、さらには大陸に進出していった集団は東ユーラシア人の創始集団となった可能性が高い、ということである。

ロシアの動きとプーチンの主張、それに呼応する国内左翼勢力

 ところが、ロシアではこうした事実関係を全く踏まえず、非科学的な主張が展開されている。2018年12月にロシアのプーチン大統領が、『アイヌ民族をロシアの先住民族に認定する考えをしめした』と報道されている[iii]。また、この流れを受けたかのように、2022年4月にロシアのセルゲイ・ミロノフ下院副議長は、『一部の専門家によると、ロシアは北海道にすべての権利を有している』と発言したとの報道がある[iv]

 また、2022年4月には『「レグナム通信」では、政治学者のセルゲイ・チェルニャホフスキー氏が、「東京(日本政府)は、政治的にロシア領であった北海道を不適切に保持している」と主張している』という報道もある[v]。そして、1855年の日露和親条約におけるロシア側の主張として、『そこ(北海道)にはアイヌ民族が住んでいた。サハリン(注:樺太)やウラジオストク近郊、カムチャッカの南部に住んでいるのと同じ民族で、ロシア民族のひとつだ』と説明されている。

 そこに、プーチン大統領の主張を置いてみよう。2022年9月に「ロシア世界」という新たな外交方針を承認し、外国に介入してロシア系住民を支援する行為を公式に明文化しているのである[vi]。そしてロシアはウクライナ侵攻前に、実は北海道に武力介入することを計画していたというのである[vii]

 これに呼応するように、国内左翼からプーチン大統領への働きかけもある。2019年1月に、モシリコルカムイの会(代表 畠山敏、副代表 石井ポンペイ)と名乗る団体が「ウラジミール・プーチン大統領あての要望書」を出している[viii]。この要望書では、『クリル諸島(注:千島列島)をアイヌの自治州/区』とすることに加えて、『知床半島(北海道島)との一体的な保全管理をご検討ください』とまでプーチン大統領に要望しているのである。これではプーチンに北海道を差し出すようなものだ。

日本の保守言論人と日本政府の誤ったアイヌ認識が危機を招く

 残念ながらこうした所謂「アイヌ北方民族説」は、何もロシアや国内左翼だけの主張ではない。国内保守言論人の中にも多くいるのである。その急先鋒である的場光昭氏の主張をみておく。2019年の時点で「篠田先生(注:篠田謙一国立科学博物館館長)は、『近世のアイヌ民族が、ロシア沿海地方にルーツを持つオホーツク文化人から影響を受け、シベリアの先住民族とも遺伝的関係があることが分かりました』と結論付けている。これは今までの考古学的研究成果と一切矛盾を生じないどころか、ピッタリ一致する結論なのだ」と書籍で結論を述べている[ix]。その数行前では『(アイヌは)縄文人の子孫ではないということだ』とまで述べているのである。

 上記主張は、正にプーチン大統領の主張とピッタリ一致しているのである。しかも近年次々と明らかになってきている核DNAの研究成果を知った上で、いまだにこのような主張を展開しているのである。的場氏は北海道在住であり、北海道の保守言論人ということになっているが、つまり北海道の保守言論人も左翼集団も「アイヌは北方民族である」と、同じ主張をしているのである。これではプーチンの思うつぼにはまってしまっていることになる。

 さらには、日本政府の見解でも、まるでアイヌが日本民族ではないと誤解されかねない表現が用いられている。例えば国土交通省のホームページにある「アイヌ関連施策」では「アイヌの人々は、少なくとも中世末期以降の歴史の中でみると、当時の「和人」との関係において北海道に先住していたと考えられ」、としている。この表現ではアイヌは日本民族ではないような誤解を与えてしまう。この表現は、今から四半世紀前の1996年4月に出された「ウタリ対策のあり方に関する有識者会議」の報告書によるものである[x]

 また、2008年6月の同日に決議された衆議院本会議と参議院本会議における「アイヌ民族を先住民族とすることを求める決議」では同じ表現が用いられており、「アイヌの人々を日本列島北部周辺、とりわけ北海道に先住し、独自の言語、宗教や文化の独自性を有する先住民族と認めること」を求めている。

 このような表現は、多くの学者が「アイヌは北方民族であり、日本民族とは別民族である」とする科学的に根拠を失った主張に基づくものである。こうした学者たちの誤った主張が、政府見解や衆議院および参議院の国会決議に反映されてしまっているのである。

北海道を第二のウクライナにしないために

 ロシアは自国民族の保護を旗印に掲げてウクライナ侵攻を開始した。それは歴史的事実や実際の現状を度返しした、また相手側の主張など全く無視した一方的な言いがかりでしかない。つまりロシアは他国の主張など全く考慮せずに、自国民に対して(こじつけであっても)説明さえ通れば他国を侵略するのである。

 ロシアは「アイヌはロシア系民族である」と捏造し、そのアイヌ問題を通して「北海道の全権はロシアにある」などの暴論を主張し始めている。こうした暴論がロシア国内で通用するようになると、ロシアは北海道の主権をさらに声高に主張し始めることになるであろう。そうなればウクライナの場合と同じように北海道侵略はロシアにとって正当化されることになってしまう。

 本論文では字数の制約から核DNAだけの説明になったが、アイヌが縄文人の子孫である証拠はまだまだたくさんあるのであることを付言しておく。

 また、こうした不穏な発言が出てくる背景には、日本政府の曖昧なアイヌ政策がある。日本政府は、過去の科学的根拠をもたない学説によってアイヌ認識が大きく誤ったものになっていることを改め、科学的真実に基づいた新たな、そして正しいアイヌ認識を確立しなければならない。政府が自国民の分断を促すような認識を示すのは絶対にあってはならないことなのである。科学的真実に基づいて、アイヌは正統な日本民族であると認識し直さなければならない。

引用文献


[i] 『遺伝子から続々解明される縄文人の起源~高精度縄文人ゲノムの取得に成功』 独立行政法人 国立科学博物館 2019年5月13日

[ii] 『縄文人ゲノム解析から見えてきた東ユーラシアの人類史』 東京大学・東京大学大学院・金沢大学 2020年8月25日

[iii] 『アイヌ民族は「ロシアの先住民族」』 北海道新聞 朝刊 2018年12月19日

[iv] 『「北海道に権利有する」ロシア政界で対日けん制論』 JIJI.COM 2022年4月9日

[v] 『「北海道の権利はロシアに」露議員、戦乱に乗じて主張 「暴論」の根拠は?』 J-CASTニュース 2022年4月7日

[vi] 『プーチン大統領、新たな外交方針承認 海外の「同胞」支援を重視』 ニューズウィーク日本版 2022年9月6日

[vii] 『ロシアはウクライナでなく日本攻撃を準備していた…FSB内通者のメールを本誌が入手』 ニューズウィーク日本版 2022年11月25日

[viii] 『ウラジミール・プーチン大統領あての要望書』 モシリコルカムイの会 2019年1月11日

[ix] 『科学的“アイヌ先住民族”否定論』 的場光昭著 的場光昭事務所刊 2019年9月1日第一刷発行 224~225頁

[x] 『ウタリ対策のあり方に関する有識者懇談会 報告書』 座長伊藤正己東京大学名誉教授 1996年4月1日

【英訳版】https://i-rich.org/?p=1373

令和5年(2023年)1月

    上席研究員

藤木 俊一

・序章 本論考の目的

・第1章 マクロ領域での歪み

  • 国連憲章と日本国憲法ロシアの常任理事国の資格を停止できるか?

A.国連憲章改正の手続きについて

B. 日本国憲法改正の手続きについて

・第2章 ミクロ領域での歪み

1.国連機関であるユニセフの問題

  • 日本の行政機関である「児童相談所」の問題

・第3章 対策と結論

序章 本論考の目的

本論考では、国際連合や、様々な日本国内の機関・組織が、時代にそぐわないにも係わらず温存させたために機能不全に陥っていることを、ロシアによるウクライナ侵攻、国連という組織、日本国憲法と国連憲章、そして、一見、無関係であるかと思われる日本の地方行政が管轄する児童相談所との共通問題に関して論じ、その解決策を探ろうというものである。

第1章 マクロ領域での歪み

はじめに、本論考では、世界の問題に関する視点を「マクロ」、国内問題に関する視点を「ミクロ」と定義することにする。

2022年2月24日にロシアによるウクライナ侵攻が開始された。西側諸国は、米国の強い影響下にあるNATO(北大西洋条約機構)を中心に自由主義諸国に対して、ロシアへの経済制裁を強めるように要請し、日本もそれに同調した。 ロシアは、2021年まで、天然ガスの生産世界第1位で、原油の産出量世界第3位であり、日本はロシアによるウクライナ侵攻以前は、ロシアより、天然ガスの約8%、原油の4%を輸入してきている。ロシアは、原油の輸出だけで、政府の収入の17%程度を捻出している天然資源大国である。

筆者は、2014年より、国連の様々な人権関連の理事会や各種条約体委員会に参加し、諸問題に関する発言、各国政府の代表らとディベートを行ったりしてきている。多いときには、 年に5回の渡航をし、英国や米国、アジア諸国などの人権関連の様々な会合等にも招待され、発言を行ってきた。 その経験から、国連が如何に偽善的で機能不全な世界最大の「官僚組織」なのかを目の当たりにすることになった。少々、端的過ぎるかも知れないが、国連そのものが被害者を創出し、その被害者を守っているように装い、各国に分担金の増額を要請し、組織を太らせてきていることに徐々に気付くことになった。まさに「棺桶屋の辻斬り」そのものであると感じたのだ。

問題を解決するのではなく、問題を創り出し、ジェンダー、人種、民族、性的指向、障害などに基づく集団の代弁をする「アイデンティティー・ポリティクス」によって分断を煽り、利権を作っているということだ。そもそも、「官僚機構」とは、その性質上、利権の拡大再生産をする組織なのである。

ロシアによるウクライナ侵攻で、国連が全く役に立たない組織であることが世界中に知れることとなった。 国連の様々な組織の中で、唯一、193ヵ国の加盟国に対して法的拘束力があるのが『国連安全保障理事会』の決議だ。 この『国連安全保障理事会』は、アメリカ・イギリス・フランス・中国・ロシアの「常任理事国」と、11ヵ国の「非常任理事国」によって構成されている。日本は、1956年に国連加盟後、現在までに任期2年の非常任理事国を11回務め、2023年1月からも12回目の非常任理事国を務めている。

日本では「国連(国際連合)」と呼ばれているが、英語名では"United Nations"と表記されている。よって、「国際連合」というのは、占領軍の主導による明らかに意図的な「誤訳」であり、実際に常任理事国である中国では、「聯合国」と表記しているのだ。

日本で「国連」と呼ばれる組織は、実際には、第二次世界大戦の「戦勝国連合」ということになる。そして、敗戦国である日本は、国連憲章第五十三条および、第百七条の中に「枢軸国(敵国)」と記載されており、常任理事国は「理事会の決議無しに日本に対して戦闘行為を行って良い」とされているのである。

日本やドイツは、この「敵国条項」を削除させようと、努力をしてきたが、国連加盟国の3分の2(129ヵ国)以上の支持を得て採択、批准されて初めて削除が実現するため、そのハードルの高さ故、いまだに敵国条項は国連憲章に残ったままなのだ。

安全保障理事会の表決手続きは、国連憲章の第27条に基づいており、各理事国が1票の投票権を有することが規定されている。 5ヵ国の常任理事国が全て一致し、そして、非常任理事国の内の4ヵ国、合計で9ヵ国の賛成が必要と規定されているのだ。逆説的に言えば、常任理事国の内、1ヵ国でも反対すれば、安全保障理事会での決議は採択されないということである。そして、その「拒否権」を一番行使してきたのが旧ソ連を含むロシアなのだ。現在までになんと、拒否権が行使された決議の半数で、ロシアがその権利を行使してきているのである。

 1.国連憲章と日本国憲法-ロシアの常任理事国の資格を停止できるか?

それでは、ここで、ロシアの常任理事国の資格を停止できるのか?に関して考えていこうと思う。

国連憲章第5条には、加盟国の資格停止に関する規定がある。 「安全保障理事会の防止行動又は強制行動の対象となった国際連合加盟国に対しては、総会が、安全保障理事会の勧告に基づいて、加盟国としての権利及び特権の行使を停止することができる。これらの権利及び特権の行使は、安全保障理事会が回復することができる。」 となっている。

加盟国の資格停止や国連からの除名は、安全保障理事会の「勧告」に基づき、「国連総会」によって実施されなければならないのだ。しかし、この勧告の発出には、安全保障理事会の常任理事国による同意投票が必要なのである。

さらに、国連憲章第6条には、「この憲章に掲げる原則に執ように違反した国際連合加盟国は、総会が、安全保障理事会の勧告に基づいて、この機構から除名することができる。」という項目があるが、実際には、これによって除名処分を受けた国は存在しない。

朝鮮民主主義人民共和国(DPRK北朝鮮)も、日本国は国家として認めていないが、国連では国家として承認されている加盟国であり、様々な条約や国際法違反を犯していても、除名処分も受けていないのを見れば理解できるであろう。

このように、国連憲章自体が大きな「欠陥」をかかえているために、すでに「機能不全」を起こしてしまっているのである。 「敵国条項」から日本を外すのも、常任理事国であるロシアの拒否権を行使できないようにするのも、国連憲章の「改正の手続き」が必要になるのだ。 この改正の手続きは、国連憲章の第18章第108条、109条にある「改正」の手続きに沿って決議されなければならないのだ。それぞれ、次の様に規定されている。

A.国連憲章改正の手続きについて

 第108条

「改正」には、総会の構成国の3分の2の多数で採択され、その上に、安全保障理事会の全ての常任理事国を含む国際連合加盟国の3分の2によって、各自の憲法上の手続に従って 批准された時に、すべての国際連合加盟国に対して効力を生ずる。

 第109条

1.この憲章を再審議するための国際連合加盟国の全体会議は、総会の構成国の3分の2の多数及び安全保障理事会の9理事会の投票によって決定される日及び場所で開催することができる。各国際連合加盟国は、この会議において1票の投票権を有する。

2.全体会議の3分の2の多数によって勧告されるこの憲章の変更は、安全保障理事会のすべての常任理事国を含む国際連合加盟国の3分の2によって各自の憲法上の手続に従って批准された時に効力を生ずる。

3.この憲章の効力発生後の総会の第10回年次会期までに全体会議が開催されなかった場合には、これを招集する提案を総会の第10回年次会期の議事日程に加えなければならず、全体会議は、総会の構成国の過半数及び安全保障理事会の7理事国の投票によって決定されたときに開催しなければならない。

これを見ても、現在の中国、北朝鮮、インド、その他のロシアのウクライナ侵攻に対する国連総会での非難決議での態度を見ても、この国連憲章自体が機能しないものであることは誰の目にも明らかなのだ。

また、人権関連に関しても、国連人権理事会において、中国国内の少数民族であるウイグル族や香港、その他のマイノリティへの中国政府による弾圧に関する非難決議を行っても、チャイナマネーの影響で、中国を非難する国の数よりも、中国を擁護する国の数が、数では遙かに上回っているのは、ここ数年の様々な決議を見ても明確である。

. 日本国憲法改正の手続きについて

さて、比較検討するために日本国憲法の改正の手続きに関して見てみよう。

日本国憲法第96条では、憲法改正の手続きについて、「国会で衆参各議院の総議員の3分の2以上の賛成を経た後、国民投票によって過半数の賛成を必要とする」と定められている。

この条文が憲法改正を事実上不可能にしているのは、戦後77年経った現在まで、一度も憲法改正がなされていないのを見れば明らかである。日本国憲法の改正に必要な手続きと、国連憲章の改正に必要な手続きが、酷似しており、改正を事実上適用不可能としているのである。

1945年10月24日の United Nations 創設から77年以上が経ち、現在の世界のパワーバランスや、それを取り巻く環境が、大東亜戦争(第二次世界大戦)終結時とは全く異なる中、いまだにあの手この手で組織や機関の延命を図っているに過ぎないのだ。

我々は、「世界平和」のために国連があると繰り返し教え込まれてきたが、実際には世界平和を破壊し、特定国の利益誘導の道具として使われ、そして、機能不全に陥ったといえる。現在では、チャイナマネーによる国連内部の汚職も、隠す事すらしなくなっているのだ。

. 国連の諸問題に関する多くの識者の意見

国連憲章に基づく国連の「改正の手続き」のもとでは、不可避に必要な改革が常任理事国1カ国の拒否権行使によって実現できないとすれば、実現するための方法として「脱退」という選択肢も考えられるとする識者も多い。筆者も、日本が1933年3月24日に理事国という国際的地位を放棄し国際連盟を脱退したように、当初は白人社会の利権保持のための偽善的団体から脱退しか方法はないと考えていた。

現在の国連の総会で、あるべき新たな国際連合憲章を審議し、もしそれに常任理事国1カ国の拒否権で成立しない場合は、その新しい国際連合憲章に賛成した諸国はいっせいに現在の国連から脱退し、新しい国連憲章のもとに再結集することにすればよいとする論調もある。

しかしながら、国連の現場を見てきている筆者の目から、国連から自由主義陣営の国家がいっぺんに脱退するというコンセンサスを取るのは、ほぼ不可能であると考える。  

なぜならば、自由主義陣営の国家においても、国連によって大きな利益を得ている国家も数多く存在しており、逆にこの「脱退」という方法は、国連での中国の他国への影響を更に強固にする可能性が高いために、筆者は現時点で同意できない。

まずは、自由主義陣営がこの「制度疲労」「組織疲労」が存在することを共通認識として持つことが重要であり、岸田首相が提唱する国連改革を実行しつつ、G7または、その他で、新たな枠組みの組織を作り、国連への影響力を強める方法が、現時点では最適なのではないだろうか。

第2章 ミクロ領域での歪み

1.国連機関であるユニセフの問題

国連憲章の改正が出来ないのと同様に、日本国においても「占領国憲法」と言われる日本国憲法の改正すら一度も行われていない。 筆者は、この国連の機能不全と、国内の機能不全に共通する理由があると考え、その理由の内、現在、筆者が係わっている問題で、共通するミクロの部分の更に1点である「児童相談所」に焦点を当てようと考える。

ここでは、創設の目的や時期がほぼ同じ日本の「児童相談所」の問題を論じるために、その比較対象として、国連の一機関であるユニセフ(国際連合国際児童緊急基金)Unicef = United Nations International Children's Emergency Fundの問題に関して先に論じておかなければならない。

「第二次世界大戦後の1946年12月の国連総会において、戦争で親を亡くした子供たちに、水、食料、医療、衣料、教育などを与える目的で、ユニセフの設立が採択された。

1949年には、深刻な栄養不良に陥っていたり、衣料など生活に必要なものが十分になかったりした日本の子どもたちへ、給食用の脱脂粉乳、衣服をつくるための原綿、医療品などの提供が開始され、東京オリンピックが開催された1964年まで、15年間支援が続けられた。

戦後15年~20年経てば、終戦時の子供たちも大人になり、自立できる年齢になるために、この「国連国際児童緊急基金」の役割は終えたといえる。しかし、ユニセフは組織の存続のために、最近でこそ、テレビなどで、アフガニスタンやウクライナで被害を受けている子どもへの支援を呼びかけるコマーシャルも見られるが、その目的が、「戦争で影響を受けた子供たちへの支援」から、「後進国で貧困にあえぐ子供たちへの支援」と、変わって行ったのだ。

1953年の国連総会で、このユニセフを「恒久機関」とする決議がなされた。そして、ユニセフという名前はそのままに「国際連合児童基金」と改名された。 後進国や発展途上国の子どもに対する支援そのものは、素晴らしいことであると考えるが、その実情は、一度作られた組織および、そこに働く職員や関係者たちの利権の温存、そして拡大となっていったのだ。  

さらに国連が国家間の紛争を解決出来ない(しない)ために、このユニセフの存在価値を上げているとも言えるのだ。要するにどちらにころんでも、焼け太りする組織ができあがっているのである。

そして、日本においても、そのユニセフの莫大な寄付金のおこぼれをもらうために「公益財団法人 日本ユニセフ協会」なる団体なども存在し、集めた募金の最大25%を運営資金にあてているのだ。この団体に至っては、「ユニセフ相続セミナー」など、遺産相続から資金を得るセミナーまで行っている集金に特化した団体で、ユニセフへの一般からの上納金が他国より多いために、集金機関として、国連のマークの仕様を許可されているという団体だ。

駅前にアフリカの黒人の母親と思われる人物が子どもを抱いている写真などを掲げて「あなたのコーヒー1杯分の代金で5人の子どもにワクチンを打つことができます」「幼い子どもたちの命を救うことができます」などの看板を目にされた方も多いと思う。そして、そこで募金を集め、「定期的な支援を」との呼びかけをし、企業などにはダイレクトメールを送り、口座引き落しや、カード払いによる支援を要請する手紙が届くのだ。

特に歴史的に白人社会がアフリカの黒人を奴隷として売買していたという負い目、「贖罪意識」からか、アフリカへの支援を中心にした活動に変わって行った。

現在の日本人が、それら駅前やネット上に掲示される写真を見れば、「悲惨だ」と考えるのが当然だ。「自分たちがぬくぬくと暮らしている同じ地球上に、こんなにも大変な思いをしている子供たちがいるのであればと、多少の寄付金を捻出するのは当然だ」と考えるだろう。これは、現地の状況や組織の生い立ちを知らない日本人に、「部分的な現象」だけを見せ、その状況があまりにも日本と「違う」ことを暗に強調する手法なのだ。それを見た道徳心の高い日本人なら誰しも「人のためになるのならば」と『善意』で寄付を行うことになるのだ。また、その寄付を集めている人たちもボランティアで見知らぬ人や利権のために『善意』で働いているのである。

しかし、この『善意』が、偽善者たちによって、自らの利益のために利用されているとは考えもしないであろう。また、国連の「冠」という権威が付いていれば、誰も疑うことさえしないであろう。 この寄付に関して、誰も文句を言えるわけはないのである。誰もがその子どもの姿を見て「可哀想だ」と思うからなのだ。

アフリカの女性の合計特殊出生率(*1)は、1980年で7~9人であった。ルワンダでは、平均8. 5人、それ以前は、さらに多かったと考えられる。2021年では、5~7人(ニジェールでは、平均6.8人)と、40年間で減少はしているものの、それでも、人口大爆発の原因になっている。ちなみに2021年時点での合計特殊出生率は、米国では1.7人(世界150位),日本では1.4人(世界191位)、韓国では0.9人(世界209位)である。

中国を人口で追い越すと予想されているインドの出生率は2.2(世界101位)で、中国は1.7(世界154位)である。

(*1)合計特殊出生率とは、15~49歳までを出産可能年齢ととらえ、女性の年齢別出生率を合計して求められた数値。

国連は、この人口大爆発によって、今度は、「食糧危機が来る」と煽り、このために「国際連合世界食糧計画 (WFP)」を創設し、「今、あなたの支援が必要です」とのキャンペーンを行い、それをネタにまた、各国政府から集金をする国連傘下の組織を新たに作ったのだ。

上のアフリカの女性の生涯出産数を見ても、いかにアフリカの人口増が突出しているかが容易にわかると思う。

アフリカでの合計特殊出生率、出産率が高い要因の一つに「乳幼児死亡率」の高さが挙げられる。弱い生き物は、その子孫を確実に残すために多くの子どもを残すのは、小さな魚の方が大きな魚よりも一度に多くの卵を産むことを見ても分かる自然界の摂理といえる。

アフリカに於いて、平均出産数が突出して多いのは、伝染病や熱病、風土病で乳幼児期に亡くなる数が多いためと考えられる。このような理由から、アフリカでは、自然死という概念は薄く、常に身内の死と隣り合わせのため、特有の宗教観があり、呪いや霊に非常に敏感なのだ。それは、アフリカの長い歴史の中で育まれてきた宗教観で、西洋の価値観や宗教観とは異なるものなのだ。

しかし、日本や西洋諸国は、支援していく相手を知る努力を一切せずに、善意だと信じて知らず知らずのうちに、自分たちの価値観を押しつけているとも言えるのである。 自然界の様々な生活や現象の一部に対してのみ西洋の価値観を取り入れると、そのバランスが崩れるのは当然の理である。 ワクチン接種や食料、医薬品の供給によって、乳幼児死亡率が下がるのは良いが、 12歳や13歳になると、レイプの被害に遭い出産をする子どもも少なくないのが現状だ。 そして、また、そこにワクチンを投与して、という「負のサイクル」に入るのである。さらに、アフリカでは、労働力の観点からも「多くの子どもを産む女性は価値が高い」と考えられており、広範囲に一夫多妻制があるため、人口爆発を加速させてきたのだ。 

キリスト教とイスラム教の対立で性暴力の犠牲になる女性や、国連の平和維持活動(PKO)の隊員が、派遣先の中央アフリカで女性をレイプしたり、パン1個と引き換えに性行為を要求したりということが、数多く報告されており、全体のバランスを考慮することなく欧米や日本の価値観をそのまま押しつけている国連そのものがコントロール不能に陥っているとも言えるのだ。

しかし、ユニセフは、焼け太りを続け、現在では職員だけで1万人を超える巨大利権組織となっているのだ。それに、世界中に数十万人とも言われる洗脳されたボランティアの方々が、「良いことをしている」と思いこまされ、『善意』で集金活動を行っているのだ。

2.日本の行政機関である「児童相談所」の問題

筆者が2019年頃より関与している日本国内での問題の一つに「児童相談所問題」というのがある。児童相談所も、ユニセフと設立の目的は同じで、1947年の児童福祉法改正で設置が決まり、「戦災孤児」に対する支援を行うとされたのだ。 したがって、児童相談所の役割もユニセフ同様に、戦後15~20年も経てば孤児たちは成人し、自立するために、その施設自体の存在価値がなくなるのは当然のことである。

しかし、ユニセフ同様に、すでに役割を終えた児童相談所の存続と職員の雇用の継続のために、その目的を徐々に変化させ、現在では、「間違っていても良いので、児童虐待が疑われたら#189 (いちはやく)に電話を」と、厚生労働省が大キャンペーンを打ち、児童相談所に収容の必要がない子供たちまで親から引き離され多く収容される事態となっているのだ。また、この通報制度が、「気に入らない近隣住民への嫌がらせ」にも利用されているのだ。そして、児童相談所内で様々な人権侵害が行われていることが明らかになってきている。これも、児童相談所の稼働率を上げることで、その翌年度予算が上積みされ、組織が大きくなり、役人のポストが増えるという、「官僚組織肥大化」のために変遷を続けてきたと言えるのだ。この巨大なキャンペーンを行っても、児童虐待による死亡数は、キャンペーン以前と比べても全く減少していない。それは、収容の必要のない子供たちを親から引き離している何よりもの証拠と言え、人権侵害が行われていることが疑われる。

児童相談所の問題は、非常に複雑であり大きな問題で、この論考にその詳細を書くことは不可能であるが、「行政が行っていることであるから間違いない」と、裁判所も当事者の話もまともに聞かずに目くら判を押し続けているのが最大の問題で、そのプラス点よりもマイナス点が多くなった「組織疲労」「制度疲労」に目をつぶることこそ、日本社会の衰退を意味すると考える。

筆者は、国際歴史論戦研究所のメンバー及び、協力関係にある団体らとともに2022年の10月には、スイス・ジュネーブの国連欧州本部で行われた国連人権委員会・自由権規約委員会に参加した。これまで当研究所で扱ってきている諸問題とともに、「児童相談所問題」に関しても、この問題を専門に扱っている日本国内の組織とともに国連に意見書を提出し、国連から日本政府への勧告を引き出すことができた。 この「児童相談所問題」とは、行政や裁判所による立場の弱い夫婦や親への「集団イジメ」ともいえる問題なのだ。この「組織疲労」をきたしている国連でしか、同様に「組織疲労」をきたしている児童相談所の問題を話し合い日本政府に圧力をかけることができないという皮肉さをも感じながらの会合参加であった。

第3章 対策と結論

 この論考により、戦後77年経った現在、終戦直後に創られた様々な組織や制度が「組織疲労」「制度疲労」を起こしていることをご理解いただけたと考える。

また、1.国連憲章の改定が出来ない理由と、日本国憲法の改正が出来ない理由が同じ理由(創られたときに戦勝国が予期していないなかった状況変化が生まれたことで機能不全に陥っていること)であること、2.国連機関であるユネスコ問題と日本の児童相談所問題のルーツや、現在抱えている問題(官僚組織の利権の拡大再生産)が、その組織の規模にかかわらず同じであることもご理解いただけたと思う。

地球規模化時代(Globalization)の流れの中で、それにそぐわない国際化時代(Internationalization)の遺物である組織や機関を温存させることこそ、人間社会の後退を意味すると考える。これらは、77年かけて「組織腐敗」「組織疲労」や「制度疲労」が積み重なり、新たな問題が噴出することに繋がっていることを意味する。

これを現代に則した組織にするためには、子どもの時から「まずは相手を知る」ことから始まるグローバル人材教育を世界各国で出来るだけ若い時期から行い、その英知や勇気をもって、これら「組織腐敗」や「制度疲労」を起こしている有害な組織や制度、機関から、人類に本当に有用な組織へと転換させる、または、全く別な組織を作る必要があると考える。

なぜならば、生まれた瞬間からの悪人はいないと考えるからである。幼少期の教育によって、ある子どもは、実際に会って話したこともない他国の相手に対し、宗教上の理由や歴史問題の一面的な解釈をその教育の中で押しつけられてきたために、無意識に憎悪を向けるのだ。そうなる前に教育で「自分と違う意見や価値観が存在する」ということを双方に理解させ、それが自然であることを認識させた上で、「全体最適」を探るという知恵を付けさせる必要があると考える。勇気を持って正しい方向へ導くグローバルリーダーたちを育成する必要があるのである。

上述したように、自由主義陣営と全体主義陣営が、ともにこの「制度疲労」「組織疲労」が存在することを共通認識として持つことが重要であり、岸田首相が提唱する国連改革が確実に実行されるように日本政府は各国への働きかけを強めつつ、G7または、その他で、今後移行できる現代に則した新たな枠組みの組織を作り、国連への影響力を強めるまたは、国連を弱体化させ、新たな枠組みを強化して移行する必要があると考える。

日本政府は2016年にユネスコ(国連教育科学文化機関)の分担金の38億5千万円(加盟国中第2位の金額=9.6%)の支払いを約8ヶ月保留した。翌年にも同様に分担金の支払いを保留した。1度目の保留は、ユネスコの「世界の記憶」(記憶遺産)に、中国によって捏造された「南京事件」が一方的に登録されることになったためであった。翌年の2度目の保留は、日本主導でのユネスコ改革のためで、その効果もあり、『記憶遺産の目的を「歴史の保存」とし、歴史論争の解釈や決着のためではないと明記。申請案件は速やかに公開し、異議を受け付けるほか、関係国からの意見は登録小委員会で検討し、登録可否の判断材料とする。』『関係者の間で意見対立が生じた場合は双方に対話での解決を促す。当事者による共同申請や、反対意見も付記した形での登録もあり得る』『当事者間で妥結に至らなければ、最長4年を想定した協議を経て諮問委員会がユネスコ事務局長への最終勧告を行う』などの改革が盛り込まれる結果となった。 

ユネスコ改革が日本主導で行われたのだ。この改革の成果により、韓国・中国、その他によって捏造された慰安婦問題の登録が保留になり、いまだ時期は未定であるが、双方での話し合いがなされることになっている。

このように日本政府が本気で改革を望めば、一定の成果が期待できるということを示したことになるのだ。したがって、国連に関しても、今、まだ分担金額が世界第3位の内に、強い国連改革の意思を示し、場合によっては、分担金の停止、その他の方法での改革を行うというのも残されたオプションの1つになりえると考える。

拠出金が一番多い米国(22%)も、2011年には、パレスチナのユネスコ加盟に反対するために、分担金の支払いを保留にした。その後もことあるごとにこの分担金の支払いを保留にしている。

このように、世界では、自国の国益のために駆け引きを行うのが常なのだ。

余談ではあるが、国連への分担金を停止しても、総会の投票権はもとより、安全保障理事会への参加、投票、拒否権についての制裁的措置は定められていない。未払い金が大きい国は米国やブラジルなどであるが、資金難などの理由ではないようである。アフリカの多くの国も未払いが多いが、上述の通り、未払いでも投票権を持っているのだ。日本は、常任理事国5ヵ国中3ヵ国より大きな額の国連への分担金(円換算で約310億円/年)を支払ってきている。

 このユネスコへの分担金の保留は、安倍政権時に当時の外務大臣であった岸田文雄(現首相)の元で行われた。また、岸田首相は、首相就任後の2022年9月に行われた第77回国連総会の一般討論の演説で、「安全保障理事会を含む国連改革」「軍縮・不拡散も含めた国連自身の機能強化」を訴えた。2度もユネスコの分担金の保留をした経験のある岸田氏なので、その方法、効果、反動などもある程度、読めるはずなので、期待したいところである。

【日本語版】https://i-rich.org/?m=202205

Senior Research Fellow

Matsuki Kunitoshi

May 2022

On May 10, the Yoon Suk-yeol administration was born in South Korea. During his presidential campaign, Yoon Suk-yeol pledged to “work to restore the relationship between South Korea and Japan if elected,” which has elicited in some people in Japan the optimistic expectation that he was a pro-Japanese person and the Japan-South Korea relationship would take a turn for improvement. However, this was a big mistake and in reality, the confrontation between Japan and South Korea will enter a crucial phase from now on.

It is true that Yoon Suk-yeol’s father is an expert on Japan who once taught at Hitotsubashi University and Suk-yeol himself also has an experience of visiting Japan when he was younger. However, “knowledgeable about Japan” does not equal “pro-Japanese.”

One of the ancestors of the Yoon family was Yoon Bong-gil, who committed the Hongkew Park Bombingnote 1) in Shanghai in 1932 that killed and injured many people, including civilians. He, a merciless terrorist, is praised in South Korea as an anti-Japanese hero and a proud precursor of the Yoon family. It was natural that Yoon Suk-yeol chose the Yoon Bong-gil Memorial Hall as the venue of the press conference for announcing his candidacy for the presidential election.

In addition to his descent, Yoon Suk-yeol is from a generation that has been receiving intense anti-Japanese education since childhood, which has prevented the formation of any pro-Japanese ideas. Regarding the comfort women issue, he is convinced that “200,000 Korean women were forcibly taken away by the Japanese government and made into sex slaves.” He visited the “comfort women museum” in Daegu City, took the hand of Lee Yong-soo, who claims to have been a former comfort woman, and went so far as to pledge by hooking each other’s little finger to “obtain an apology from Japan for certain and heal the psychological wounds of you all.”

The Yoon administration has a rocky road ahead. There is no way that President Yoon Suk-yeol can solve structural problems overnight, such as the widening economic and social disparity, declining birthrate, and deteriorating export competitiveness. It is obvious that, if nothing is done, the Yoon administration will be held back by the opposition party, which has an overwhelming majority in the parliament, and lose the trust of the people, being unable to take effective economic measures.

If he cannot score points with internal affairs, the only way left is diplomacy. Yoon Suk-yeol should be thinking that, for the Yoon administration to maintain its approval rating, the most effective way is to normalize the extremely chilly relations between South Korea and Japan in line with South Korea’s point of view and make a display of his victory in diplomacy toward Japan.

He claims to “improve the relationship between South Korea and Japan” not because he is sympathetic toward Japan but because he has scrupulously calculated that it will bring him a diplomatic victory and strengthen his administration’s reputation.

Yoon Suk-yeol, well-versed in the Japanese ways of thinking, is assumed to know the “essence” of how to cajole the Japanese people. He is more likely to be a tough opponent for Japan than the former president Moon Jae-in, who was “simply anti-Japanese.”

The Yoon administration is anticipated to launch a major offensive concerning history issues soon after taking office.

And its preliminary skirmishes have already begun. Yoon Suk-yeol sent a “delegation for policy dialogue” to Japan toward the end of April and Chung Jin-suk, the head of the delegation, made a statement to the media at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, urging Japan to compromise on history issues: “No sound can be made with one hand. The two nations must make sincere efforts.”

In addition, foreign minister-candidate Park Jin stated at a personnel hearing held in the National Assembly of South Korea on May 2 that he would “respect the decision of the judicial branch” concerning the wartime workers’ trial. He also mentioned that Japan’s apology was required for solving the comfort women issue. That is, he declared that his office, as a representative of the Republic of Korea, would not compromise on the history issues.

Up to now, the government of Japan has maintained its legitimate perspective that “the Japanese Annexation of Korea was lawful,” “no forcible taking away by the Japanese authorities took place” and “the claim rights issue between Japan and South Korea has been resolved” based on historical facts. In order to undermine this, the Yoon administration aims to use backdoor tactics to involve Japan with the comfort women and wartime workers issues.

First, Yoon will throw the ball to Japan’s court saying that he “will make efforts to improve the relationship between Japan and South Korea but wants Japan to cooperate as well regarding the comfort women issue, wartime workers issue and Sado Gold Mine issue.” No doubt he also will ask the US President Biden for “cooperation to urge Japan to compromise because he wants the ‘Japan-US-ROK’ partnership reinforced in terms of security.” That is what the US wants, and the US may also put pressure on Japan saying that, if the ball is in Japan’s court, Japan should take South Korea’s claim into account to strengthen the partnership. The defense and offence may change positions in diplomatic negotiations.

If that happens, the public opinion of Japan will also change. If the opponent was Lee Jae-myung, who repeats his anachronistic assertion that they should “be prepared for Japan’s invasion of the continent,” few Japanese would have been sympathetic to South Korea. However, with Yoon Suk-yeol, who apparently takes a conciliatory stance toward Japan, public opinion may be split. Major mass media under the control of the leftists will start a chorus of “The Japanese government should lend an ear to South Korea’s claims.” It is expected that, in talk shows, commentators who disregard the national interest will make one hypocritical remark after another that misleads the people such as “The Japanese government should not persist but get along well with the neighbor.” There is a possibility that public opinion may come around to Japan-Korea reconciliation at once.

However, at the root of South Korea’s logic is the historical perception that “the Japanese rule of Korea was unlawful colonial occupation and all activities conducted by the Japanese government and businesses were unlawful.” That is why they are making far-fetched claims that “free recruitment,” “official placement” and “requisition,” which were conducted lawfully, were all “unlawful forced mobilization.” If Japan lends an ear to South Korea’s claims and makes any concession, it will mean that Japan has empathized with South Korea’s logic of “unlawful colonial occupation.” That is, Japan will be considered to have voluntarily withdrawn its legitimate view maintained in the negotiations for the Japan-Korea Basic Relations Treaty that “the Japanese rule was lawful also in terms of international law.”

This is quite appalling. Tax collection and draft by the Government-General of Chosen will all be declared unlawful, and the profits made by Japanese businesses in the Korean Peninsula during the period of occupation will be labeled as “exploitation.” Everything may become a target of lawsuits and compensation on the ground that it was against Korean people’s will, not to mention the comfort women and wartime workers issues. The idea of no statute of limitations for crimes against humanity is becoming international common sense and South Korea may endlessly keep demanding apology and compensations from Japan. The honor of Japan will be impaired and a reconciliation between Japan and South Korea will never be reached.

Then, what should be done is to formally communicate Japan’s legitimate perspective that “everything has been resolved” to Yoon Suk-yeol before it is too late and secure South Korea’s commitment to observance of treaties and agreements concluded between Japan and South Korea. He was once the prosecutor general and should be unable to argue back if challenged based on law.

On that basis, Japan should candidly say to Yoon Suk-yeol that the main culprit of the hostility between Japan and South Korea is South Korea’s historical perception that twists the facts. If he cannot understand 100%, it will be sufficient if he recognizes that the two countries have their own positions and how meaningless it is to unconditionally force the logic of the one on the other. If he is a “man of faith,” there is a possibility that he will persuade the people, have the comfort women statues, a nasty harassment to Japan, removed, and resolve the issue of compensation to wartime workers internally to pave the way to true reconciliation between Japan and South Korea.

This is a crucial point for the Japanese government. Diplomacy is a pushing contest and not a compromise at all. Easy concession and consideration will only show weaknesses to the other party. For realizing true friendly relations between Japan and South Korea and for the national interest of Japan and the future of our children and grandchildren, the Kishida administration now must take a firm attitude to make a point to South Korea that Japan’s intention is to “never accept unreasonable demands based on twisted history” without being misled by any cajolery or sophistry of South Korea and without playing up to frivolous public opinion.

Note 1) Shanghai Hongkew Park Bombing
A terrorist bombing incident that occurred in Hongkew Park in Shanghai on April 29, 1932. A ceremony to celebrate the birthday of Emperor Showa was held on that day, in the presence of leaders of Japan gathered on the stage. While the national anthem Kimigayo was being sung in unison, Yoon Bong-gil threw a powerful bomb toward the center of the stage. The victims are as listed below.
Killed instantaneously: Kawabata Sadaji (doctor), Chairman of the Administrative Committee of the Japanese Resident's Association of Shanghai
Seriously injured: General Shirakawa Yoshinori, Commander of the Shanghai Expeditionary Force (died of the injuries one month later)
Lieutenant General Ueda Kenkichi, Commander of the 9th Division of the Imperial Japanese Army
Imperial Japanese Navy Vice Admiral Nomura Kichisaburo, Commander of the 3rd Fleet (lost an eye)
Shigemitsu Mamoru, Japanese Envoy in Shanghai (lost a leg; later successively served as the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Hatoyama and other cabinets)
Murai Kuramatsu, Japanese Consul-General in Shanghai
Tomono Shigeru, Chief Secretary of the Japanese Resident's Association of Shanghai
   
Yoon Bong-gil, the culprit, attempted to kill himself on the spot, when he was caught and arrested by the military police of the Shanghai Expeditionary Force and, after a court-martial, he was executed by a firing squad at Kanazawa Prison on December 19.

< Supplementary note: This article is to the same effect as the opinion in writing dated March 30, 2022, sent to Sakurai Yoshiko, President of the Japan Institute for National Fundamentals, which has been revised in accordance with the inauguration of the new President of the Republic of Korea. >

【日本語版】https://i-rich.org/?p=868

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories

President

Sugihara Seishiro

August 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

【日本語版】https://i-rich.org/?p=853

Fujioka Nobukatsu

Senior researcher

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories (iRICH)

July , 2022



Inevitability of Japan’s nuclear armament

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

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

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

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

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

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

Japanese mentality posing the biggest difficulty in national defense

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

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

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

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

● Japanese culture tabooing the disclosure of cruelties

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

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

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

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

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

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

● Leniency to forgive even if made to suffer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 News in China)

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

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

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


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

【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.

English

2021年(令和4年)12月1日

国際歴史論戦研究所 研究員 野々田峰寛

はじめに

 本稿はパーソナルコンピュータ(以下PC)向けオペレーティングシステム(以下OS)の技術と教育用PCの予算化によって起こった日本国内のPC用OSのシェア争い、並行して生じた日米の貿易摩擦とそれに伴う日本のコンピュータ産業の動向を示す。これらの経緯を通じて日本の技術の保護と発展について論じる。

TRONとMS-DOS

 TRON(The Real-time Operating system Nucleus)プロジェクトは国産OSの開発プロジェクトとして1984年にスタートした [1]。TRONプロジェクトは様々な成果を挙げ、家電の制御やPC向けのOSを開発した。このうち家電を制御する基本ソフトウェアとして現在もTRONプロジェクトの成果物であるITRONが使われている [2]。ITRONの仕様や安定性、即時性を追求したOSであることが採用される要因にある。1989年TRONプロジェクトはPC向けのOSとしてBTRONをリリースした。BTRONは現在のWindowsやMacOSのようにグラフィック画面からマウスを用いて操作するグラフィックユーザーインターフェース(Graphic User Interface)のOSである。

 一方米国ではマイクロソフトが1981年に初版のMS-DOSを発売した。MS-DOSはコマンド(文字)ベースでPCを制御するキャラクターユーザーインターフェース(Character User Interface)のOSである。MS-DOSはシアトル・コンピュータ・プロダクツが開発し、販売した86-DOSを買収して最初のバージョンが開発された [3]。マイクロソフトは設立当初は既存の製品を買収し、手を加えて、自社製品として発売する手法を採っていた。

 1985年、臨時教育審議会(臨教審)は「教育方法開発特別設備補助」5か年計画 [4]を策定し、学校へのコンピュータ導入のための予算を初めて計上した。1986年、通商産業省と文部省が財団法人コンピュータ教育開発センター(CEC)(現在、日本教育工学振興会と合併し、日本教育情報化振興会)を設立し [4]、日本の教育用パソコンOSの標準化を図るために、BTRONを日本の学校教育における標準OSとして検討を始める [5]。日本でPCを使うに当たっては日本語を使えることが要件として求められていたため、米国企業の参入が困難であった。このような背景があって、日本語を扱えるNEC以外のメーカーはPCのシェアが非常に少なかった。CECに加盟したPCメーカーは策定した仕様に則ったPCをつくることで国費によって確保された教育用PCの市場を取り、NECのシェアに食い込もうとする。1987年9月までに、CECに加盟する日本の大手家電メーカーのうち、NECを除く11社がBTRONの採用に賛同した [1]。この頃、教育用PCを含め大きなシェアを取っていたNECはPC-8801シリーズからPC-9801への移行期にあたる。PC-9801では、日本語MS-DOSを採用していた。このため、NECはBTRONの採用を渋っていたが、半年以上の交渉を重ねた末、BTRONとMS-DOSのデュアル構成を採用することとした [6]。

日米貿易摩擦

 国内のOS仕様が確定しつつある時期と同じくして日米間で起こったのが日米貿易摩擦である。筆者も子供心ながらに日本車が破壊されているシーンがテレビで流れたことを覚えている。

 1989年米国通商代表部(USTR)が発行した報告書『外国貿易障壁報告書』 [7]にて、その他のセクションの中でTRONが列挙され [8]、包括通商法スーパー301条 [9]に基づく制裁の候補とされた。TRON協会はUSTRに対して「誤解だ」として抗議文を送り、USTRは誤解を解き、この時はスーパー301条対象品目から外された [10]。

 しかし、これを契機としてNECはBTRONの採用を見送る。この結果、CECはBTRON仕様による規格統一を断念する [11]。NEC以外の多くのメーカーがBTRON仕様のOSを採用していた。しかし、すでにデータやプログラムを豊富に持っていたNECのシェアに敵わず、徐々に撤退していくことになる。このような経過をたどり、PC用OSは教育用PCを含め、BTRONよりもMS-DOSのシェアが拡大することとなった。

外圧に負けた日本政府の貿易・外交

 TRONプロジェクトはUSTRに対して反論書を提出している [10]。これを受けて、USTRはTRONへのスーパー301条の適用を取り下げたが、反論書への回答で「日本の教育市場における教育用パソコンについて、使用するOSを市場自身が選定するのではなく、日本の政府系機関であるCECが(マイクロソフト社のMS-DOSなどBTRON以外のOSを締め出す形で)選定するのは不公正である」という趣旨の回答をしている [1]。市場自身がOSを選定すべきであると指摘しているにもかかわらず、スーパー301条対象品目となっているは、実際は米国の陰の保護貿易体制が敷かれていたことが明確になる。TRONプロジェクトはUSTRの回答に対して再度見解を表明したが [10]、ここで、日本政府ならびにCECが再反論をすることはなかった。特に政府による再反論は必要ではなかったのではないか。結果として、1990年再度貿易障壁年次報告にてBTRONが再度リストアップされることになった [1]。この背景には、BTRONがリリースされたOSはもとより作り上げた仕様の完成度に米国側が驚異を感じたのではないかと考える。MS-DOSと対比すると、BTRONは優技術的優位性を持っていたが、優位性よりも事実上標準化されたOSがシェアを確保することになる。技術的には理想的なコンピュータのあり方を模索したプロジェクトであったため、従来から豊富に蓄積されていたNEC PCのデータ資産を使えるようになっていなかった。米国に技術的には脅威を与えるほどの品質のOSであったにも関わらず事実上の標準としてMS-DOSが普及することになったため、BTRONは日の目を見ることははなかった。

一方政治的側面からは、産学の工学技術を護り育てるという政府の姿勢がなかったことが原因であると筆者は考える。

日本の技術者への待遇の低さも問題である。代表的な例として中村修二氏は世界で初めて青色発光ダイオードの開発に成功し、これにより初めて白色をデジタル上で構成できるようになった [12]。しかし、中村氏は開発時に所属していた会社の待遇に不満があったこと [13]、十分な研究費獲得のため米国の研究費の支給を受けるために米国籍を取得し、転出する [14]。また、日本の高い技術力を狙う新興国も日本の技術者をヘッドハンティングしており [15]、日本の技術力は低下し、新興国に追い抜かれる状況が生まれている。

研究者支援も問題として指摘しておかなければならない。研究者支援の一環である科研費から考えても、工学系の研究への科研費投入は低い。文科系で数億の科研費を受けている研究が見られるが、工学系でその規模の科研費を受けている研究は多く見られない。日本学術振興会の審査体制にも問題があるのではないかと考える。

おわりに

 本稿では技術面でOSの歴史と政治面での日米貿易摩擦に触れ、一つの優れた国産技術が衰退する結果までを論じてきた。日本が本来持っている技術力は非常に高度であるが、待遇や支援の不備からそれが十分に生かされないことを示した。

大東亜戦争後、日本はことさらアメリカのご機嫌を伺い何かとアメリカの意向に沿う関係にあるのではないだろうか。例えば、在日米軍の日米地位協定による不平等や年次要望書に書かれた通りに日本が政策を進めるというようなケースが挙げられる。その背後には日本の安全保障を米国に依存していることがある。米国は80年代に日本の経済的技術的な台頭に対して経済面での敵として日本を挙げ攻撃した。本論説で述べたTRONはその最たる例である。日本が自主独立した国となるためには日米地位協定の改定を求めるための日本人の意識改革や粘り強い交渉が求められる。年次要望書に対しては日本の国益に鑑みて断固たる日本の意思を示すことが重要である。

日米繊維交渉のように、政治課題のバーターとして特定の産業が泥をかぶったこともある [16]。日本政府はこの反省を踏まえない外交を続けている傾向があるように感じる。日本の高い技術力が海外に流出し、開発できなくなるような事態を招いてはならない。長期的な視点で技術を評価し、技術発展に投資をした上で自由市場の中で勝負できる環境作りが必要である。

新たなコンピュータ技術における貿易問題として日米半導体協定 [17]がある。第2次半導体協定では、国内シェアの20%以上を海外メーカーへ開放することを求められている。これにより、日本における海外で製造された半導体のシェアが増加することによって日本の半導体生産能力は衰退した。この状態はさらに加速し、半導体の生産拠点が日本から海外へと移転し、製造技術の流出が問題となっているだけでなく、もはや日本国内で半導体が作れない状態となっている。この影響は現在日本が優位性を持っているスーパーコンピュータの分野で専用的に使われる半導体の設計技術を日本が護り続けることができるかの分水嶺にある。このような技術が海外流出すれば、国産コンピュータ技術は完全に衰退したと言っても過言ではない。日本がコンピュータ技術の発展から落ちこぼれることのないよう、日本政府にはあらためて自由市場で戦える技術開発への支援と外交交渉力の向上を求めたい。

引用文献

1. 倉田啓一. TRONプロジェクトの標準化における成功・失敗要因. 石川県能美市 : 北陸先端科学技術大学院大学, 2005.

2. TRONフォーラム. ITRON. (オンライン) (引用日: 2022年10月12日.) https://www.tron.org/ja/tron-project/itron/.

3. 粟野邦夫. MS-DOSってなんどすか? 東京都渋谷区 : ビー・エヌ・エヌ, 1987.

4. 樋田大二郎, 五藤博義. 学校へのコンピュータ導入の現状 ―コンピュータは学校、教師、子どもをどのように変えるのか. ベネッセ教育総合研究所. (オンライン) ベネッセ委, 1992年. (引用日: 2022年10月31日.) https://berd.benesse.jp/ict/research/detail1.php?id=3315.

5. 倉田啓一. TRONプロジェクトのデファクト標準に関する調査研究. (オンライン) (引用日: 2022年10月31日.) https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/randi/16/0/16_193/_pdf.

6. TRONフォーラム. TRONプロジェクトの30年. TRONプロジェクト30年の歩み. (オンライン) (引用日: 2022年10月28日.) https://30th.tron.org/tp30-06.html.

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

8. 玄 忠雄. 国産OS「BTRON」が日米の貿易問題になった1989年. 日経XTECH. (オンライン) 2019年6月15日. (引用日: 2022年10月28日.) https://xtech.nikkei.com/atcl/nxt/column/18/00215/060300034/.

9. 1974年通商法. (オンライン) (引用日: 2022年10月12日.) http://customs.starfree.jp/Trade%20Act%20of%201974j.pdf.

10. TRON協会. 通商問題経緯. (オンライン) (引用日: 2022年10月12日.) https://web.archive.org/web/20100714120633/http://www.assoc.tron.org/jpn/intro/s_301.html.

11. 日経コンピュータ. 1989.

12. 青色LEDがノーベル賞に値する理由. WIRED. (オンライン) 2014年10月9日. (引用日: 2022年10月31日.) https://wired.jp/2014/10/09/nobel-prize-blue-leds/.

13. 中村修二. 負けてたまるか! ― 青色発光ダイオード開発者の言い分 ―. 東京都中央区 : 朝日新聞出版, 2004.

14. ノーベル賞の中村修二氏、「アメリカの市民権」を取った理由を語る. withnews. (オンライン) 2014年10月18日. (引用日: 2022年10月31日.) https://withnews.jp/article/f0141018000qq000000000000000G0010401qq000010997A.

15. 高橋 史忠、佐伯 真也. 韓国企業に転職したワケ、日本人技術者3人に聞く. 日経エレクトロニクス. (オンライン) 2012年11月16日. (引用日: 2022年10月31日.) https://xtech.nikkei.com/dm/article/FEATURE/20121105/249381/.

16. 大慈弥嘉久白石孝,三橋規宏. 日米繊維交渉と70年代ビジョン. 出版地不明 : 通産ジャーナル, 1993年12月.

17. 東壯一郎. 半導体企業の設備投資に関する実証研究 : 日米半導体協定の影響について. 兵庫県西宮市 : 関西学院大学商学研究, 2015.