Japan Institute for National Fundamentals

　　　　　As the Chinese Communist Party regime has launched a global propaganda campaign against Japan in response to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's visit to Yasukuni Shrine, the Japanese government has begun to rebut the campaign while citing facts. I would like to welcome the rebuttals. But they contain some problems. Here, I would like to take up rebuttals by Japanese Ambassador to the United States Kenichiro Sasae (on The Washington Post, Jan. 16), Ambassador to the United Kingdom Keiichi Hayashi (on the Daily Telegraph, Jan. 22) and Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations Kazuyoshi Umemoto (at a U.N. Security Council debate, Jan. 29).

Commendable criticisms against military expansion
　　　　　"What has become a serious, shared concern for the peace and security of the ¬Asia-Pacific region is not our prime minister’s visit to the Yasukuni Shrine but, rather, China’s unparalleled military buildup and its use of military and mercantile coercion against neighboring states," said Ambassador Sasae. Ambassador Hayashi said, "Its (China's) attempt to change the status quo by force or coercion has raised concerns not only in Japan, but also among its neighbors throughout the East China Sea and the South China Sea." These statements are convincing. But Sasae needlessly added, "Unlike China, Japan has not once fired a gun in combat since World War II." This attitude has led to the weakness of the Japanese government that has left a terrorist regime to abduct Japanese citizens and has failed to rescue them.
　　　　　I commend Sasae for referring to the human rights issue. "Unfortunately," he said, "China does not allow open debate and flow of information, and thus Chinese people cannot see the truth that people throughout the world see, nor can they criticize distorted views propagated by their government." Hayashi said cynically, "One is not arrested in Japan for criticizing the government."

　　　　　In contrast, Ambassador Umemoto, while being exposed to the Chinese U.N. ambassador's harsh Japan-bashing speech naming Prime Minister Abe without any honorific title, refrained from discussing China's coercive external actions or human rights suppression. He showed no guts at the attention-attracting stage of the Security Council.

Why not taking up anti-Japan riots?
　　　　　The three Japanese ambassadors expressed Japan's apology and reflection on its past actions and the war. But they failed to specify how far Japan is responsible for them. They also fell short of duly holding any foreign party responsible for any misconduct. Why didn't they hold the Chinese government responsible for giving a tacit nod to rioters' arson attacks on Japanese companies in China? By attracting attention to this problem, we may be able to indicate Japanese military’s past actions as including those for protecting Japanese citizens' lives and property from terror attacks, instead of leaving the actions to be uniformly interpreted as aggression. This may contribute to elaborating the perceptions of history.
　　　　　Lastly, these ambassadors' responses to the comfort women issue were disappointing again. Ambassador Sasae failed to rebut a criticism by the Chinese ambassador to the United States who described "comfort women" as having been "forced into sexual servitude" in criticizing Prime Minister Abe. In response to the South Korean U.N. ambassador's distorted speech, Ambassador Umemoto spiritlessly made a vigorless rebuttal, noting Japan had repeatedly apologized over the matter and made financial compensations.
　　　　　However, it may be rough on these ambassadors if we criticize only them. Japanese military had used comfort stations but had never abducted those women. The Prime Minister's Office is responsible for revising the 1993 statement by then Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono that admitted coercion. It is important to protect the honor and dignity of Japanese military as well as women. Whether to revise the Kono statement is up to Prime Minister Abe. If the prime minister revises the statement, ambassadors will fairly fight.

Yoichi Shimada is Planning Committee Member, Japan Institute for National Fundamentals, and Professor at Fukui Prefectural University.