CHAPTER 6: HOW JAPAN CAN WIN THE HISTORY WARSINSTIGATED BY CHINA

1. Why Japan must not lose the history wars
To conclude this book, I would like to consider what the history wars are really all about, and, from theperspective of a Taiwanese writer, encourage Japan to fight and win the battle for history.
I say this because, should Japan lose the history wars being waged by China and Korea, it will not be a
detriment to Japan alone. In Taiwan as well, these history wars are no irrelevant matter. Taiwan isconstantly being subjected to the poisonous influence of Chinese civilization, and the defeat of ourneighbor Japan will only add to our woes. For Taiwan's sake, I have good reason to want Japan to win.
On behalf of the world of today and of the future, we must reject the totalitarian theory of history
euphemistically referred to as a "correct historical perception". Defending positive and negative freedomof history is absolutely essential to protect a society where liberty of values is practiced and diversity istolerated. Therefore, we absolutely cannot afford to allow any totalitarian-inspired view of history,
whether from the communist left or fascist right, to prevail.
As I made clear in the preceding chapters, Japan is a nation with an inherently beautiful history that its
people can take pride in before the whole world. For building such an advanced and non-violent culture,
Japan has become the moral leader of the world. Thus, if Japan were vanquished in the history wars
instigated by China and Korea and decayed into irrelevance, it would have dire consequences for the restof the planet.
Although Japan was right next door to the civilization of China, which never had any claim to being amoral leader, the Japanese people were protected by the natural barrier of the sea and managed early on
to forge a nation not unlike the national civilizations of the West. Between the nineteenth and twentiethcenturies, the white peoples of the West colonized Asia and Africa and extended their dominion acrossthe globe. Only Japan tenaciously held onto its independence, liberated the colonized peoples of Asia,and sought to create a world united by the principle of racial equality.
In spite of the fact that Japanese history was a model for human development, China and Korea now
treat Japan with contempt and have senselessly made it the target of their history wars. This is not solely
Japan's problem, but rather, is a problem for the entire world.
What does the phrase "history war" mean? A history war is when one nation dwells on the events ofanother nation's history in order to denounce and demean it, often followed by a demand for "repentanceand apology", or sometimes reparations.
It is important to remember that the outcome of a history war cannot alter the past. What can be alteredis the future. Even if some facts of the past are worthy of censure, continually opening old wounds in thepresent day is a different matter. Denouncing historical incidents of the distant past serves no purpose
unless one is using it as a means to resolve a problem of the present day. Without a problem of current

1interest, dragging up old history is just denunciation for the sake of denunciation, and that does no goodto either the countries denouncing or the countries being denounced.
Often, the reason why China chastises Japan is because the Communist Party of China, which today
maintains an iron grip on China, wants to dampen the pent-up distrust and dissatisfaction that the
Chinese people feel towards their own government. The Communist Party's strategy is to create a hated
external enemy out of another country and direct popular anger towards it, which has proven to be very
effective in distracting the people from the true source of their resentment.
Because the communists founded their regime at the end of a long, bloody power struggle, it does notbother their consciences to tell lies any more than it did the emperors of China. The notion of "might
makes right" is the basis of Chinese civilization, so it is all too natural for the Communist Party to distortor fabricate history as it suits its interests.
In 2015, China pressured UNESCO to include in its Memory of the World Register certain historical
documents that were said to be related to the so-called "Nanjing Massacre", an alleged massacre
undertaken in 1937 of 300,000 Chinese citizens by Japanese soldiers occupying the city. Nonetheless,
China did not even publicly release the documents. Because the "Nanjing Massacre" was a fabricationfrom the outset and the documents in question surely had nothing to do with it, China could not havedisclosed them even after registration. China simply disregarded these obvious problems and had the
documents registered by force. In Chinese civilization, "might makes right", and consequently China is
actively testing the theory that the strong can do whatever they like. China fills its history books with lies
and, in accordance with the nature of Chinese civilization, shows no hint of shame in repeating these lies
again and again. China's vision of history is, in the end, pure fiction.
In the case of Korea, there is the matter of the forced recruitment of comfort women. In 1982, a man
named Yoshida Seiji falsely claimed to have worked with Japanese authorities on Korea's Cheju Island
who were rounding up young Korean women and forcing them into brothels. Yoshida's "testimony" waspublished in the Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun.
This would have been a crime worthy of denunciation, had it been true. In fact, a field survey conducted
on Cheju Island by the historian Hata Ikuhiko ten years later in 1992 exposed Yoshida's story as a total
fabrication.
And yet, even after the truth was revealed, the fury of the Korean people did not diminish. Privategroups installed a statue of a comfort woman in front of the Japanese embassy in South Korea with aplaque insisting that over 200,000 Koreans were sexually enslaved by the Japanese. Not limiting
themselves to Korea, they have even been erecting comfort women statues worldwide at sites inAustralia and the United States.
It is true that the Japanese military utilized the services of brothels called "comfort stations" where
comfort women, including Korean women, worked. However, the wages of the comfort women werevery high, and since plenty of people applied willingly, there was no need for the Japanese to kidnap or
forcibly recruit anyone. It is also a fact that the Japanese military became involved in the operation of the
comfort stations, but it did so in positive ways, such as providing health inspections to the comfort
women. Such stations were identical to those that the Korean government itself has established in Korea
during and since the Korean War for use by American soldiers.

2

The outrage in Korea began before it was known that Yoshida Seiji's tale of having hunted down andabducted Korean women was a lie. In that case, why did this anger not cool after the facts werediscovered?
This reaction is indicative of the Korean people's perspective on their history, or what I call, "fantasy
history". Korea is located some distance from the Yellow River, the focal point of Chinese civilization,and borders on continental Asia along only one of the peninsula's four sides. Korea was not endlessly
attacked from all quarters the way that the territories surrounding the heart of China were, and, to that
extent, invasions of Korea were relatively few. Still, Korea did suffer tragedies as a result of its
connection to continental Asia where political control was hotly contested. Korea had no means ofdefending itself against any enemy forces descending from the continent. It also meant that Korea
became addicted to having Chinese troops put down internal upheaval. Korea's unification by the state ofSilla in the seventh century was facilitated by the armed forces of Tang China. The foundation of the
Choson dynasty in the fourteenth century was likewise backed by military aid from Ming China. In thenineteenth century, the Choson dynasty easily crushed a budding, Korean-led reform movement, notwith its own army, but with the army of a foreign power, Qing China.
It is not surprising, in consideration of their past history, that the Korean people feel a deep-seatedbitterness. The Koreans may not have experienced as much sheer brutality as China did throughout its
history, but, time and time again, the great things their people ought to have been destined for nevermaterialized. From this was born Korea's "culture of resentment" (han in Korean).
Korea never managed to sit at the center of Chinese civilization and call the shots, as the Mongols andManchus did. Instead, Korea was continually ordered to submit to each successive dynasty that rose topower in mainland China. The bitterness felt by the Korean people manifested itself as the culture ofresentment, which in turn produced "fantasy history". The fantasizing of the Korean people, that is to say
their vain expectations of how things ought to be, morphed into their view of their own nation's history.
In this context, the comfort women statues are a form of "Japan bashing" intended to affirm Korea's
moral superiority. The Korean people endured a long succession of unfulfilled dreams while theircountry languished in servitude to China. Because of these many centuries of pent-up resentment, Korea
lashes out at Japan whenever Japan shows signs of weakness.
As I noted earlier, denunciation of the "Nanjing Massacre" is carried out in China primarily to bolster theCommunist Party's grip on power. By contrast, the political system in South Korea is more or lessdemocratic, and it is not necessarily the case that the South Korean government has been proactively
denouncing Japan for its own profit. The Korean people bash Japan through the mass media as an outlet
for their own frustrated desires. Though the government often rides the anti-Japan wave in the hopes ofcurrying favor with the mob, it is the people who take the initiative.
To what extent has this harmed South Korea's own interests? How much damage is being done totourism alone? In addition to North Korea, the authoritarian regime in China represents a growing threat
to South Korea, and I should not need to elaborate on how critical it is for South Korea to cooperate withJapan on these matters.
The South Korean government ought to always be serving the function of tempering the passions of its
people. In spite of Korea's culture of resentment, or rather because of it, the government should be
providing its citizens with enough benevolent guidance to prevent this resentment from being directedabroad. When Korea's political leaders exploit popular emotion to court popularity, they are doing
damage to their own country and are thus committing truly unpatriotic deeds. From the outset,

3denunciation of the imaginary "forced recruitment" of comfort women and the subsequent false
description of the comfort women as "sex slaves" has debased the Korean people. When the government
also joins in, the people are debased even further. For this reason, Korea's leaders are themselves guiltyof anti-Korean acts in the true sense of the term.
2, Acquire the ability to develop a broad historical perspective
When I consider how history should be scrutinized and discussed, I have long argued against various"theories of history".
A theory of history is a means to interpret historical events. What I have come to acutely understand is
how often such historical theories fail to look at history from a broad perspective, which in turn is themain cause of dogmatic and biased interpretations of events. Theories of history tend to miss the big
picture because they are constructed from preconceived ideas before the truth has been seriously
examined.
For example, the Chinese Foreign Ministry brazenly insists that China is the only nation to have neverinvaded a foreign country.
If we limit ourselves to examining the events immediately prior to the modern era, the world was in theprocess of being swallowed up by aggressively expansionist imperialist powers. Russia continued its
advance eastward from around the time of the Age of Discovery, crossing the Bering Strait and reaching
Alaska. Later, Russia plunged southwards from Siberia, threatening first China and then Japan. Upongaining independence from Great Britain, the United States also expanded its territory, advancing
westward from the Atlantic coast, crossing the Pacific Ocean, and finally seizing the Philippines from
Spain. After the Iberian nations of Spain and Portugal took to the seas, the Netherlands followed them.
The next imperial powers to step forward, Great Britain and France, established colonies on all fivecontinents and along all seven seas. Even the Manchurian people founded the Great Qing Empire, whichspent two hundred years over the course of six imperial reigns conquering a realm three times the size of
Ming China. After subduing China, the Manchus annihilated the Dzungar Khanate and even annexed
Tibet and the Western Regions. Judging from these facts alone, how can one say that China has neverinvaded another country?
The old motto of Qing China's Eight Banner Army was, "With 10,000 men, no foe can stand against us!"Regardless, there were essential geopolitical and ecological reasons, and certainly contemporary factors
such as the international power dynamics of that period, that rendered China incapable of launching
further invasions. The rise of the world powers in the wake of the West's Age of Discovery was one
historical trend that thwarted China's attempts at expansion.
How shall we define the word "invasion"? The notion that China was invaded by the great powers,
including Japan and Great Britain, is well established in the so-called "correct historical perception"
espoused by China. However, my interpretation is the exact opposite. According to the Chinese divisionof the world into the ruler and his realm (tianzi and tianxia), the sixty years of wars that took place
between the Opium War, the First Sino-Japanese War, and the Boxer Rebellion were not invasions ofChina by the great powers, but rather were failed "punitive expeditions" initiated by the Qing emperors
against the "western barbarians" and "eastern barbarians". The Qianlong Emperor, who ruled China for
sixty years in the eighteenth century, proudly called himself the "Old Man of the Great Ten" for having
achieved victory in wars launched against external foes of ten different regions. However, just one year
after he passed the throne to the Jiaqing Emperor and became a retired emperor, the White Lotus

4Rebellion broke out and ushered in a full 180 years of civil war and turmoil that did not cease until theend of the Cultural Revolution in the twentieth century. During this period, one fifth of the Chinese
population lost their lives in the Taiping Rebellion and armed bands of Han Chinese slaughtered ninety
percent of China's Muslims in a genocide known as the "Muslim purge" (xihui). China sunk even further
into civil war during the Republican period. Amidst the prevailing chaos, the great powers struggled toabandon the killing fields of China as a lost cause.
History does not look the same from every angle. Because history is a series of incidents linked througha chain of cause and effect, what is necessary is to grasp the big picture. Japan's postwar politicians
make the mistake of missing the big picture every time that they refer to Japan's decisions leading toWorld War II as "a certain period in the not too distant past". Unless we view history by expanding thescale of space and extending the span of time, we will end up missing the forest for the trees. If we lose
sight of the bigger picture, we cannot understand history in an accurate way.
As I already described, the Silla and Koryo dynasties that ruled the Korean Peninsula were riven bybloody infighting, and only about half of their kings died natural deaths. The situation deteriorated
further during the subsequent Choson dynasty when this infighting extended outside the imperial palace
to political factions, known as pungtang in Korean, whose endless feuds divided the whole country.
Conversely, the most stable and peaceful era of Korean history was the so-called "Thirty Years ofJapanese Imperial Rule" following the annexation of Korea by Japan. If we include the time immediately
prior to the annexation, when Korea was under the guidance of the Japanese Resident General, we could
call it the "Forty Years of Japanese Imperial Rule". During these decades, Korean society achieved an
unprecedented degree of stability. After the annexation, Korea also shared in the benefits of the wave ofmodernization, including Westernization and industrialism, that had occurred in Japan thanks to Japan's"ultrastable" imperial line, unbroken since the Age of the Gods.
Nonetheless, the struggle between the political factions of the Korean Peninsula spilled over into China,
Manchuria, and Siberia where they continued fighting. After the end of World War II, the bloodshed in
Korea carried on where it had left off, and, since the Korean War, South Korea has held presidential
elections every five years to facilitate transfers of power similar to the Chinese principle of "dynastic
revolution".
By stepping back and looking at the big picture, we can conclude that the most important historicalfactor facilitating Korea's transformation from a withering "hermit kingdom" to a modern nation was theera of "ultrastability" Korea enjoyed under Japan's "imperial rule".
We can see the same phenomenon in Chinese history as well. As I explained above, civil wars anddisturbances have dragged on ceaselessly across most of China's modern history from the White Lotus
Rebellion of the late-eighteenth century to the Cultural Revolution. I have proposed that the Second
Sino-Japanese War, or "Eight Years' War of Resistance" as it is called in China, was a moral andhumanitarian intervention by Japan in China's longstanding civil war. This argument derives from myperception of Chinese history viewed in broad, historical perspective, in other words from the time
China's era of internal conflict began in the late-eighteenth century. During this 180-year period of strife,
the Taiping Rebellion alone, which is said to have been the largest civil war in human history, took the
lives of one out of every five people in China. The Central Plains War alone, which was a dispute
between factions of the Chinese Nationalist Party, resulted in the mobilization of 1.5 million men by the
Beijing and Nanjing Governments. In the Nationalist Chinese Army alone, eight million soldiers were
killed fighting the communists before the establishment of the People's Republic of China. Accordingly,
when we study modern history in broad perspective, the Japanese government's "repentance and5apology" for the events of "a certain period in the not too distant past" appears as little more than aperformance for the cameras, and in this show the masochist plays opposite the sadist. However, because
I believe that we must appreciate the big picture of history from a broad perspective, I have consistently
urged others to seek the counterintuitive truth that is the opposite of what people see, read, and hear
about the "correct historical perception" promoted by Korea and China.
There is absolutely no reason why Japan should either repent or apologize. From a different perspective,
it is China and Korea that should repent for the internecine bloodletting that was perpetrated among theirown people, and it is they also who should apologize to the Japanese, who desired only to put an end to
the fighting. This is the reality I see when I examine history in broad perspective.
3. Efforts to win the history wars begin at home
The outbreak of the history wars exposed certain problems that were festering within the heart ofJapanese society.
It was in 1982 that Yoshida Seiji fabricated his tale of having hunted down and sexually enslaved
Korean women during World War II. If this story had instead emerged in the immediate aftermath of thewar, everyone probably would have seen right through the ruse, as the conditions of the time would havestill been fresh in their minds. However, by the 1980s, memories of Japanese rule over Korea had faded,
and few could clearly remember how things were back then. This, in combination with the masochistic
postwar education system, made the fiction plausible. If such a story were true, it would pang the heartsof the Japanese people.
Granted, there were some Japanese people who did not seem to have ever bought into the lie, but theirobjections were drowned out by the attacks of the mass media and their message was not allowed tocirculate very far. However, the historian Hata Ikuhiko proved beyond any doubt in 1992 that Yoshida's"testimony" was a hoax.
The real disaster was the response of the Japanese government. Even though Japan's honor was being
besmirched by baseless aspersions from other countries, it did not release any denial of the false claims
or do anything else to defend Japan's good name. The sacred duty of Japan's government, one might
think, is to call out such lies for what they are in order to protect Japan's honor. Needless to say, thegovernment agency that ought to have been fulfilling this duty was the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
When the officials at the Foreign Ministry realized, thanks to the work of Hata Ikuhiko, that Yoshida's
account was fictitious, why did they not immediately issue a statement to transmit the truth to the world?
And yet, the Foreign Ministry was not entirely silent on the issue. Next year, in 1993, it released the socalled "Kono Statement" on the comfort women problem. Though the statement contained no direct
acknowledgement that the Japanese military had recruited comfort women by force, the then Chief
Cabinet Secretary Kono Yohei made comments at the same time that effectively admitted to forced
recruitment.
Moreover, in 1996 when the United Nations published the Coomaraswamy Report, which was clearlybased on Yoshida Seiji's story, the Foreign Ministry submitted a written rebuttal to the report, only towithdraw it soon after.

6

Why does the Japanese government not defend Japan's honor? From the perspective of any foreign
nation, including Taiwan, such a thing is virtually unbelievable. The Japanese government is the authorof its own anti-Japanese policy.
What is even more mysterious, from the perspective of a Taiwanese person like myself, is the reaction ofJapanese citizens at that time. Why did they not criticize the negligence of the Foreign Ministry on thefloor of the Diet? Those Japanese who had awakened to their country's problems lamented that Japanwas still not free from the yoke of the War Guilt Information Program imposed by the postwar
occupation seventy years ago. Why, then, did they themselves not strive to break free? The occupation
forces had certainly been ingenious in their methods, but that argument rings hollow now that a fullseventy years have elapsed. The Japanese people themselves have simply not risen to the challenge.
The Foreign Ministry is infected with masochism over Japan's history, and its refusal to defend Japan's
honor influences the mass media and the formation of public opinion. Under the effect of this influence,
the media and public also remain masochistic. Why do the Japanese people not criticize the Foreign
Ministry for its masochistic predilections? This is a question of whether the chicken or the egg camefirst. Still, shouldn't the people be furious when officials at the Foreign Ministry are so blatantly
unwilling even to defend the honor of their own country? Though I have been repeating myself, it does
seem that there are a fair number of people who are extremely upset with the comfort women disputes
pushed by Korea. Why do they get angry at Korea, but not direct the brunt of their criticism towards
their own abysmally negligent Foreign Ministry?
In addition, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party has paid no attention to the actions of the Foreign
Ministry. Why has the Liberal Democratic Party been standing idly by while the Foreign Ministry fails
to carry out one of its essential functions? This is yet another big problem.
Furthermore, the comfort women issue is not a problem between Japan and Korea alone. It is having
negative repercussions around the world. Depending on one's point of view, Korea can also be
considered a victim. If Japan had acted faster to disseminate accurate information and the Foreign
Ministry had officially notified Korea early on that Yoshida Seiji's story was a fabrication, it is possiblethat even the Korean people may have withheld some of their outrage.
Concerning the Kono Statement, thanks to the heroic efforts of Diet member Yamada Hiroshi, theDeputy Chief Cabinet Secretary at the time of the release of the Kono Statement, Ishihara Nobuo, wassummoned to the Diet in 2014. According to Ishihara's testimony, the Kono Statement was drafted at
Korea's request without corroborating evidence, and no documents proving forced recruitment were everdiscovered in Japan. Though all these facts were already known by then, his testimony in the Diet
constituted official acknowledgement that no forced recruitment of comfort women had occurred.
In that case, why are the Korean people unable to let go of the comfort women problem? Japanesepeople fail to understand this because they are ill-informed of the true nature of Korea's culture andhistory. From the very beginning, when Tangun, Korea's legendary founder, was born of a bear-woman,
Korea has been a den of sexual slavery. It is important to know the fact that, even today, Koreansstruggle with their national commitment to prostitution. Korea is a nation of sexual slavery, prostitution,famine, and refugees, and the ethos and behavior of those born in the Korean cultural climate resemble
nothing else in this world. Far from understanding it, it would probably be difficult for Japanese people
to even imagine it.
Not long after former Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Ishihara testified, the Asahi Shimbun, thenewspaper that had printed Yoshida Seiji's account, retracted the articles it had published relating to the7comfort women. It appears that Ishihara's words made their mark. It took the Asahi Shimbun thirty-two
years to get to that retraction.
Taiwanese people like myself found it strange that the Asahi Shimbun did not retract its coverage on the
comfort women much earlier, as its fraudulent nature had been obvious for quite some time. In thethirty-two years that elapsed before the retraction, the Asahi Shimbun's reporting had already caused a
diplomatic crisis and done incalculable harm to both Japan and Korea. All that can be said is that the
Asahi Shimbun is a shoddy excuse of a newspaper that betrayed the people of Japan.
Why did Japanese citizens choose to ignore what the Asahi Shimbun was doing? The Asahi Shimbun is a
private newspaper that exists only because its readers buy it. Consequently, why haven't people juststopped purchasing such a dysfunctional paper? Naturally, the Asahi Shimbun did lose subscribers due tothe damage that the recent retraction did to its credibility. This was to be expected of such a disreputable"newspaper", but I suspect that anyone who still reads the Asahi Shimbun must surely be of low
intellectual caliber.
The bigger problem lies with the Foreign Ministry. When Japan's good name is being tarnished with
invidious lies, the Foreign Ministry, an institution paid for with the tax dollars of Japanese citizens, opts
to do nothing at all. Can the Japanese people be expected to forgive this? This is a flagrant act of
betrayal against the citizens of Japan.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Why would the Japanese government, which is run with the tax
dollars of Japanese citizens, not respond to information slanderous to Japan's honor by presenting South
Korea with the real facts of the case? Why did the Japanese people not descend on the Diet, thedemocratic chamber representing the citizenry of the nation, to excoriate this negligence? Finally, why
did so many Japanese people who were angered by Korea's exploitation of the comfort women problem
to smear Japan not also vent this anger towards their own government and the Diet? The Japanese people
themselves are also unmistakably guilty of negligence.
As I have repeatedly emphasized, if Japan is defeated in the history wars, it will not be a loss for theJapanese people alone. Rather, the whole world will suffer.
There is one final point on this subject that I must convey to the people of Japan. The man who firstchampioned and aggravated the comfort women problem was himself Japanese. It was a Japanese person
who popularized the term "sexual slavery" and persuaded the United Nations to denounce Japan. In theview of an outsider, the motivations of such a person seem inconceivable. Only a truly morally bankrupt
man would so gleefully traumatize and inflict harm upon his own country. Why, then, do Japanesepeople ignore the subversion of their self-loathing compatriots? Shouldn't they be brought before thepublic and exposed to criticism? They are the ones who are to blame for Korea losing its own senses andinjuring its own best interests.
Of course, Japan's interests are also being harmed, but it is not a matter of just Japan or even just two
countries. In the end, it is the well-being of people throughout the world that is at stake.
The history wars against Japan were started by the United States and the Soviet Union in the wake ofWorld War II, and it was only later that Korea and China joined. Nonetheless, the history wars that we
say were waged by foreign countries on Japan actually appear more similar to a civil war that theJapanese people have fought among themselves for the past seventy years. This reality is best
symbolized by the Diet's war apology resolution, which was passed by devious means in 1995 on thefiftieth anniversary of World War II, as well as the subsequent Murayama Statement.

8

4. Utilize the UN and other international organizations
I have a suggestion on how we can resolve the politically charged problems of the "Nanjing Massacre"
and the "comfort women". No matter what others might think, I firmly believe that we should use theUnited Nations. Though the United Nations may have a bad reputation, Japan still pays ten percent of its
operating budget, the largest share of any country apart from the United States. As long as Japan iscontributing so much money, it would be a waste to not make the most of the UN in diplomatic disputes
involving Japan.
Furthermore, there is no need to treat the "Nanjing Massacre" and the "comfort women" as diplomatic
problems with China and Korea alone. Because Japan is being denounced internationally for events thatnever happened, Japan ought to explain the truth of the matter at the United Nations. The platform to do
this is the General Assembly. Making the announcement at the General Assembly, before the eyes andears of the world, will be very useful in getting the truth out to other countries. If Japan also explains indetail the real history of Chinese civilization before the General Assembly and how modern China isconnected to Chinese civilization, it will serve as an effective defense in the history wars and will help toenlighten the rest of the world.
Apart from the UN, I also advocate that we utilize many other international groups, including meetingsof the G7 and G20.
If Japan still gets no results, it should gather leading historians to discuss the historical facts on the floorof the UN in an academic manner with verifiable evidence. If the discussion cannot be held in the UN,
the Japanese government should instead host an international academic conference.
Finally, the United Nations should propose an international treaty for the twenty-first century forbidding
any country from using its public education system to instill hatred against another country.
Such an international treaty to ban anti-foreign education was already recommended in 2014 by theJapanese Society for History Textbook Reform, the most well-known organization of the textbook
reform movement. In any case, hateful, anti-foreign education is quite inimical to building a peacefulinternational community.
I believe that the aforementioned proposals are both meaningful and realistic. Moreover, even in the caseof past incidents that are grounded in actual facts, it is still problematic to keep harping on about them inthe twenty-first century. Even for real events, whether or not they are still worth condemning in thepresent day after so much time has passed is another matter. As a general rule, I advise that we urge
others to stop denouncing past events once a certain amount of time has gone by.
5. Resolve territorial disputes at the UN
Because they are somewhat connected to the history wars, I would now like to touch upon Japan's
territorial disputes.
Japan is currently party to several territorial disputes. For example, China's unilateral claim to the
Senkaku Islands is a de-facto territorial dispute. Asserting that the Senkakus are an inherent part ofJapan, the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs argues that no territorial dispute with China exists.

9However, as long as the islands remain uninhabited, one can understand the basis of China's claim to acertain extent. Even though the Senkakus are controlled by Japan, the Japanese government does notallow any weather observation stations, fisheries infrastructure, or defensive installations to beconstructed on them for fear of provoking China. What is the sense in a policy of not provoking China
over a territorial dispute that does not exist? Japan insists that there is no territorial dispute with China,
while also adopting a timid policy that effectively provides grounds to China's stated position. There
have been repeated intrusions by Chinese state vessels into Japan's territorial waters around the
Senkakus. By piling up such violations as faits accomplis, China is making good progress in its plans toseize the Senkaku Islands.
The Senkaku Islands dispute also has grave implications for Taiwan, which is very worried that it mightlead to armed clashes near its territory. Indeed, the whole world fears that Japan's surrender of the
Senkaku Islands under Chinese pressure will set a precedent that will embolden China to engage infurther aggression. Therefore, the Senkaku Islands dispute is not just a problem between China andJapan. Japan must hold firm and stave off Chinese pressure for the sake of the rest of the world as well.
To deal with this problem, Japan can work through international organizations such as the United
Nations. For the benefit of the rest of the world, Japan will explain to the United Nations that it has nointention of provoking any territorial dispute with China, and then will announce its plan to constructdefensive installations on its territory of the Senkaku Islands. After winning the world's sympathy, I
think that Japan should go ahead and build the installations. There is no reason to consult with China on
this decision. Even if Japan does consult with China, I do not expect anything could come of it. Under its
stated international responsibility to not provoke a territorial dispute, Japan has to affirm its peacefulintentions as it assembles the defensive installations. Next, Japan should, if necessary, set up weather
observation stations, fisheries infrastructure, and facilities to improve navigational safety. By following
these steps, Japan will allay its territorial dispute with China and do a service to the world.
Now let's consider Japan's dispute with Korea over ownership of the Takeshima Islands. In January
1952, South Korean President Syngman Rhee took advantage of Japan's powerlessness under the
postwar military occupation to illegally and unilaterally capture the Takeshima Islands, which remain
under Korean administration today. Political bungling at the end of the occupation prevented a resolutionof the dispute at that time, but Japan still should have rectified the issue when the Japan-Korea Treaty on
Basic Relations was signed in 1965. This was a treaty aiming to establish normal relations between
Japan and South Korea, so there was no reason to not settle the Takeshima Islands dispute on thatoccasion. From the standpoint of fostering friendship and goodwill between Japan and Korea, it did no
good to either side to simply leave a major territorial dispute outstanding. Thus, the Japanese
government committed a grievous error in failing to have the Takeshima Islands returned to Japan in
1965. I suspect that this dispute will never be solved through only interminable dialogue with Korea, soJapan should instead use the United Nations. This is a task for the Japanese Foreign Ministry. Although
Japan is sadly cursed to have a Foreign Ministry that is unable to act decisively at critical moments, thatjust means that we will have to chide it into action.
What about the dispute over the Northern Territories, or Kuril Islands as they are known in Russia? The
Russian-controlled islands of Shikotan, Etorofu, Kunashiri, and Habomai are obviously inherent
territories of Japan, as was confirmed by both sides in the 1855 Russo-Japanese Treaty of Amity. At theend of World War II, the Soviet Union illegally occupied the Northern Territories, which were
subsequently inherited by Russia. Russia continues to illegally hold these Japanese islands to this day.
The very act of the Soviet Union having invaded Japan at the end of World War II was a serious crime
under international law. On April 13, 1941, the two sides had signed the Japanese-Soviet Non-

10

Aggression Pact. Germany went to war with the Soviet Union not long after, on June 22. Because Japan
had concluded the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy in 1940, there was a very real possibility thatJapan would join with its ally Germany and invade the Soviet Union. And yet, Japan stayed true to the
non-aggression pact and ordered no attack on Soviet soil. As a result, the Soviet Union was able toredeploy its forces in the east, which had been bracing for combat with the Japanese, and used them tonarrowly defeat the German onslaught. Admittedly, the Soviets did also benefit from a massive infusionof American military aid, but, even taking this into account, if the Japanese military had invaded Siberia,
it is virtually beyond doubt that the Soviet Union would have lost the war with Germany.
The Japanese-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact came to an abrupt end on August 9, 1945, when the Soviet
Union launched a surprise offensive against Japan. Even though Japan's faithful adherence to thisagreement had saved the Soviet Union from total destruction, the Soviets showed no scruples inflagrantly breaking it. This attack may have been the most insidious betrayal ever perpetrated by one
nation against another in the course of the twentieth century. It is true that US President Franklin
Roosevelt had asked Joseph Stalin at the Yalta Conference held in February of that year to have theSoviet Union attack Japan, and a secret deal to this effect was concluded. However, this deal was
acknowledged by the United States as having no legal validity. Even if the United States had made itbinding, the secret deal at Yalta would still have had no validity as far as the Soviet Union's relations
with Japan were concerned.
The Soviet Union surely owed some moral obligation to Japan for having honored the non-aggression
pact. Even if the Soviet Union did have to declare war on Japan, it could have at least offered Japan atemporary truce, and invaded only if Japan had refused to accept it. In the end, the Soviet Union could
not be bothered to make even a minimal show of honor.
Given that the Soviet Union's sudden violation of the Japanese-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact andinvasion of Japan was obviously a breach of international law, the Soviet Union must be held
accountable for it no matter what deal it secretly arranged with the USA at Yalta.
Therefore, the Soviet Union attacked Japan and occupied the Northern Territories at the end of the war
pursuant only to an informal promise he made to President Roosevelt. The Soviet Union was completely
unjustified in perpetrating the most blatantly immoral treaty violation in twentieth century history. If
Japan filed regular complaints about this wicked deed at the United Nations and persistently demanded
the return of the islands, wouldn't Russia eventually get overwhelmed and agree to give them back? Infact, Turkey also faces criticism over its history, but is more than willing to defend its country's honor on
the floor of the UN.
In summary, what Japan ought to do is bring up the illegitimacy of Russia's occupation of the Northern
Territories in the UN at every possible opportunity. Japan's leaders could meet with President Putin ahundred times, but still get no closer to a settlement. Shelving the dispute and maintaining the status quo
are only stopgap measures.
The United Nations, being one and the same as the Allied Powers of World War II, even now preservesin its charter the so-called "enemy clauses", which label Japan and Germany as enemies of the UN.
Moreover, the permanent seats on the UN Security Council are held by just five nations, the UnitedStates, Great Britain, France, Russia, and China, who wield unrestricted veto power over all decisions.
Any proposal can be shot down due to the opposition of just one of those countries. The UN has to beable to adapt in response to changing global conditions, but every reform proposal is vetoed by one ofthe permanent members of the Security Council. This means that the UN, a vital internationalorganization, can never reform itself even though its institutions no longer function in a healthy manner.

11

Nevertheless, this does not mean that there is no solution. For example, the United States and the otherleading countries that realize the need for change could withdraw from the UN and form a new UN
based on their reform plans. There are many countries that should desert the current UN and join the neworganization. Such a move might be supported by America's new president, Donald Trump.
The United Nations has reached the stage where thoroughgoing reform has to be seriously examined.
6. Appeal for an end to history wars
How should humans approach history? Let me sum up my observations.
"History", as the term is normally used, does not refer to objective facts about the past, but rather to thefacts of the past as we perceive them. Because of this, history does usually contain bias and distortion, as
I explained in more detail in Chapter 1. Everything has its own history and, inevitably, its own biases
and distortions. We must be aware that these biases and distortions will be present.
To mature into happier and healthier people, humans need to develop their own historical selfperception, and we have to tolerate divergences between facts and perceptions.
Each individual person ought to be free to develop his or her own view of history. A person's historicalself-perception belongs to no one else and must never be imposed by another. Naturally, there are manycases where an individual's historical perception is incomplete and benefits from hearing the thoughts ofothers with far better-considered ideas. In such instances, one's own historical perception will beenriched and improved. However, this is not to say that any coercion is involved. Historical selfperception must ultimately be left solely to the individual's own discretion. No other people can evercompel an individual to accept their historical perception. For this reason, it is intrinsically wrong toaggressively push one's own historical perception and shrilly demean that of others. This is even truer inthe case of fake history created with a political agenda stemming from resentment and bitterness. In
other words, freedom of historical perception is the right of every person.
Considering this question at the level of nations, it is fundamentally distasteful to denounce anothercountry's history. Accordingly, the very worst thing one country can do to another is manufacture lies
about the past to smear its reputation.
The interpersonal and international relationships of today are, of course, all generally built upon past
events. Consequently, there will certainly be many occasions when we must bring up and discuss old
history.
An example of this is the aforementioned territorial disputes. In the case of the dispute with Russia, wecannot bypass the process of investigating the historical context surrounding the Northern Territories.
Therefore, a debate over historical perception is also inevitable. When it comes to the root causes of theTakeshima Islands dispute and the historical details of its unilateral seizure by Korea, a discussion of thefacts of the past is likewise unavoidable. The same holds true of the Senkaku Islands dispute with China
where the historical facts of the case and the discussion of historical perception is essential.
Nonetheless, it is not at all constructive in these disputes to simply dredge up matters of history for the
purpose of aspersion and moralizing. It's one thing to praise something in the past that might deserve
praise. However, it can be quite a different thing to expressly single out for denunciation certain

12

incidents from another country's past, even if the incidents do deserve to be criticized. It seems that
denunciation of another country's history begins with an attempt to prove the superiority of one's own
history, but this is not the proper way that a sensible individual or a sensible nation should approach
history. In its pure form, historical perception helps individuals and nations to grow in a healthy andfulfilling manner. Thus, it need not and ought not bring in the history of other countries and people forthe sake of denunciation. To do so would be an unacceptable infringement on the freedom of historicalperception that is the basic right of each individual.
Some may be of the opinion that denouncing the history of others to prove one's own superiority is
inescapable. It is, they may say, a natural human impulse that comes as an intrinsic facet of the
production of history. And yet, another impulse that is natural to humanity is our moral aspiration tocoexist harmoniously with one another. With reason, we can suppress our tribalistic instinct to achieve
dominance over others by attacking their history, and then do away with the history wars.
China denounces Japan for the alleged massacre of 300,000 civilians by Japanese soldiers in the city ofNanjing in 1937, and Korea does the same for the alleged abduction and sexual enslavement by theJapanese military of 200,000 women.
The history wars instigated by both countries attest to the fact that history as a natural impulse is,because of this impulse, a tool to assert one's own superiority by putting down others. However, China
and Korea need to learn for themselves that they cannot prove their own virtue through doing evil toothers. They ought to handle history rationally, and, if they do, there will be no more history wars.
The accusations made by China and Korea include much fake and fabricated history designed to stoke
greater animosity against the Japanese people. Regardless, even if we closed our eyes to the truth andrecognized all these accusations as historical fact, it would still be hard to see what is constructive about
incessantly digging up the facts of the distant past as fodder for denouncing other countries today. That
is not how history should be.
During ongoing political controversies, there will be situations in which we will inevitably have to
discuss the history of other countries, but, by contrast, the waging of a history war is inexcusable. Briefly
put, history wars between two countries are wholly negative and should never occur under any
circumstances. I strongly reaffirm the points that I made in Chapter 1 concerning defining history inhistoriographical terms.
7. Beyond history wars
On May 27, 2016, an event took place that made us reflect seriously on the history wars. It was US
President Barack Obama's visit to Hiroshima seventy-one years after the atomic bomb was dropped
there.
The targeting of an unarmed civilian population with a nuclear weapon was an unforgiveable act. To pay
his respects, Obama visited Hiroshima on the occasion of the G7 summit in Japan and laid a wreath infront of the memorial cenotaph, though he did not issue an apology. He also spoke with Japanesesurvivors of the blast.
The A-bomb survivors graciously welcomed Obama's visit without demanding any apology. Whileunderstanding that circumstances in the United States made an apology from the president unfeasible,13they nonetheless showed their appreciation for America's gesture and gave Obama permission to place
his wreath at the cenotaph.
I am not advocating that we gloss over the past. "Historical truth" ought to always be clarified as far as it
can be. However, we must also admit that history will contain subjective elements, and thus "historical
truth" may differ between Japan and the United States. What is significant is that the USA and Japan did
not quibble over the differences or denounce one another, but rather respected their reciprocal
differences while setting their eyes firmly towards the future and committing themselves to work handin-hand to forge a better tomorrow.
From Japan's perspective, the United States committed an unforgiveable act worthy of the most severe
condemnation, but no good could possibly have come from publicly denouncing it seventy years after
the fact. This was true for both Japan and the United States. Instead, both the victims and theperpetrators decided to accept the errors of the past for what they were and mutually reconcile for thesake of the future.
President Obama left a paper crane that he folded himself at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. This
tradition began with Sasaki Sadako, a schoolgirl who was hospitalized for radiation sickness, but
continued to fold paper cranes until her death in 1955 at the age of twelve. The Children's Peace
Monument, a statue in Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park that holds a paper crane aloft in its arms, wasmodelled on Sadako.
Her older brother Sasaki Masahiro is currently in the United States running a non-profit organization
dedicated to advancing the cause of peace and deepening historical understanding between Japan and theUSA. He founded the organization with Clifton Truman Daniel, the grandson of Harry Truman, thepresident who ordered the atomic bombing of Japan.
The dropping of the atomic bombs has been truly difficult to forgive. And yet, neither side would gain
anything of value from Japan's leaders bitterly denouncing it until the end of time. No matter how
terrible it may have been, once the event has long past, we have no choice but to eventually forgive sothat there may be peace. Both sides should vow to do everything in their power to never allow such a
tragedy to happen again. Once enough time has transpired, this is precisely what both the citizens of thecountry that perpetrated the bombing and the citizens of the country that endured the bombing must do.
President Obama's state visit to Hiroshima did us a great service by showing us just how senselesshistory wars are.
It has already been over seventy years since Japan was defeated by the United States in a war that raged
across the Pacific Ocean. The history wars over Japan have been characterized as wars against externalfoes, but, in some ways, it may be more accurate to call them, "The Seventy-Year History Civil War inJapan". China and South Korea launched the war, but they could not have sustained it without the fuelconstantly being provided by anti-Japanese forces inside Japan. It is the Japanese people themselves who
are to blame for allowing these anti-Japanese elements to run rampant. For their own sake and for thesake of all the people of the world, the time has come for the Japanese to stop turning a blind eye to thisproblem.
Finally, I would like to mention two additional unseen topics in the history wars that I have often tried tocall attention to in the last several decades.

14

The first topic has to do with Yasukuni Shrine. Under normal circumstances, the act of paying respect toYasukuni Shrine, just like the formation of one's historical perception, ought to be an entirely private
matter of the heart and soul. At some point in time, somehow or other, it morphed into a political issue,
and then a diplomatic problem. This is completely unacceptable. On top of that, the Japanese Ministry ofForeign Affairs' inability to fulfil its function as a foreign ministry made the bad situation even worse.
The second topic relates to Japan's culture and civilization, which was long characterized by its focus on
the present and the future, rather than the past. Japan's forward-looking attitude was symbolized by its
traditional purification rites intended to free the soul of the burden of the past. However, the Japanese
have ended up transforming unwittingly from a forward-looking people into a "backward-facing" people
with an obsessive fixation on old history. This is yet more proof of the Japanese people's inadequate selfawareness and lack of effort towards healthy self-development. Does this not all stem from thecomplacency and weakness of the people?
These two topics are linked to an unseen "spiritual defeat". The Japanese people suffered a spiritual orcultural defeat at the end of World War II, and I fear that it may ultimately lead to Japan's suicide as anation. It seems to me that this "spiritual defeat" is what the Japanese people must truly repent for.

15