Author: Seishiro Sugihara

Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=2553

SUGIHARA, Seishiro
President
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

Last year marked the eightieth anniversary of the end of the War. While overviewing this historical period, I feel it necessary to point out that sometime during the postwar years, Japan was ruled by “those who benefitted from the lost war“ and ceased to be the country it used to be. In 2025, eighty years after the War ended, there seem to be some indications that the rule by “benefiters from the lost war” is fading away, but today it appears that Japan still remains in the mire of serious distortions brought by that horrible rule.

“Lost-war benefiters” are literally those who have benefitted from the lost war. In addition, the term also includes those who should have been expelled from public office but evaded the dire fate and remained in their positions by skillfully behaving and catering to the Allied Occupation Forces.

On December 7 (U.S. calendar), 1941, the Japanese Navy attacked Pearl Harbor and on the following day, December 8, President Roosevelt stated in the United States Congress of both Houses that without any warning Japan suddenly attacked while negotiations were going on, which was an impermissible act deliberately planned over a long time. He bitterly cited Japan’s despicable act and all the lawmakers, except one female member, agreed to declare war against Japan. The American people who had been reluctant to start a war until then instantly cried out, “Remember Pearl Harbor” and swore, in unison, to totally defeat Japan.

Based on such nation-wide anger, when Roosevelt met British Prime Minister Churchill at Casablanca in January 1943, he declared, at a press conference, pretending as if it was a slip of tongue that Germany, Japan and Italy shall surrender “unconditionally.” Then, in February 1945 at Yalta, Roosevelt concluded a secret pact with Stalin that the Soviet Union would start a war with Japan in two to three months after the war between Germany and the Soviet Union was over. On the next day, Churchill said, learning about this secret pact, “If they tell Japan about the secret pact and urge Japan to surrender, Japan will surrender, leading to the earlier end of the war with Japan.” However, Roosevelt flatly rejected Churchill’s suggestion.

Regarding Japan, Roosevelt probably thought that just as what happened in Germany later, the U.S. Forces would completely occupy mainland Japan and annihilate the nation totally. At that point of time, the atomic bomb was not yet completed. and it was undecided how to deal with it in the war with Japan. Supposedly, Roosevelt was thinking of imposing more cruel fate on Japan than dropping an atomic bomb. Fortunately, Roosevelt died suddenly on April 12 and after his death, through the efforts of Joseph Grew, who served as U.S. Ambassador to Japan at the time when the war between Japan the United States broke out, the Potsdam Declaration was issued and Japan accepted it to end the war, avoiding the fate of total annihilation that Roosevelt supposedly had in mind.

Immediately after Roosevelt’s sudden death, Vice President Truman became President. Truman promptly declared that he would firmly follow Roosevelt’s political line and said that the United States would demand the unconditional surrender of Japan. On June 18, Truman convened a meeting to make the final military decision on the war with Japan, calling the military brass to the White House. A view that insisting on “unconditional surrender” would incur larger casualties was presented by the military. However, Truman said that accepting the American people’s anger, he could not manage to change the national opinion regarding this issue and declared that he would continue the policy line of demanding Japan’s unconditional surrender. Although it was already clear that Japan lost the war, they officially decided to carry out the plan then under way of landing operation on mainland Japan.

And as mentioned above, on account of efforts made by Grew and others, the Potsdam Declaration was issued and the landing operation on mainland Japan was never to be carried out. However, the dropping of atomic bombs was not avoided. Why couldn’t the United States put down the flag of unconditional surrender? That was because at the start of the war between Japan and the United States, the United State believed that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in a despicable surprise attack. It was assumed that since Japan did not send any message prior to the attack, it was nothing but “a surprise attack.”

However, fact is that the Japanese Government was to hand the ultimatum to Secretary of State Hull thirty minutes prior to the start of the attack on Pearl Harbor. But a last-minute blunder took place in the Japanese Embassy in Washington D.C., and the ultimatum was not handed within the designated time. Although the Japanese Ministry at home sent the directive to Washington as an emergency alert, the officer in charge did not follow the direction and the person responsible for typing the telegram in cipher was out of the Embassy to play in town, so the typing was not completed within the designated hour. Thus, the ultimatum failed to be handed to the United States on time.

Since Roosevelt and the senior military officers had decoded and read all the Japanese diplomatic telegrams, they clearly knew the delay in handing the ultimatum was due to the clerical blunder within the Japanese Embassy. However, they did not reveal this fact to the Congress or the people. After Roosevelt’s sudden death, when Truman became President, Truman did not know the fact about the failure of handing the ultimatum in advance and believed that a despicable “surprise attack” took place, as the American people did. Therefore, he could not put down the flag of “unconditional surrender.” When the atomic bomb was dropped over Hiroshima on August 6 and over Nagasaki on August 9, Truman said that they accomplished the well-done revenge for the “surprise attack.” Such were the facts. Then, it follows that the delay in handing the “ultimatum” was used by Roosevelt’s government, which forced Japan to enter the cruel and disastrous war. As mentioned before, the Potsdam Declaration was issued and Japan was able to surrender before the Soviet invaded mainland Japan, but the dropping of atomic bombs could not be avoided.

How was the issue of “surprise attack,” which led to such devastating war, treated in Japan?

In the middle of the war, all the Japanese Embassy staff in Washington D.C. came home to Japan aboard the exchange and repatriation ship. The two officials who were directly responsible for the delay in handing the “ultimatum” were among the returnees. The delay in handing the “ultimatum” was a serious matter, but amid the raging war, there was no time for dealing with it and it was left unattended. Once the war was over, the occupation started. But it remained a mystery to the Occupation Forces why Japan launched the surprise attack without any advance notice. They did not understand why Japan staged a surprise attack which could be useful only to incite American anger.

On September 26, 1945, the Emperor and MacArthur met for the first time. Regarding the fact that the war between Japan and the United States started by the “surprise attack,” the Emperor said to the effect that he was betrayed by Tojo. The Emperor just said what the Foreign Ministry had prepared for him to say. That was the plot devised by Yoshida Shigeru, who then was the Foreign Minister.

Such a grave issue as where the responsibility rested cannot have been left unquestioned within the Foreign Ministry. Around April 1944, within the Foreign Ministry, an investigation started with the purpose to completely clarify how the “ultimatum” failed to be handed to Secretary Hull in time. However, as soon as the probe started, Yoshida Shigeru ordered to halt the investigation.

Yoshida’s attempt to conceal the responsibility regarding the “surprise attack” did not stop here. When the occupation period was over, he promoted the member of the personnel who had failed to follow the order from the Ministry at home to be on emergency alert on the night before the war broke out and should have been duly dismissed disciplinarily, but instead he was promoted to Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs. Moreover, after Japan restored its sovereignty, the other officer who had been responsible for typing the telegram but had gone out of the Embassy to play in town was also promoted to Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Yoshida Shigeru concealed not only the responsibility for the “surprise attack” but also the responsibility of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs related to the War by surprisingly managing personnel affairs of the Ministry. He fortified the Foreign Ministry with personnel who had been at the Japanese Embassy in Washington D.C., the most responsible for the war between Japan and the United States and personnel at the Embassy in Berlin, Germany. By doing so, Yoshida made the Embassy staff keep silence about the war and perfectly covered up the entire responsibility of the Foreign Ministry related to the U.S.-Japanese War.

Yoshida Shigeru’s concealment of the war responsibility on the part of the Foreign Ministry was further-reaching and on larger scale. After Japan’s sovereignty was restored on April 28, 1952, Yoshida remained Prime Minister. After the restoration of Japan’s sovereignty, the foremost task was to resume the work of the “war investigation committee,” which had been disbanded under the occupation. However, Yoshida did not resume it.

One of the tasks of the Shidehara Kijuro cabinet, established on October 9, 1945, was to clarify the cause and course of the previous war by the Japanese themselves and the “war investigation committee” was established by cabinet decision. However, speaking of investigation of war, it is essential to seek the truth about the war and that was inconvenient to the Allied Forces whose agenda was based on lies. It was particularly inconvenient to the Soviet Union, which invaded Japan, violating the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact. Therefore, the Soviet Union led the proposition against the “war investigation committee” and it was ordered to disband by the Occupation Forces.

Under such circumstances, to Yoshida Shigeru, who remained Prime Minister after the restoration of Japan’s sovereignty, the foremost task was to resume the activities of the “war investigation committee.” However, Yoshida did not restore the committee or rather could not do so. That was because it would become compulsory to account for the role and responsibility the Foreign Ministry should have borne in the previous war.

Then, the negative influence of Yoshida’s failure to reopen the “war investigation committee” is not at all slight. If the work of the “war investigation committee” had been resumed, it must have referred to the issue of how Japan had fared under the occupation. If so, it would have been made clear at that point that under the stringent censorship during the occupation, the Japanese people were deprived of freedom of speech and trapped in the “closed speech sphere.”

If the “war investigation committee” had been held, it would have become clear that the Japanese people were silenced in the “closed speech sphere” under the occupation and then may have gained the opportunity to escape from the “closed speech sphere.” However, without the “war investigation committee” in action, the “closed speech sphere” was so cunningly created by the Occupation Forces under their occupation that the Japanese people in general did not realize its presence and the “closed speech sphere” would go on existing unnoticed and unrecognized.

In other words, the “closed speech sphere” created by the Occupation Forces in Japan under their occupation would come to be maintained by the Japanese people themselves after Japan restored its sovereignty.

More can be said. In such “closed speech sphere,” the self-defamatory view of history which the Occupation Forces tried to imprint on the Japanese people during occupation will continue to flourish.

Furthermore, this “self-degrading” view of history is extremely convenient to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that hid the war responsibility. The self-defamatory view of history imposed by the Occupation Forces is, plainly speaking, that the previous war was an aggressive war the Japanese military waged, deceiving the people. Here, the Foreign Ministry is not to be blamed, which is convenient to the Foreign Ministry. After all, quite reversibly, the Foreign Ministry is a governmental organ to keep the “self-degrading view of history” intact.

The negative consequences became more serious as time passed. At the time of the restoration of Japan’s sovereignty in 1952, very few Japanese people believed in the Nanjing Incident, which was condemned during the Tokyo Trials under occupation regime. Nevertheless, confined in the closed speech sphere, more Japanese people gradually came to say that the Nanjing incident did take place. As a result of censorship of historical discourse for the most of the eighty-year post-war period, the perception that the Nanjing incident was real found wider support. The alleged forced abduction of comfort women was at one time believed to be factual within the “closed speech sphere.”

Yoshida Shigeru remained Prime Minister after Japan restored her sovereignty and notoriously contributed to the perpetuation of the negative assets of the occupation by the Occupation Forces. Among them, especially serious was the issue of Japan’s self-defense right over Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan. Even today, Japan remains in fetters.

Yoshida introduced the official interpretation that Article 9 grants Japan self-defense right, but Japan shall not possess military power or the right of belligerency. This interpretation may have made certain sense under occupation in relation with MacArthur’s military force present in Japan, but after Japan restored her sovereignty, such interpretation is not adequate and should have been revised simultaneously after the restoration of sovereignty. If they thought the change of interpretation was impossible, they should have immediately started working to revise the Constitution.

Fundamentally, however, Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan refers to the issue of self-defense right as State and it must be interpreted rationally. According to the rational interpretation, within the limit of defense war, both “military strength” and “the right of belligerency” shall be possessed, which is right in terms of constitutional law. If not, Article 9 is not literally consistent with the civilian clause of Article 66-2) “The Prime Minister and other Ministers of State must be civilians.”

Regarding this point, Koyama Tsunemi, the chief author of New Civics Textbook, by Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform, mentioned a respectable view in the book On Constitution and Imperial House Law co-authored by Sugihara (Jiyu-sha, 2017). He maintains that partly because the Constitution was made forcibly under the occupation by the Occupation Forces, it contains essentially invalid parts. Therefore, the entire Constitution should be declared invalid and then those parts which realistically stand valid should be declared valid, retrospectively at the time of enactment. Then, it is against natural law to deny the “military power” and “the right of belligerency.” To make Article 9 valid, it must be interpreted that “military power” and “right of belligerency” are retained in case of war of self-defense. I think all constitutional scholars and lawmakers should listen to his assertion.

However, when it comes to Article 9, Japan’s constitutional studies roughly match the present Government’s official interpretation. And the official interpretation of the Constitution is close to the one established by the jurists of the University of Tokyo, the Faculty of Law during the occupation period. The University of Tokyo’s constitutional studies were created by Miyazawa Toshiyoshi, who is a typical “benefiter from the lost war.” Immediately after Japan lost the war, he bravely stated that there was no need to revise the Constitution of the Empire of Japan. However, once “Memorandum on the Elimination of Undesirable Persons from Public Office” was issued by the Allied Occupation Forces, Miyazawa came to develop overnight constitutional studies flattering the Occupation Forces.

Then, the constitutional studies of the Faculty of Law of the University of Tokyo, which have great impact on the Government today and is the mainstream of Japan’s constitutional studies can be termed “lost-war benefiters’ constitutional studies created by “lost-war benefiters.” These concepts were created during the occupation period and have been handed down to this day as the constitutional studies of the Faculty of Law, the University of Tokyo. The scholars’ world is dominated by something like grand-master system. Once the constitutional studies were established, even though they turn out to be false, only a person that acknowledges and maintains them can succeed to the chair of professorship. Japan’s constitutional studies remain the same as the constitutional studies of the lost-war benefiters, maintained through the grand-master system. As it is, there is no chance for genuine constitutional studies to be revived within the University of Tokyo’s Faculty of Law. To escape from it, the only hope is for the Government to get free from this scholarly interpretation and declare the essential constitutional interpretation. And it is the power of the people that can make the Government follow the genuine constitutional studies.

You may wonder how dubious the constitutional studies of the University of Tokyo’s Faculty of Law are. During the occupation period, when it was not known that MacArthur forced Japan to make its Constitution, stating that the Emperor is Head of State, Miyazawa Toshiyuki at the Faculty of Law, the University of Tokyo presented an interpretation that the Emperor is not Head of State, catering to the Occupation Forces. Having been impacted by this, the present Japanese Government does not clearly say that the Emperor is Head of State. The Japanese people must know that it is easy for the Japanese government to establish the interpretation that the Emperor is the Head of State of Japan at the request of the Japanese people. Incidentally, regarding this issue, there is a book Brainwashing named the University of Tokyo, Faculty of Law (Business-sha, 2019), written by Kurayama Mitsuru.

During the period when “lost-war benefiters” controlled the state and society, some evaluated Yoshida Shigeru as a significant contributor to the economic growth in postwar Japan. This is utterly groundless evaluation.

The grand design of postwar Japan’s economic development was already made by the Occupation Forces. As the Cold War was progressing, the Occupation Forces clearly presented a policy for Japan to become economically rich, and as early as in 1948, Joseph Dodge came to Japan from the United States and forcibly presented the nine economic growth principles to Japan. In addition, he allowed Japan to conduct unlimited trade with the United States. Furthermore, he prevented the U.S. capital from invading Japan lest the Japanese people should bear a grudge against America.

Others think that Yoshida contributed to economic growth because he limited the arming of Japan by spending less for national defense. However, this is another groundless evaluation fabricated by “lost-war benefiters.” South Korea was totally devastated by the Korean War and desperately needed a huge amount of compensation from Japan to stimulate country’s economic growth. However, despite the huge spending for national defense, amounting to around 7% of its national budget at one time, South Korea has become a highly prosperous economy today.

It can be stated to certain extent that Yoshida Shigeru built a smooth relationship with MacArthur during the occupation period, but other than that, he left only damage. In the society where “lost-war benefiters” had their way, totally extravagant things happened. For example, in 1964, Curtis LeMay, who led the Tokyo Air Raids that claimed 100, 000 lives in 1945, was decorated with Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun, to our utter dismay.

When Yoshida Shigeru died on October 20, 1967, Japan’s state and society at the time bid farewell to the deceased in the form of state funeral. It was natural that state funeral was held for Yoshida Shigeru because it was the time when the Japanese state and society were totally controlled by the “lost-war benefiters” and Yoshida was the supreme ringleader of them all.

The existence of the “closed speech sphere” was revealed by Eto Jun from 1979 to 1980, and present-day Japan is getting considerably free from that “closed speech sphere.” Trapped in the middle of “closed speech sphere,” speaking of peace, one must pretend not to notice soldiers who had fought and died for the sake of country or ignore their sacrifices. Today, however, people can freely and dearly remember those victims of the war and speak of “peace.” The period dominated by the lost-war benefiters” is clearly over.

Anyhow, eighty years after the War, we must clearly recognize that there was a period when the “lost-war benefiters” dominated Japan. Otherwise, we cannot return to Japan as it originally had been.

Quite regrettably, Yoshida Shigeru’s evaluation as the greatest Prime Minister by far in the postwar years has been profoundly settled in Japan and Japanese society, despite the tremendous damage he brought to postwar Japan. And in the field of constitutional studies, which are the theoretical core of the state, one of the negative assets the “lost-war benefiters” left is the “lost-war benefiters’ constitutional studies” created under the occupation and handed down through the grand-master system to this day that have been reigning unwaveringly even in today’s Japan. The shaffles of negative assets created by the “lost-war benefiters” and imposed on Japan, have not been completely shattered yet, as in the case of constitutional studies. That is why we Japanese people living today must clearly realize that over the eighty years after the end of the War, there was a period dominated by “lost-war benefiters,” and when Japan recovered her sovereignty, Japan failed to liquidate the negative assets which should have been done at that time, but instead they had been expanded and inherited to this day, strictly binding present-day Japan.

On December 8, 1941, Japan entered a war against the United States with no reasonable expectations of winning and was completely defeated, which led to the occupation and quite unavoidably ended up in the forever lasting relationship of superior United States and inferior Japan or the relationship of the ruler and the ruled. This may be unavoidable fate after waging a war, but Japan carried it to the extent even the United States did not anticipate or expect, inheriting all of what the Occupation Forces did, including the negative part of the occupation policy which could have been liquidated at the time when Japan recovered her sovereignty, but rather reversely had been expanded. And all this was done by “lost-war benefiters,” headed by Yoshida Shigeru. As of eighty years after the War, the Japanese people should recognize and bear this fact in mind.

Precisely, on April 28, 1952, when Japan restored its sovereignty, Yoshida Shigeru decided to start Japan by completely covering up the war responsibility of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by clearly and respectfully holding up the “self-degrading view of history”, as a semi-state without having the clear theory of defending our country on our own over Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan. When he died on October 20, 1967, without any objective grounds, state funeral was held in honor of the Prime Minister who allegedly led the remarkable recovery of Japan with the policy of light armament and hefty economy. On the 80th anniversary of the end of the War we the Japanese should be aware that there was a period in Japan when “lost-war benefiters” dominated, ran rampant and ruled, as these incidents indicate.   

Japanese: https://i-rich.org/?p=2359

Seishiro Sugihara
President
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories (iRICH)

The political feud this time was caused by shortcomings in the current constitution

In the South Korean presidential election held on June 3, 2025, as expected, Lee Jae-myung of the “Together Democratic Party” won and became the South Korean President on the next day.

Plainly speaking, the political chaos this time triggered by the former President Yoon Suk Yeol declaring martial law was solely due to shortcomings in the current Constitution of the Republic of Korea.

On December 4, the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea resolved to demand the lift of the martial law and President Yoon immediately cancelled the martial law. Later, on December 14, the National Assembly resolved to follow up with impeachment proceedings to purge the president. If the Korean impeachment proceedings were the same as the non-trust resolution cited in the Japanese Constitution, the President could have authorized the dissolution of the National Assembly and then called a general election. If the newly elected members of the National Assembly would vote in favor of the President, he would be able to resume the presidency, and if voted otherwise, he would lose the presidency. If this had been the case, the political feud this time would have been settled orderly by the people’s consensus.

From this perspective, the Korean Constitution has a peculiar stipulation, albeit it has some advanced stipulations when it comes to human rights. For example, Article 84 stipulates the crime of insurrection by the President and conflicts with other countries. Article 76 authorizes the President to issue emergency orders against domestic and foreign insurrections, and Article 77 authorizes the President to declare martial law in case of national emergencies. Why, then, is the crime of insurrection stipulated? Is it that the crime of insurrection means act committed to cause insurgence with the purpose to replace the government? How is it possible that the President authorized to issue emergency orders and martial law could be charged with the crime of insurrection? As the issue of insurgence was raised this time, the police investigated the President on the charge of inciting a riot, which seems quite odd in view of the rule-of-law principle.

Under the Yoon Suk Yeol administration, the “Together Democratic Party” made impeachment proposals 31 times, following the Constitution. Before that, impeachment proposals were made 18 times in 38 years since the Constitution was proclaimed in 1987. Comparing these numbers, we can see how often the impeachment was proposed under President Yoon Suk Yeol. Although it was legally and politically improper that President Yoon declared the martial law as a warning, I would rather emotionally sympathize with him to a certain extent.

The birth of the current South Korean Constitution emphasizing judiciary power

In South Korea, after the military administrations by Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan, in June 1987, democratization was declared on July 12, and on October 29, the tenth-revised Constitution came into effect as the current one, after nine revisions since the Constitution of the Republic of Korea was proclaimed on July 12, 1948. And in December,1987, presidential election was held and Roh Tae-woo became President. Since then, presidents elected by the people ensued.

In such political historical background, President Yoon declared martial law and naturally, the Korean people could not agree to the martial law.

However, the Constitution, seemingly over-conscious of the military administrations, is too dependent on judicial power and in that respect is somewhat inappropriate. Beyond the principle of separation of the three powers in the rule of law, it is too dependent on the work of judiciary power, deviating from the principle of separation of the three powers. Principally, political issues to be dealt with based on the political intention of the people are intended to be addressed by the judiciary power, whose task should be to carry out judicial justice and provide a correct interpretation of laws. Such attempts ultimately lead to the division of the people.

In the end, under the current constitution, President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law on December 3 last year and on the 14th, the National Assembly voted for impeachment, suspending the presidential office and on April 4, this year, the Constitution Court ruled that the President be dismissed. Following the decision, the presidential election was held on June 3.

On the other hand, as for Lee Jae-myung of the “Together Democratic Party,” who had been charged with violation of the “Public Offices Election Act,” the South Korean Supreme Court overturned the verdict of the original court citing not guilty and ruled otherwise, and Lee Jae-myung was on the verge of being non-qualifier for the presidential run. The High Court, on being remanded the verdict, decided that the court hearing be held on June 18, after the presidential election, postponing the original court date of May 15. By this decision, Lee Jae-myung was able to run for President and was consequently elected President. After all, the appointment of the new President Lee Jae-myung and the impeachment of the former President Yoon Suk Yeol were realized by the hands of judges who are not chosen by the people.

The Korean people want to reform the Constitution, focusing on the judicial issue

Fortunately, the people of the Republic of Korea are wise and most of them want constitutional reform. They have a strong interest in courts and want a reform of the judicial system. During the presidential election this time, both the ruling “People Power Party” and the opposition “Together Democratic Party” cited constitutional reform among their policies. Responding to the people’s intention, they should address the issue of constitutional reform, focusing on the reform of the judicial system.

What is judiciary, then? I would like to consider what the role of law is in terms of the separation of the three powers under the “rule of law” or “nomocracy.” It goes without saying that in terms of written law, judiciary’s ultimate role is to faithfully follow law, and in case of non-written law, through court procedures, judiciary exercises the final interpretation and judgement of the matter in question. And it is presumed that the interpretation thus made shall be applied in the same manner when dealing with any case of the same nature.

Such a judiciary act is not an act of the government but interpretation of law, conducted by judges who are selected from individuals with the required qualifications. Through lawsuits, in order to exercise the same judgement regarding the same issue, there is the system of the three stages of courts, namely, district court, high court and the supreme court.

The judiciary follows the Constitution, the highest written law. Therefore, when the legislative body makes a law against the Constitution, the judiciary is authorized to nullify the law in question. This is principally done through lawsuits. Article 13 of the current South Korean Constitution stipulates that the retroactive legislation shall not be applied to suffrage and property right. If such a retroactive law is made, those who are to lose their rights can file a lawsuit. During the court process, it is clarified that such legislation is against the Constitution and thus the law’s effectiveness is halted. Thus, it is made clear that the judiciary exercises the final interpretation regarding the Constitution and law.

In this sense, the judiciary is opposite to the government. However, the current Korean constitution so easily designates to court decision matters that should be dealt with by the government.

In discussing what judicial power is, we must look at the “theory of governing act.” The executive branch in charge of administrative power is authorized to declare martial law or something similar in the case of national emergency, without grounds written in the law. For example, when North Korea militarily invades South Korea or huge earthquake hits most parts of the country, the government should immediately cope with the dire situation, and emergency orders, including martial law, can be issued. This is the right concept under the “rule of law” or “nomocracy.”

Article 76 of the current South Korean Constitution stipulates that in the case of domestic insurgence, foreign raid or natural disaster, emergency orders shall be issued, and Article 77 stipulates that martial law shall be declared in case of a national emergency.

Regarding former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s declaration of martial law on December 3 last year, there are different views as to whether his act was constitutional based on the article of the constitution or not. Strictly speaking, it looks like both. There was no such emergency as to require martial law and his act was unconstitutional. On the other hand, he immediately cancelled the martial law, following the disapproval of the National Assembly and on December 14, he followed the Assembly’s resolution of impeachment and purge from the office. This shows that he acted according to the Constitution. Then, even if the martial law was issued politically in a wrong manner, the case should have been dealt with by the Assembly’s disapproval. Therefore, it can be interpreted that the act was formally constitutional. However, former President Yoon reportedly tried to hold Assembly members in custody, and in this sense, former his declaration of martial law could partially have been unconstitutional.

When we think about the role of judiciary, we must take the concept of “theory of act of government” into account. Regardless of the existence of written-law grounds, the administration has a special role when it comes to government. This theory is so important that we cannot eliminate this way of thinking.

This theory was strongly advocated in Japan in December 1959 by Tanaka Koutaro, the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Japan and jurist, in connection with the verdict of the case called the “Sunagawa incident.” In the Japanese Constitution, interpreted literally, Article 9 stipulates that Japan shall possess no armed forces. In a further literal interpretation, it is also unconstitutional to have foreign armed forces stationed in Japan. Therefore, it can be concluded that it is unconstitutional to have the United States forces stationed in Japan because it is tantamount to having “armed forces” in Japan. How did Justice Tanaka judge in this situation?

Justice Tanaka did not say either constitutional or unconstitutional because judging whether it is constitutional or not is not within the jurisdiction of the judicial court. That is, a highly political state act related to the foundation of the state government is an issue beyond the jurisdiction of the court, even when it is possible to judge through court proceedings whether it is constitutional or not.

In gist, the role of judiciary is to carry out the final interpretation of law through lawsuits. Even so, there are matters related to government that are outside the jurisdiction of the court. We must say this was an extremely important judgement regarding the role of the judiciary.

In case of the current Korean Constitution, it is highly respectable that democratization was declared in June 1987 and efforts were made to protect democracy under “rule of law” or “nomocracy.” However, when it comes to the role of the judiciary under the Constitution under “rule of law” or “nomocracy,” it was made to play inappropriate role, including the case of “theory of governmental act.” Plainly speaking, what should be politically resolved based on the people’s intention has been entrusted to the judiciary, whose task is to pursue the rightful interpretation of law.

Through the presidential election campaign this time, both the then ruling “People Power Party” and the then opposition “Together Democratic Party” held up the policy of constitutional reform. However, there were few reform plans advocating judicial issues. There are many reforms to be made, such as the regulation of the one five-year-term only presidential office. The worst fault of the South Korean Constitution is that what should be solved politically is entrusted to judicial judgement. Unless this fault is overcome, there will be no stability of the South Korean government.

From this viewpoint, speaking of South Korean principles of order of law and constitution, further consideration of viewpoints is necessary, regarding the prohibition of legislation of exclusively specified matter and prohibition of retroactivity.

When there is only “rule of law” worthy of the name of rule, under “rule of law” and “nomocracy,” no legislation applicable solely to specific individuals is permissible. The premise of general law must be constantly observed. Moreover, legislation that can be disadvantageous to specific individuals must be strictly adherent to the rule of non-retroactivity. That is, legislation related to individual disadvantage must strictly follow the principle of non-retroactivity, which means that such legislation should be strictly applied to cases that occur after the legislation. Unless this principle is observed, such a state cannot be said to be a state worshiping “rule of law” and “nomocracy.” In South Korea, as a leading state in the world, those who are engaged in law-related legislation, administration and judiciary must seriously recognize this idea and work to make South Korea one of the most excellent modern states in the world.

Bi-partizan structure in South Korea

Article 8 of the current South Korean Constitution stipulates that when a political party’s purpose or activity is judged to violate fundamental domestic order, such party shall be possibly dissolved. This judgement is made by the constitutional court. In the case of South Korea, in the north sits the communist brother state and constant vigilance is unavoidable, so a pro-North Korea and communist-admiring political party is impermissible. It is understandable that its Constitution holds such stipulation. Consequently, however, what kind of political structure may come into existence? Under the political structure void of communism, after all, bi-partisan system, like that of the United States, with a slight difference between conservatives and non-conservatives or liberals and non-liberals will be practically established. In addition, in Japan before the war, when the communist party was illegal, Seiyu Party and Minsei Party became two major parties and entered into one battle after another only to fail to establish a sound political party government. One of the reasons was that since the communist party was illegal and communist activities were strictly suppressed by the special police, placing the party out of the public sight, the political world did not have to worry about the communist party.

In the postwar Japanese political world, the communist party is legal as long as it does not plot a violent revolution. Political abilities of many parties are to be judged by the distance they keep from the communist party. In this respect, vigilance regarding communist activities now is an everyday concern   and as a result, the Liberal Democratic Party upholding the conservative political line has long held the administration.

In South Korea, there will be no alternative but to maintain stability through bipartisanship. 

Then, the legislators should stop abusing the previous administration and degrading those involved in the former administration every time the government changes hands. In this respect, Lee Jae-myung, who became President with the help of the judiciary, said in his inauguration speech on June 4 that he would “stop the division.” To this end, he should pardon the declaration of martial law by former President Yoon Suk Yeol as a kind of constitutional act. Considering this unthinkable declaration of martial law was an error committed by the opponent and a deplorable selfish goal, it is important for him to leniently cope with it. While in the presidential office, it may be permissible for him to make a law favorable to him such as exempting him from the lawsuit and suspending the trial, but he should not promote legislation which is impermissible under the “rule of law” or “nomocracy.”

Then I want him to work on a constitutional reform so that the division may be removed. To realize this goal, it is necessary to constantly reflect the people’s intention and make adjustments accordingly like the United States with the four-year presidential term, where half of the Congress members are elected through the mid-term election so that the President’s government may be judged by the people.

Expectations from Japan

Allow me to repeat that during his inauguration speech on June 4, the newly elected President   Lee Jae-myung said that he would eliminate the domestic division and internationally make practical diplomatic efforts, valuing the relationship of South Korea, Japan and the United States and Japan-South Korea relationship. This may be realized. In Japan during the time of the Meiji Restoration, before the great cause of national unification, severely conflicting Satsuma and Choshu domains came to unite and form an alliance. Just like what happened in Japan, President Lee Jae-myung may drastically change and stop the long history of ill vengeance on the previous administration, become a truly great president and dissolve the conflict within the country. President Lee himself is to deal with five criminal charges against him. However, he may be possibly pardoned and exempted from the charges forever as a great president by the next president.

However, at the base supporting President Lee Jae-mung lies the magma-like dormant power about to erupt with anti-Japan issues of mobilized workers and comfort women. There may be chances at any moment of the magma erupting and freeze Japan-South Korea relationships like ice. If so, Japan must be fully prepared for any symptom of the Lee Jae-myung administration using the anti-Japan card and if such action becomes imminent, Japan should immediately freeze economic and diplomatic friendship and keep President Lee Jae-myung from making any little steps toward such action. This may turn beneficial for the future decisions that President Lee Jae-myung could make.

At present, both Japan and South Korea suffer declines in the number of births. However, in the global perspective, both countries are ranked among the most advanced in the world. In the average lifespan, Japan ranks first and South Korea third. It is extremely regrettable that between the most advanced countries in the world, a groundless anti-Japan policy is implemented, and anti-Japan sentiment swallows up people’s minds. It may be permissible as historical recognition of the South Korean people that Japan’s annexation of Korea in 1910 was colonization of Korea by Japan, but it was not unilateral exploitation on the part of Japan.

When World War II was over and Korea was revived as one nation, many systems established under Japan’s rule of Korea were preserved. Among those that remained were the police system and the grand and competent bureaucratic system. Looking today at a country that became modernized and one of the most advanced countries in the world, one can understand how valuable the positive heritage of Japan’s rule is. Apart from the emotional aspect, the people must have come to the stage where they can objectively recognize it.

Besides, the anti-Japan feelings in postwar South Korea were purposefully promoted by consecutive governments through anti-Japan education. Present-day South Koreans seems to recognize already that the anti-Japan sentiment was partly brought about by the anti-Japan education. They are now at the stage where they must get rid of anti-Japan feelings for the sake of the honor of South Korea.

Geopolitically, at present, South Korea is in a position where it has to confront the despotic nuclear powers of North Korea, China and Russia. South Korea, Japan, the United States and Taiwan are in the relationship of mutual assistance as universal democracies. If so, there is no room or time for anti-Japan claims under the current circumstances. At any hint of an anti-Japan movement, Japan must immediately freeze the policy of promoting the Japan-South Korea friendship. It is naturally good for Japan to freeze the friendship at the hint of an anti-Japan action on the part of the Lee Jae-myung administration. It is also indispensable, necessary and good for South Korea and the newly elected Lee Jae-myung. In this way, we can help President Lee Jae-myung become the greatest and best president in Korean history.

What I have said so far is not meant to be a patronizing message from Japan. In Japan, too, the judiciary has become abnormal. The Supreme Court of Japan has deteriorated extremely when it comes to judging ability and competence. I am concerned about the judiciary world in Japan and want to have Japanese Constitution reformed as well.

Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=868

Sugihara Seishiro
President
International Research Institute for Controversial Histories

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 felt 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, unlike these days, 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 twosome.

I specialize in education and once I studied the moral education in South Korea. During the time of Prime Minister Abe Shinzo’s cabinet, Japan had included limited moral education in the school curriculum and created 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 Korean moral education textbooks, I found that Korean moral education textbooks have inherited the tradition of “shushin” (moral training) during the Imperial Japanese rule and that they are very good textbooks. In Japan during the period of occupation after the War, “shushin” was abolished by the Allied Occupation Forces (in fact by those Japanese who have benefited from the war defeat), the subject of moral education was no longer taught at school and no moral education textbooks were available anymore. However, the heritage of 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 a book entitled 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 Hakubun-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 ruled that Japanese companies had to compensate their 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 Korean 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 to resolve 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, at this time, it does not show any sign of concession, 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 severance of diplomatic relations. However, as always, it is feared that the Japanese Government may come up with the last-minute compromise and bring up an extraordinary solution.

What I really want to say here is that I would like to suggest that it is better for both Japan and South Korea to confront each other as close as possible to the severance of their diplomatic relations.

Since World War II was over and Korea became independent as the Republic of Korea, South Korea seems to have been too emotionally dependent on Japan. In order to unite the people as a new nation, South Korea intentionally implemented fanatic anti-Japanese education as a policy since Syngman Rhee. This was nothing but emotional dependence on Japan. On the presumption that Japan never fights back, whatever South Korea attempts to do against Japan, has been used for the sake of the Korean 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 that country. 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 twisted relationship between Japan and South Korea. If Japan had known South Korea well enough and been interested in it, 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 with a temporary solution.

I think that South Korean anti-Japanese actions have become massive, group-like, social, national and common trait of the South Korean people and when it comes to national characteristics, the Korean people will surely participate in anti-Japanese movements, through the 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 that South Korea inflicts upon Japan. This situation is exactly what we fear should never have happened.

Therefore, here is my proposition in addressing the issue of the mobilized workers. Japan and South Korea need to confront each other to an extreme until there is nowhere to go. When both sides come to such a desperate point, South Korea will realize that it should stop the anti-Japanese education, and Japan will realize that it should stop being indifferent to South Korea and should not look at that country 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 China ruled by the Communist Party. On the verge of the national crisis of collapsing diplomatic relations, South Korea should learn what has been wrong with its inadequate response against Japan so far and find a new, effective way to deal with Japan. Japan should learn how to deal seriously with South Korea, determined to genuinely get angry at the right thing at the right time and sincerely apologize that Japan has apologized to South Korea unreasonably. Then, both sides will develop in a better way and be able to establish a sound mutual relationship.

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

Japanese https://i-rich.org/?p=2200

Sugihara Seishiro
President, International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

On September 18, 2024, in Shenzhen, China, a boy pupil of a local Japanese school and his mother were attacked by a 44-years-old Chinese man and the boy was stabbed to death.

The incident was supposedly caused by the patriotic education implemented by Jiang Zemin, who became general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party in 1989, aiming to promote hostility against a particular state. Thus, the tragic incident occurred as the result of anti-Japan education. The anti-Japan education was introduced as means of oppressing the democratization movement like the Tiananmen incident and maintaining the rule of the Chinese Communist Party within China.

At the present time, the rational way for a state to operate is by being a democratic state where those who hold the political power are regularly replaced by the will of the people and the national will is largely formed according to the wishes of the people who constitute the state. In ancient states, the election itself was impossible. Since the election is possible today, it is a right concept in view of the evolution of the law that the will of the state should reflect the choice of the people through election.

Today, however, a type of tyrannical state exists where a certain political body like the communist party or an individual takes hold of the political power and such a group or an individual determines the will of the state. When comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the two political systems, in terms of the deterrent of war, it becomes clear that the democratic state is superior.

In Japan’s history, the Japanese people have been belligerent in certain periods. Now, after having gone through the tragic experiences in World War II and when its battle scenes are conveyed at hand on television and through social media, the people cannot be belligerent in principle. That is because we realize that if a war begins, the people constituting the state will be forced to risk their lives on the battleground. If people feel the danger, naturally, a trend to avoid war emerges among them, which affects the will of the state, leading to deterrence against war.

On the other hand, in a despotic state, the group or individual holding the power never faces the danger of death when a war is started as the will of the state. Consequently, the sense of the necessity to avoid war becomes weaker. Moreover, to maintain its despotic rule, which is not consigned by the people, the ruler may think it necessary to keep the people under stress and possibly resort to waging a war as a means of doing so. Therefore, a despotic state has weaker deterrence against war.

Applying this argument to the antagonistic education against a particular state, it goes without saying that such hostile education against a specific state itself is far from agreeable when it comes to global peace in the 21st century. In a despotic state, the power holding group or individual must establish a policy merely to maintain the despotic rule within the state and exercise the political power for that sake. The ruler may say that it is for the benefit of the state, but, in fact, it is merely for the sake of maintaining the despotic system and for the sake of the ruling group or the individual’s benefit.

Depriving people from their freedoms in a despotic state is an inevitable consequence of the need to maintain the despotic regime and, as a result, the people are oppressed.

While the Chinese people today violently hate Japan, totally affected by the anti-Japan education, at the same time they are robbed of their freedom by the power holding group or the individual and feel desperate under the harsh oppression.

Now, I would like to make a suggestion to the Chinese-origin people all over the world. Presently, there are many people of Chinese background in the United States, Australia and elsewhere who have obtained the nationality in the respective countries and live free from the rule of the Chinese Government. To our surprise, those Chinese-origin people sometimes agitate to promote anti-Japan education in cooperation with the Chinese Government’s overseas propaganda activities or work for the Chinese Government’s “wolf-warrior diplomacy.”

Now, it is time to stop and think. Is it tantamount to leaving the Chinese people in mainland China suffer, unilaterally deprived of their freedom and helping the tyranny go on or even become harsher? If you cooperate with the Chinese Government in this way, that will strip the freedom of the Chinese people in mainland China even further and cause them to suffer in a worse way.

If Chinese-origin people in the world with nationalities other than mainland China criticize the way the Chinese Government is now and resist it, the action will lead to helping the fellow Chinese people and contribute to world peace. I truly want to appeal to the Chinese people with foreign nationalities to take a considerate and brave action.

[Japanese] https://i-rich.org/?p=1751

Sugihara Seishiro
President
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

It is said that there are three pillars in the European and American civilizations. They are Greek philosophy, Christianity and Roman law.

Related to Roman law, a proverb says, “Law is to be discovered, but not to be made.” In gist, law is the pursuit of justice.

Under the Chinese civilization, law is a mere tool that those holding power use to rule the people and therefore, those in power may make whatever law they wish and use it in whatever way they like.

European and American laws have been derived from Roman law and ultimately exist to pursue justice. Thereby, the word “right” meaning “correct” also means “privilege.” However, this concept was not based on law, and it was necessary to back it with power. The word “right” refers to “right hand” and represents power. So, it refers to justice backed by power.

Thus, law in the European and American sense exists not at the mercy of an arbitrary power but as an authority by itself. Consequently, law is included in the concept of the “rule of law” or “nomocracy,” and such law governs the present world.

Consequently, under the “rule of law,” various principles came to be born. For instance, when a law is made to impose punishment, the principle of non-retroactivity meaning that the law shall not be applied retrospectively is one of the well-known legal principles.

Under those principles, regarding the relationship between the people and the State, the principle of independence of the three powers (legislative, executive, and judicial) is to be upheld. Through adequate checks and balances among the judicial, legislative, and executive powers, justice and order of law are secured.

Since the Meiji Era, Japan has sincerely learned from European and American judicial systems and endeavored to follow the “rule of law” and has now become a country perfectly observing the “rule of law.” However, recently, within the last few years, incidents occurred, making us apprehensive that the “rule of law” may be collapsing. We can perceive the omen of the collapsing rule of law, which poses a historical crisis of the “rule of law.”

On December 10, 2022, related to the issue of the former Unification Church, the so-called Saving Victims Law, officially, Law on Illegal Solicitation of Donations by Corporations, was enacted.

This law was enacted amid the tumult asking for the dissolution of the former Unification Church. However, in terms of the “rule of law,” whatever rigid law may have been enacted to dissolve the former Unification Church, the application of this law should be limited to the cases after the enforcement of this law. This fact was not fully disseminated by the executive office amongst the tumult. Should this fact been disseminated earlier, such chaotic situation could have been avoided.

Prime Minister Kishida changed his interpretation overnight, stating that civil law can be considered among factors for the dissolution of the Church. As long as change of interpretation on the part of the executive branch is within the range permitted by law, under the “rule of law,” it cannot digress from law. However, without pointing out the principle of the “rule of law,” he suddenly mentioned the change of interpretation as if aiming to further complicate the issue. This is a kind of digression that exceeds the powers allocated to the executive branch.

On June 16, 2023, the so-called LGBT Law, officially, Law on the Promotion of the People’s Understanding of the Diversity about the Sexual Preference and Gender Identity, was enacted by the Diet.

In terms of the “rule of law,” this law lacks “legislative fact” that necessitates the legislation of the law. Under such judicial circumstances, the enactment of such a law may destroy the order that the majority of the people have enjoyed and shake the stability of justice and order of law, leading to the destruction of the people’s peace, security and happiness. As a legislation, such law is digression of the “rule of law.”

On July 11, 2023, the Supreme Court made a decision allowing the plaintiff with gender identity disorder, who works for the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and is married with a wife and child(ren), physically looks like a man, has not undergone the requisite gender reassignment surgery due to health-related reasons and claims to be a woman, to use any women’s restroom within the Ministry.

By this decision, the claim made by the plaintiff with gender identity disorder has been satisfied and as far as this person’s right is concerned, it is protected. On the other hand, as for the majority of female workers at the Ministry, their right to use women’s restrooms in peace and quiet which has been enjoyed so far came to be violated.

In the first place, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry had the person in question to use the restrictively specified women’s restroom within the Ministry but did not prohibit the person from using any of the women’s restrooms.

On the part of the Supreme Court, it is not their mission to directly resolve the inconvenience of the plaintiff. Rather, considering the right of the majority of female workers to use women’s restrooms in peace and quiet, the Ministry restricted the use of women’s restrooms by the plaintiff. Then, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether this restrictive measure taken by the Ministry against the plaintiff was within the legal range. It is against the justice of the law to destroy the order the majority of people enjoy and violate the rights of the majority.

In addition, if a person in such an unusual situation is to be protected, it is only possible by discussing the issue and making new rules that cover all of those in the same situation. However, it is the work of the Diet to make new rules through discussion.

Judiciary’s task is to decide whether an issue brought up in a lawsuit is legal or not, based on the existing laws, regulations, and customs and through such process, it decides the final interpretation of the respective laws and regulations.

In the judiciary, it is against the “rule of law” to save certain individuals by destroying the order that has been enjoyed by the majority of the people.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in our country, which must endeavor to maintain the importance of the traditional order and ensure the stability of the State.

Thus far, I have pointed out the cases that, if ignored, may lead to the collapse of the “rule of law” on the part of the judicial, legislative, and executive branches and this should be my warning about the possible collapse of the “rule of law.”

[Please refer to this author’s book Basic Theory on Judiciary—Its Structure of the Rule of Law (Published by Kyodo Shuppan, 1973)

Japanese : 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.