I was truly stunned to read what the Asahi Shimbun had to say about Japan’s policy on collective self-defense in its April 7th edition, as front-page articles prominently displayed headlines that read: “63% Oppose the Nation’s Exercising of Its Right to Collective Self-Defense” and “Opposition Increasing Over Last Year.”

　　　Whether Japan should exercise its right to collective self-defense is strictly  a matter that Japan will decide on its own. And yet the Asahi took the trouble of assigning research firms in China and South Korea to interview local respondents on how they viewed the matter.

　　　It is China’s ever-heightening military threat that has compelled Japan to expedite a final decision on the use of its right to collective self-defense. In case of a conflict involving North Korea, Japan also would not be able to sufficiently support South Korea—which has an important bearing on our security—unless Japan was capable of exercising the right to collective self-defense, making it possible to cooperate with the US closely. Another pressing factor is the on-going Chinese support of the North.

　　　Despite such a backdrop, the Asahi dared seek Chinese and South Korean views—of all things. The 49-point questionnaire the liberal mass-circulation daily prepared included questions regarding the respondents’ approval of the administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Japan’s relations with China and South Korea, the so-called “comfort women,” and a revision of the Japanese constitution—along with collective self-defense.

　　　At a critical time when a decision to exercise the right to collective self-defense is mandatory in order to have the US-Japan Security Treaty function properly, with China constituting the biggest security concern for the US-Japan alliance, what hidden purpose does the Asahi have in asking Chinese and South Koreans how they view Japan’s security posture? This is clearly different from asking questions about the war or other issues of a more emotional nature that might exist between Japan and its neighbors.

　　　I must further note that the questions the daily asked were markedly biased. For example, it asked:

　　　1) “For Japan, the right to collective self-defense means the right to fight alongside its allies when they and/or their armed forces are attacked by adversaries, by regarding such attacks as directed against Japan even if it is not directly attacked. It is the Japanese government’s interpretation that Japan has the right but Article 9 of the Japanese constitution does not allow that right to be exercised. What do you think about Japan’s right to collective self-defense?”

　　　The first bias manifest in the questionnaire is the omission of all of the pertinent premises ordinarily required in asking such an involved question. The Asahi blatantly failed to introduce the fact that the right to collective self-defense is what the United Nations recognizes for all of its member nations, including China and South Korea, that any nation can exercise it at will, but that Japan is the only nation on earth that has refrained from using it, having stringently interpreted its “peace” constitution since the end of the war.

China the One Threatening Regional Stability

　　　It is likely that Chinese and South Korean respondents interviewed by the research firms had given little thought to Japan’s collective self-defense and probably also had absolutely no idea that only Japan has strictly refrained from exercising the use of this right.

　　　As it is, the Chinese and the South Koreans are daily exposed to anti-Japanese propaganda, being given the impression that Japan is recklessly seeking to become a military super-power. Isn’t the Asahi only adding to such images of Japan through its own biased reporting? Therefore, it could easily be expected that a majority of respondents would choose answer A: “Maintaining its present position that the right to collective self-defense cannot be exercised (would be better),” instead of answer B: (“Enabling Japan to exercise the right (would be better).” In point of fact, 95% of the Chinese and 85% of the South Korean respondents chose answer A.

　　　The Asahi’s strong dislike of Prime Minister Abe is evident in the phrasing of its second question, as it presents increased military cooperation between the US and Japan as a apparently dangerous development:
　　　2) “The Abe administration is trying to strengthen Japan’s military cooperation with the US through various measures, including consideration of exercising the right to collective self-defense. Which of the following effects (A: plus, B: minus) do you think such a posture by the Abe administration will have on the peace and security of East Asia?”

　　　To this question, 94% of the Chinese and 88% of the Korean respondents replied that “negative effects would be greater”—an easily predictable result.

　　　The next question, equally biased, was: “With the Abe administration trying to strengthen military cooperation with the US by such measures as possibly introducing a new policy of collective self-defense, do you think military tensions in East Asia will increase?”

　　　Those who answered “yes” far outnumbered those who said “no,” as 94% of the Chinese and 78% of the Korean respondents replied in the positive. Questions 2) and 3) reflect a gross misinterpretation of the true nature of today‘s situation in Asia. Both mistake the cause for the effect, and were asked of the wrong people.

　　　Clearly, it is China’s abnormal military expansion that has been threatening the peace and stability of East Asia—certainly not military cooperation between the US and Japan. China, the world’s second largest military power, this year increased its defense budget by 12.2% over last year. Having managed to become a military super-power over the years, China has declared the South China Sea, Taiwan, and the Senkaku Islands as part of its core interests. In the South China Sea, it is now in the process of wresting Scarborough Reef and Ayungin Reef from the Philippines. It has established an arbitrary air defense identification zone (ADIZ) over an area including the Senkakus. At this very moment, Chinese patrol boats are repeatedly violating Japanese territorial waters and cruising in the contiguous zone at will. US-Japan military cooperation exists in order to deter such Chinese military threats.

　　　Not only East Asia alone but all of Asia is confronted by tensions attributable to Beijing’s opaque and massive militarization, hegemony, and acts of aggression. The purpose of Japan exercising its right to collective self-defense and seeking strengthened military cooperation with the US is strictly to exercise deterrence and prevent the Chinese military threat from leading to regional strife or a full-scale war. The Philippines, Malaysia, India, and Australia, as well as the rest of the Asia-Pacific nations are eagerly looking forward to the outcome of the joint efforts being made by the US and Japan.

Intentionally False Reports

　　　With the recent opinion polls, the Asahi attempted to induce the respondents into believing that the moves by the Abe Administration to introduce a new policy of collective self-defense are hideous and terrifying efforts to destabilize Asia. On top of this, it carried the results of the survey on its front-page, attempting to put a check on the Japanese government’s approval of the right to collective self-defense. It noted that “serious repercussions will be expected not only from the governments of China and South Korea, but also from the peoples of both nations should the Abe administration approve and actually exercise the right…”

　　　This is stirring up trouble in order to gain credit from the solution. The “comfort women” issue, fully taken advantage of by China and South Korea in their attempts to denigrate the dignity of Japan internationally, was created in a similar way. An article carried in the daily’s August 11, 1991 issue, written by its house reporter Takashi Uemura, was one of the major sparks that set off that contrived controversy. Unjustifiably linking members of the war-time Women’s Volunteer Corps with military prostitutes, the reporter wrote that Japanese authorities had forced young Korean women from the volunteer corps into prostitution around Japanese military bases, not understanding that the Corps was made up of young Korean women dedicated to labor service under Japanese rule and had absolutely nothing to do with prostitution. Mr. Uemura speaks Korean and his wife is Korean. Her mother—Uemura’s Korean mother-in-law—is a senior official of the Association of the Bereaved Families of Korean Victims of the Asia-Pacific War, an organization which has filed lawsuits against the Japanese government, demanding an apology and compensation on behalf of the “comfort women.”

　　　Uemura’s reporting is not a simple matter of mistaken information; he has in fact fabricated his stories. It is the Asahi that must take the brunt of the blame. In its editorials, as well as its popular Vox Populi, Vox Dei columns, the daily persistently disseminated a picture whereby the Women’s Volunteer Corps equals enforced prostitution during the war-years. While thus stirring up anti-Japanese sentiments both at home and abroad through fabricated reports and stories, the Asahi has persistently demanded an apology from the Japanese government.

　　　That is why I said at the outset that I was truly stunned. Those of you interested in how militant this influential daily was during the war would find interesting A thorough Examination of War-Time Reports by the Asahi Shimbun (Ota Shuppan Co., 1995). It actually is a reprint of the same book put out by a different publisher in 1994 under a slightly different tittle, which the Asahi’s publisher had managed to force out of print. After you peruse it, you will also be surprised that this daily still sells a whopping 7 million copies a day.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 603 in the April 17, 2014 issue of The Weekly Shincho)