As thoughtful Japanese seriously question their government’s ability to disseminate information globally, especially to the US, the US Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a report entitled Japan-US relations: Issues for Congress, stressing the importance of the bilateral relationship. Surprisingly, however, the report also incorporates assertions that entirely reflect Chinese and South Korean claims concerning the so-called ‘historical issues,” such as those involving “comfort women” and visits to Yasukuni Shrine. All this shows the shabby state of Japan’s global information strategy.

　　　　　In a summary at the outset of the 33-page report—initially submitted to the Congress on November 24—the CRS stresses the importance of Japan in connection with America’s security role in Asia and the ongoing Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP). It clearly states that the Obama administration has actively supported Abe’s goals of rejuvenating the economy and solidifying the US-Japan alliance since the return of his Liberal-Democratic Party (LDP) to power in late 2012.

　　　　　In the next paragraph, however, the report quickly resorts to criticizing Abe, pointing out that he is “known for his strong nationalist views,” then charging: “…Abe’s approach to issues like the so-called ‘comfort women’ sex slaves from the World War II era, history textbooks, visits to the Yasukuni Shrine that honors Japan’s war dead (including ‘class-A’ war criminals), and statements on a territorial dispute with South Korea (and China) are all ongoing points of tension in the region.

　　　　　“To many U.S. observers, Abe brings both positive and negative qualities to the alliance, at once bolstering it but also renewing historical animosities that could disturb the regional security environment.”

　　　　　Although rational enough in its analysis to positively evaluate the results of Abe’s policies, one wonders if the five specialists who compiled the report have not been influenced by some preconceived notions and irrational sentiments about Japan, leading them to suspect there somehow may be some mysterious intentions hidden behind Abe’s words and deeds. Consequently, they repeat the process of praising his achievements and then quickly running him down, incorrectly assessing who this man is. This repetition is also conspicuous in the section entitled Japan’s Foreign Policy and US-Japan Relations.

Cabinet Ministers as Ultra-Nationalists?

　　　　　For example, the report credits the Abe Administration with having enhanced the US-Japan military alliance, taking steps to help break the logjam on the realignment of US forces in Japan, fortifying the Japanese presence in the diplomatic and security arenas in East Asia, and participating in TPP negotiations. On the other hand, the report turns around and charges: “Simultaneously, however, Abe and his government also have jeopardized U.S. strategic interests in the region by taking steps that have aggravated historical animosities between Japan and its neighbors, particularly China and South Korea.”

　　　　　Japan’s problems with China that the report refers to are in fact such issues as the frequent violations of Japanese territorial waters around the Senkaku Islands by Chinese government patrol boats; the construction of a memorial hall at Harbin Railway Station honoring An Jung-geun; the “Nanjing Incident” in which the number of Chinese victims, as fabricated by China, has ballooned to 400,000; and the anti-Japanese war on history the Communist Party promotes, using the US as its main field of action.

　　　　　In late 2013 the US State Department expressed “disappointment” over Abe’s visit to Yasukuni Shrine, but showed absolutely no reaction to the construction in January 2014 of the An Jung-geun memorial hall. An was a terrorist who assassinated Hirobumi Ito, a former Japanese prime minister, at Harbin Station in 1909. It was fundamentally wrong for the administration of President Xi Jing-pin to build the memorial hall at the behest of South Korean President Park Guen-hye. I seriously wonder why the US failed to express “disappointment” in that particular case.

　　　　　As regards the causes of Japan’s deteriorating ties with South Korea, the report clearly has in mind matters relating to Korean “comfort women” and the territorial dispute over Takeshima.

　　　　　However, Japan feels strongly that these and other matters have rocked its relations with China and South Korea not because the Abe administration has “taken steps that have aggravated historical animosities,” as is claimed by the CRS, but rather because Beijing and Seoul have deliberately set about making them diplomatic issues.

　　　　　Abe’s words and deeds are clearly not the direct cause of the deterioration of Japan’s relations with China and South Korea; the fact is neither nation would even agree to Abe’s proposal for summit meetings made soon after his administration got under way in late December 2012. And yet the CRS report renders a judgment holding Abe solely accountable.

　　　　　In a section devoted to Abe and History Issues, the report unjustly accuses Abe, stating that historical issues have long colored Japan’s relationships with its neighbors, particularly with China and South Korea, who “argue that the Japanese government has neither sufficiently atoned for nor adequately compensated them for Japan’s occupation and belligerence in the earth 20th century.”

　　　　　In 1965, at the end of lengthy negotiations lasting over 13 years, Japan and South Korea signed the Japan-Republic of Korea Basic Relations Treaty to normalize their relations. Although still far from a well-off country at the time, Tokyo extended to Seoul US$500 million—nearly a third of its modest foreign currency reserves of some US$1.8 billion. Post-war Japan has also extended to China over 3.6 trillion yen (approximately US$30 billion) in ODA (Official Development Aid). However, the report is relentless in its criticism of Japan without bothering to refer to these contributions, maintaining:

　　　　　“Abe’s selections for his Cabinets include a number of politicians well-known for advocating nationalist, and in some cases ultra-nationalist, views that many argue appear to glorify Imperial Japan’s actions.”

　　　　　Who on earth are these “ultra-nationalist” cabinet ministers the report refers to? Who are the cabinet ministers Abe has selected who “glorify Imperial Japan’s actions”? Because no such cabinet ministers come to mind, I would respectfully ask that the five specialists, who have so confidently compiled this report, identify them for me.

“Weak Japan” Faction vs “Strong Japan” Faction in the US

　　　　　The US fails to understand Japan correctly, because Japan has over the years failed to disseminate pertinent information about our policies and actions. For instance, in a section entitled Comfort Women Issue, the report points out: “The issue of the so-called ‘comfort women’ has gained visibility in the United States, due primarily to Korean-American activist groups.” In point of fact, Korean-American activists, supported by their Chinese counterparts, have persistently spread false stories about the “comfort women” issue. Americans, who before had never heard anything about “comfort women,” were now bombarded by fabricated information about the “coerced transportation” of “200,000 Korean women” to Japanese military brothels as “sex slaves,” most of whom allegedly “were murdered” when the war ended in an attempt to hide any evidence of wrongdoing.

　　　　　A host of such disinformation, extremely vexing to us Japanese, has been taken at face value by the so-called experts compiling the CRS report addressed to members of the US Congress. It may sound as though I am being sarcastic, but doesn’t this demonstrate that Americans do have at least some willingness to listen to others?

　　　　　I do believe Americans will listen to us too on such matters as the “comfort women,” visits to Yasukuni Shrine, and the “Nanjing Incident” so long as we prepare our information meticulously and explain our position logically. This points to the importance of our readiness and ability to disseminate information properly.

　　　　　But there is a thick wall blocking our way—what I suspect is the state of mind of those Americans who accuse Abe and his administration with words such as “ultra-nationalism” and “historical revisionism.” These Americans are eager to see Japan continue to remain weak and fragile. During the Occupation, there were Americans who wanted to leave Japan “forever fragile without allowing it to rearm itself”—the so-called “weak Japan faction” centering around the Government Section of GHQ (General Headquarters of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers). Meanwhile, there also was a group advocating a strong Japan, eager to see Japan regain commensurate national power as an independent nation after a certain period of time following the end of the war. The strong aversion to Abe’s advocacy of a revision of the post-war constitution and his visit to Yasukuni Shrine have much in common with the philosophy of the group of Americans favoring a weak Japan.

　　　　　On a clear understanding that there still is a deep-rooted thinking in the US that refuses to approve of Japan becoming a truly independent nation, we must make every effort to deliver a message to the US that only a Japan that is firmly committed to secure true national independence can play the part of America’s reliable strategic partner, making its contribution to protecting and enhancing mankind’s universal values of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 640 in the January 22, 2015 issue of The Weekly Shincho)