Continuation from the previous chapter — July 17, 2019
Abe’s Unyielding Position on History
But Abe was different. Regarding his visits to Yasukuni Shrine, he clearly stated: “Yasukuni is in Japan. There is no place in Japan that a Japanese prime minister cannot visit.”
And his response to the comfort women issue was even more remarkable: “That was a story fabricated by that fraud Yoshida Seiji, which was then spread as fact and inflated by Mr. Hoshi’s Asahi Shimbun.” He stated outright that the responsibility lay entirely with Asahi Shimbun for having spread false reporting.
Before that, Asahi had brought down Abe’s first administration. Given that history, his response was only natural, and Hoshi surely knew this when he asked the question.
With Abe’s statement, his second administration proceeded steadily to investigate the comfort women issue. The first thing that was revealed was the baselessness of the Kōno Statement.
The Unraveling of Asahi’s Fabrications
Asahi Shimbun, having prompted Hoshi to ask the question, was preparing to launch a campaign to bury Abe’s second administration as well. However, in doing so, they found themselves publicly challenged to prove that “Yoshida Seiji” was not a fraud.
Then-president Kimura Tadakazu promptly ordered that proof be provided showing Yoshida as a “disciple of masochistic historical consciousness” who spoke the truth.
But what emerged was that none of Yoshida’s claims—starting from his name and background to his alleged rounding-up of 200 Korean women on Jeju Island with the help of ten soldiers—was true.
Despite this, Asahi had long continued to spin off derivative stories based on Yoshida’s lies—such as Yayori Matsui’s claim about the abduction of six women in Busan, or Takashi Uemura’s report on Kim Hak-sun in Seoul.
They could offer no excuse.
Thus, two years after Hoshi’s infamous question, Asahi Shimbun was forced to admit that Yoshida’s story was a lie and to offer up their president’s resignation. Any normal newspaper would have shut down after spreading a lie that defamed Japan for 30 years.
Yet this episode was the first to pierce a hole in Japan’s once-impenetrable masochistic historical view. That is why the good-natured Japanese public allowed Asahi to survive.
A Shift from Subtle Lies to Open Bias
However, judging from Hoshi’s latest article, Asahi Shimbun shows little sign of improvement. Rather than feigning objectivity while delivering anti-Japanese messages through elaborate deception, they now appear to be embracing a strategy of straightforward bias.
A case in point is their coverage of the recent security legislation, which unapologetically pushed anti-Abe narratives, openly agitating fears about a possible reinstatement of the draft system.
Critique of Article 9 and the Logic of Self-Defense
Continuation from the previous chapter
The Misguided Defense of the SDF
It is also mistaken to defend the Self-Defense Forces on the grounds that “sovereign states naturally possess the right to self-defense.”
Before asserting that, one must first acknowledge three things:
Guerrilla warfare by militias cannot protect a nation.
The Gandhian method of nonviolent resistance is unworkable.
Voluntarily renouncing national sovereignty and becoming a protectorate of another country is a national disgrace that must be avoided.
Unless these points are established, the justification of the Self-Defense Forces as a governmental military unit remains untenable.
The Absurdity of Article 9, Clause 2
Furthermore, the second clause of Article 9—“to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph (the renunciation of war)”—is laughably absurd. “To remain unarmed and non-belligerent in order to avoid aggression” can only mean one of the following two (or both):
That Japanese people are so foolish they cannot distinguish between aggression and self-defense.
That Japanese people are so barbaric that they will inevitably use self-defense as a pretext for aggression.
Even conceding this point for the sake of argument, to enshrine such a notion in constitutional text and display it at the entrance of the state is not only a national disgrace—it is a nuisance to the international community.
Returning to Common Sense
Of course, we must admit that distinguishing between aggression and self-defense is difficult. But as seen in the UK’s recent self-critical report on the U.S.-UK invasion of Iraq, “with sufficient investigation, the distinction between aggression and self-defense can be made.”
And unless such distinctions are made possible, the world will devolve into nothing more than a jungle ruled by the law of the strong.
This would mean the collapse of the very notion of a “global community,” as international relations lose all social coherence.
We must return to a common-sense approach that says: “The Constitution prohibits aggression but permits self-defense,” and accept that whether overseas deployment is necessary for self-defense depends on the international situation.
The following is a continuation of the previous chapter.
Asahi’s Illogical Criticism of Government Policy
Prime Minister Abe’s Rebuttal
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has reiterated the same point multiple times: “This is not an export ban. It has nothing to do with the issue of wartime Korean laborers (so-called ‘forced labor’). We have merely reversed the preferential treatment that South Korea had previously enjoyed. The EU countries never placed South Korea on their ‘white list’ to begin with, and Japan is now applying the same policy as the EU.”
Despite emphasizing this, the prime minister—like Minister Hiroshige Seko—had not, as of July 7, explained the details of the “inappropriate incidents” referred to at the press conference.
Suspicions of Diversion to North Korea
Meanwhile, Professor Masahiko Hosokawa has stated clearly that the three aforementioned export items to South Korea have been frequently—and even routinely—diverted to North Korea. This comment was made during the July 7 broadcast of Sunday Report THE PRIME.
If those chemical substances, which are potentially convertible for military use, are indeed being transferred to North Korea, then it is only natural that South Korea should be removed from Japan’s “white country” list.
Clarifying the Nature of the Measure
It must also be emphasized again that this measure is simply a return from a bulk permit system to individual export approvals. The Asahi Shimbun’s July 3 editorial compared the move to China’s rare earth export embargo—but that comparison itself is fundamentally flawed.
Another major error in Asahi’s editorial is its assertion that this policy is Japan’s retaliation over the wartime laborer issue. In reality, this measure has absolutely no connection to the so-called “forced labor” problem.
Therefore, Asahi’s claim that the Abe administration “has brought political disputes into the realm of economic exchange” does not hold up. Nor is its assertion that “high-level diplomatic talks should be urgently pursued to resolve the situation” an appropriate recommendation.
After all, it was Japan that continued to call for dialogue over the labor issue—only to be repeatedly ignored by the South Korean side.
A Media Campaign Rooted in Ideology
Ultimately, Asahi’s irrational criticism of the government stems from a desire to prevent a constitutional revision that could follow a victory by Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party. It is nothing more than a product of Asahi’s deeply biased ideology.
Asahi Shimbun’s Irrational Anti-Government Stance: A Tool to Block Constitutional Reform
July 17, 2019
A Personal Confession of Regret
Reading the following serialized column by Yoshiko Sakurai, I am overwhelmed with shame that I had continued subscribing to the Asahi Shimbun until August five years ago. The conduct of the Asahi Shimbun described by Ms. Sakurai exposes to the entire world that only the vilest scoundrels—both men and women—work at that company.
At the same time, those who still subscribe to this newspaper are not only dragging Japan down and enabling the arrogance of China and the Korean Peninsula, but can rightly be called traitors who continue selling out Japan to them. These are people who have sided with “bottomless evil” and “plausible lies.” They are the ones who have halted the turntable of civilization and created today’s dangerously unstable world.
If you do not wish to suffer the torments of Enma, the King of Hell, then cancel your subscription to the Asahi Shimbun immediately, and switch to a subscription of the four must-read monthly magazines, along with the Sankei Shimbun. For those living in the 21st century who wish to know the truth, there is no other way.
Asahi’s Escalating Attacks on Abe Ahead of the 2019 Election
A Coordinated Media Offensive
On July 4, the House of Councillors election was officially announced, and the nation became focused on the campaign. Amidst this, the anti-Abe coverage by the Asahi Shimbun stands out prominently.
On the front page of the July 7 edition, an article by Deputy Political Editor Kyōhei Matsuda appeared under the headline “Will ‘Mocking Politics’ Continue?” The article included the following criticism of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe:
“(Prime Minister Shinzo Abe) mocks and disparages the opposition by comparing them to the failures of the Democratic Party administration.”
“He surrounds himself with allies and laughs scornfully—revealing an attitude of superiority, condescension, and exclusion.”
“For six and a half years, this ‘mocking politics’ has prevailed.”
“If such politics continue, democracy will cease to function.”
Clearly, the writer’s hatred for Abe is burning intensely.
The People Remember the “Nightmare” of the DPJ
Yet in reality, many in the public surely view the three-plus years under the Democratic Party administration as a “nightmare.” It is not true that the prime minister “surrounds himself with allies and laughs scornfully.” The proof lies in the fact that after losing power, the Democratic Party’s approval ratings continued to plummet.
That is why, ahead of the October 2017 general election, the entire party attempted to flee under Yuriko Koike’s leadership. After being rejected, the Constitutional Democratic Party was formed, followed by the emergence of the Democratic Party for the People after many twists and turns.
Because the people felt in their bones that they never wanted a return to the “nightmare” of the Democratic Party administration, the Liberal Democratic Party continued to receive popular support in subsequent elections.
If the past six and a half years had truly been just about Abe “mocking” the DPJ, the public would never have supported him. It is precisely Asahi’s warped perspective that mocks the will of the people and reveals its arrogance.
The Stakes of the July 21 House of Councillors Election
Every election is critical for national policy, but the July 21 vote carries extraordinary importance. Depending on the result, the constitutional revision long expected of the prime minister may finally become possible—or face indefinite postponement. Other pressing issues include the economy, pensions, the North Korea abduction issue, and matters concerning the Imperial Household.
Among these, constitutional reform is clearly the one the Asahi Shimbun most fears Abe will pursue. That fear likely explains the newspaper’s unrelenting and extreme attacks on him.
Vulgar Comparisons in “Tensei Jingo”
Comparing the Prime Minister to a Dog
The July 3 installment of the “Tensei Jingo” column provides a disturbing example. It states, “Yawns are contagious,” and continues, “Just like the U.S. launched a trade war against China, the Japanese government has begun export restrictions against South Korea.”
While noting that “South Korea also bears some responsibility,” it dismisses Abe’s policy as “off the mark,” then offers this crude analogy: “By the way, human yawns are apparently contagious to dogs. Research shows that dogs are especially susceptible to the influence of their loyal owners. Perhaps Japan’s government falls into that category.”
So Abe’s administration—meaning Abe himself—is being likened to a dog? Such a discourtesy is unacceptable toward anyone. Yet Asahi seems to believe that any vulgar criticism is permissible when directed at the prime minister. Is this not, in fact, the very condescending attitude they accuse Abe of having?
Editorial Demands Reversal of Export Controls
The False Analogy with U.S. and China Trade Policies
On the same day as that insulting “Tensei Jingo” column, Asahi also ran an editorial titled “Immediately Repeal Retaliatory Export Restrictions Against South Korea.” It stated: “Will Japan now join the folly being brandished by the U.S. and China in recent years? Measures that distort the principles of free trade must be retracted immediately.”
The editorial placed Japan’s actions on par with China’s suspension of rare earth exports during the Senkaku dispute, and the Trump administration’s tariff hikes under the guise of national security.
Understanding the Government’s Policy Toward South Korea
Return to Normal Procedures
On July 1, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) announced: “To appropriately implement export controls, we will apply stricter regulatory procedures for exports to South Korea.”
Specifically: ① South Korea, previously classified as a “white country,” would be removed from that status. ② Beginning July 4, three sensitive items—fluorinated polyimide, resist, and hydrogen fluoride—would no longer qualify for bulk export permits and would require individual screening.
Minister Hiroshige Seko explained that this policy was a response to “the occurrence of inappropriate incidents in export control,” though he withheld details due to confidentiality obligations.
Expert Analysis: Not “Retaliation,” but Restoration
The announcement drew a variety of responses. Professor Masahiko Hosokawa of Chubu University, former METI Director of Trade Management, clarified: This is not an “export restriction,” but simply a return to the standard procedures that existed before 2004, when South Korea was granted preferential treatment.
Under normal rules, each contract requires individual approval. Only countries deemed trustworthy in export control are designated “white countries,” allowing for simplified procedures. In such cases, a bulk permit valid for three years may be granted, enabling uninterrupted exports during that period.
