They will now begin in earnest their advance disinformation campaign claiming that Megumi and the others are already dead.
That campaign has already begun.
The following is a continuation from the previous chapter.
The Daily Newspaper's Roundtable Discussion: Treacherous Remarks
Therefore, if negotiations between the U.S. and North Korea regarding nuclear disarmament show any progress, North Korea will inevitably approach Japan next.
This could even happen as early as August.
North Korea has already begun preparing for this.
They understand that with a zero-response on the abduction issue, they cannot extract money from Japan.
However, the intelligence division and other sectors in the regime do not want to return Megumi Yokota and the others—those who were unilaterally declared “dead” in 2002—alive, as they possess many secrets related to their operations.
Thus, they will intensify the disinformation campaign claiming that Megumi and the others are dead.
In fact, that campaign has already begun.
Furthermore, whenever Japan-North Korea diplomacy seems to advance, the pro-North Korean factions within Japan, who have been keeping a low profile until now, begin to push the narrative that "the dead cannot be brought back," and that "even denuclearization alone is a major achievement, so we should offer concessions without insisting on the abduction issue."
The key to achieving the absolutely non-negotiable goal of bringing all abductees back at once and immediately lies in how effectively these moves can be suppressed.
Therefore, I would like to highlight some of the dangerous narratives and trends that emerged right after the U.S.–North Korea summit and raise public vigilance.
First, the statements made during a roundtable discussion in the June 14 edition of the Mainichi Shimbun by Masao Okonogi, Professor Emeritus at Keio University, and Hiroshi Nakanishi, Professor at Kyoto University.
Professor Okonogi criticized the Japanese government's policy of only normalizing diplomatic relations with North Korea after resolving the abduction and nuclear missile issues. He argued that normalization should come first, and made the following remarks.
In doing so, he downplayed the abduction issue as merely “a matter of family requests,” ignoring the fundamental issue of the violation of sovereignty and human rights committed by a state crime.
"Currently, Japan insists on resolving the abduction, nuclear, and missile issues before normalization of relations. But the nuclear and missile problems cannot be solved unless North Korea takes action. The abduction issue is driven by strong demands from the families of the victims. It will certainly become increasingly difficult to resolve. North Korea, on the other hand, prioritizes normalization of diplomatic relations. Japan must be prepared to reconsider its order of priorities.”
Professor Nakanishi, meanwhile, questioned the government's position of assuming the abductees are alive, and effectively called on Japan to accept their deaths without any evidence.
Furthermore, he opposed the government's policy of not providing economic aid without resolving the abduction issue, and instead demanded that economic support for denuclearization be given even before the abduction issue is resolved.
"It is not entirely unreasonable to base negotiations on the assumption that the abductees are alive, given that North Korea is untrustworthy. But if, unfortunately, they are deceased, how should Japan bring the issue to a conclusion? Japanese diplomats need to clarify this. In the end, we will likely have to return to the original intent of the Pyongyang Declaration: to resolve outstanding issues and normalize relations. The best course now might be to proceed with normalization talks while Japan plays a certain role in denuclearization. Providing economic aid without resolving the abduction issue would draw public backlash, but denuclearization has legitimacy and could become an important channel for involvement in the Korean Peninsula."
If such views gain traction, Prime Minister Abe’s firm stance of “no support without resolution,” and his insistence that “resolution” means the immediate and collective return of all victims, will inevitably be weakened.
This is a dangerously treacherous remark.
And yet, the Mainichi Shimbun—which should have long been defunct—still exists, and on its pages, we see shameless apologists for North Korea like Masao Okonogi of Keio University and Hiroshi Nakanishi of Kyoto University. What kind of intelligence do these professors truly possess?
I must say, just knowing that Masao Okonogi made such statements makes me hold Keio University in contempt, and likewise, that Hiroshi Nakanishi made such remarks makes me regard Kyoto University with disdain.
To be continued.
