In my June 28, 2017 article, “The Same Is True for People Around the World, but I Will Tell Them,” I discussed Haruki Murakami’s description of the Nanjing Incident within the context of Asahi Shimbun-like anti-Japanese discourse, Chinese propaganda, and the international information war.
In a dialogue between Masayuki Takayama and Kent Gilbert published in the monthly magazine WiLL, issues such as the Asahi Shimbun, NHK, the comfort women issue, the so-called Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal, and the problem of anti-Japanese researchers on the Chinese side were taken up.
Within that discussion, there was also mention of a Chinese-side researcher who had advanced the theory of “410,000” former Japanese military comfort women.
There, I viewed Haruki Murakami’s reference to the figure of “400,000” as the number of victims in the Nanjing Incident in Killing Commendatore as overlapping with this context of Chinese propaganda.
Of course, there is the escape route that it is dialogue spoken by a character in a novel.
However, if a Japanese writer with worldwide name recognition places such a number inside his work, there is a sufficient possibility that the Chinese side will use it politically.
In fact, it was reported at the time that Chinese media and related institutions had shown reactions evaluating Haruki Murakami’s stance positively.
What I questioned was not only Haruki Murakami’s literary expression itself.
It was the gravity of a Japanese writer with global influence circulating, within his work, an inaccurate or extremely dangerous number concerning Japan’s modern and contemporary history.
I also felt a strong sense of strangeness about the fact that he was being elevated as a world-famous writer while the Japanese people knew almost nothing about where he was or what he was doing.
I also found strange his way of writing works while staying at luxury resorts and hotels around the world.
Through the controversy over the reference to 400,000 in the Nanjing Incident, that sense of strangeness emerged not as a mere impression, but as a problem that should be considered from the viewpoint of international information warfare.
At that point, I was strongly alert to the danger that the existence known as Haruki Murakami could, as a result, be used by anti-Japanese propaganda from China and South Korea.
That alertness was by no means absurd.
The Nanjing issue, the comfort women issue, the Asahi Shimbun, NHK, Chinese-side researchers, the United Nations and UNESCO, and a writer with worldwide name recognition such as Haruki Murakami.
These were not separate problems when considering postwar Japan’s discourse space and international anti-Japanese propaganda.
In June 2017, I believed it was necessary to tell people around the world about that structure.
2011
I criticized the lack of intellect surrounding the evaluation of Haruki Murakami.
2014
I criticized the “cheap liquor” statement and Asahi Shimbun-like hypocrisy.
January 2016
I criticized Kenzaburo Oe, Haruki Murakami, Tatsuya Uchida, and others as pseudo-moralists of postwar Japan.
November 2016
I criticized the Nanjing issue, UNESCO, the United Nations, the Asahi Shimbun, Kenzaburo Oe, and Haruki Murakami as a structure of anti-Japanese propaganda and pseudo-moralism.
March 2017
I criticized the reference to 400,000 in the description of the Nanjing Incident in Killing Commendatore.
April 2017
I annotated, for readers around the world, Nobuyuki Kaji’s theory of peace treaties, Japan’s support for China and South Korea, and the falsehood of the theory of eternal apology.
June 2017
I criticized the danger of Haruki Murakami in the context of the theory of 400,000 in Nanjing, Asahi Shimbun- and NHK-like anti-Japanese discourse, Chinese propaganda, and information warfare.
Looking at it in this way, one can see that my criticism of Haruki Murakami was not a mere matter of literary likes or dislikes.
From the beginning, it questioned the lack of intellect in Japanese literary evaluation.
Eventually, it moved on to Asahi Shimbun-like hypocrisy, postwar Japan’s pseudo-moralism, the Nanjing issue, the political nature of the United Nations and UNESCO, anti-Japanese propaganda by China and South Korea, and the problem of information warfare.
The existence known as Haruki Murakami stood at the place where all of these intersected.
That is why I have criticized him.
I was not discussing Haruki Murakami alone.
Through Haruki Murakami, I was discussing postwar Japan’s discourse space, literary space, historical awareness, and the stagnation of civilization.