How did UN Special Rapporteur David Kaye, who criticized freedom of expression in Japan, receive advice and support from academics and activists including Alexis Dudden and Jeffrey Wasserstrom, an editor associated with the left-wing magazine Dissent?
Based on an investigation by Jason Morgan and Michael Yon, this article examines the network surrounding Kaye, the preparation of his UN reports, questions concerning leaked FOIA requests, and the links among American academics, activists, and media figures involved in criticism of Japan.

October 29, 2020
This chapter was originally published on August 2, 2019.
【Note on This Republication】
Words such as the United Nations, human rights, and freedom of expression carry authority in themselves.
However, the fairness of a UN report cannot be judged without examining who supplied its information, who advised its author, whose assessments were accepted, and within what network of personal and political relationships the report was produced.
This chapter introduces an investigative article by Jason Morgan and Michael Yon published in the Japanese monthly magazine Seiron under the title “The American Left-Wing Academics Supporting Special Rapporteur Kaye.”
The descriptions below concerning personal relationships, email exchanges, and the conduct of the university are based on the investigation and arguments presented by Morgan and Yon.
Those who rely only on newspapers such as the Asahi Shimbun and on NHK broadcasts cannot understand the full structure of the debates and networks being formed outside Japan concerning this country.
That month’s issue of Seiron demonstrated this once again.
Japanese citizens must obtain such articles and examine the original material for themselves.
【The Reappearance of David Kaye】
It had been some time since I last saw this name.
David Kaye had served as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
On June 24, 2019, as the UN Human Rights Council opened its session, Kaye submitted another report concerning Japan.
In a report released in May 2017, Kaye had argued that freedom of opinion and expression in Japan was being chilled by pressure from the government.
His 2019 report again expressed concern about the independence of the Japanese media.
He suggested that the Act on the Protection of Specially Designated Secrets might be discouraging reporting in Japan.
He also claimed that official pressure continued against protests opposing the relocation of a U.S. military base in Okinawa and called on the authorities to respect freedom of assembly and expression.
Kaye further stated that Japan had failed to implement nine of the eleven recommendations contained in his 2017 report, including revision of the secrecy law and abolition of Article 4 of the Broadcast Act.
In response, then Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga stated at a press conference on June 5, 2019, that the Japanese government had repeatedly and carefully explained its position.
Nevertheless, he said, the government’s explanations had not been adequately reflected in the report.
Suga rejected the report on the grounds that it contained numerous assertions that were inaccurate or unsupported.
【Why Was Kaye Selected?】
After the publication of the 2017 report, Morgan and Yon began investigating who Kaye was and why he had emerged as the UN rapporteur examining Japan.
Their central question was why a person who did not appear to possess especially extensive knowledge of Japan had suddenly assumed a prominent role in international criticism of the country.
Kaye was a clinical professor at the University of California, Irvine School of Law.
Morgan and Yon noted that this title belonged to a professional academic track different from the ordinary research-professor promotion system.
They questioned why the United Nations had not selected a more prominent Japan specialist or a scholar with a more established academic reputation in the field.
They also suggested another possibility.
The fact that Kaye was not widely known in Japan may have made him a convenient figure through whom the project could be carried out without attracting immediate attention.
Kaye did not gather all the information or prepare the reports entirely by himself.
According to the investigation, he worked in cooperation with a network of American academics and activists already engaged in criticism of Japan.
【The Relationship with Alexis Dudden】
One of the central figures to emerge from the investigation was Professor Alexis Dudden of the University of Connecticut.
Dudden and Professor Jordan Sand of Georgetown University were known for helping to lead a statement by American academics demanding a comprehensive apology from the Japanese government over the comfort women issue.
That controversy followed the publication of a McGraw-Hill high school world history textbook containing claims about forced recruitment and “200,000 sex slaves.”
In April 2016, after Kaye returned to California from a visit to Japan undertaken in preparation for his UN report, Dudden appeared with him at a meeting held at the University of California, Irvine.
Concerned about the relationship between a UN special rapporteur and an academic widely known for political activism critical of Japan, Morgan and Yon began a formal investigation.
In November 2018, they submitted a public-records request to the University of California, Irvine seeking documents relating to Kaye.
In February 2019, the university released approximately seventy-five pages of email exchanges.
However, as the university itself acknowledged, the disclosed documents represented only a small portion of the records that might have fallen within the scope of the request.
The university refused to release further materials, arguing that records relating to Kaye’s UN activities were not public records.
Morgan and Yon asked what state or federal authority had determined that activities connected with the United Nations were exempt from disclosure.
They received no clear answer.
Thus, when journalists began examining a man publicly associated with the defense of press freedom and freedom of expression, his employer adopted a highly restrictive approach to disclosure.
【How Did the Public-Records Request Become Known Outside the University?】
Morgan and Yon submitted a further request for Kaye’s email records in order to assess his independence and determine whether he had connections with foreign governments or overseas political organizations.
Only a few days after the second request, the Nelson Report, an influential American newsletter covering East Asian affairs, reported on the request on February 15, 2019.
Morgan and Yon had not publicly disclosed that they had filed it.
Nevertheless, the Nelson Report described its content in considerable detail.
The item was written by Mindy Kotler.
Kotler was an associate of Dudden and was known for activism critical of Japan, particularly concerning the comfort women issue.
Morgan and Yon argued that her network extended through academic institutions, media organizations, and political activists in Washington.
Kotler had also been involved in the political activities of former Japanese-American congressman Mike Honda.
According to her professional biography, she advised Honda on the drafting and advocacy of the 2007 U.S. House of Representatives resolution concerning the comfort women issue.
The Nelson Report item carried a headline asserting that “the Japanese right” was using the Freedom of Information Act to silence American scholars.
It claimed that people who denied Japanese history had attempted to intimidate or silence academics in the United States.
It also described Morgan and Yon as appearing to work closely with Nippon Kaigi or the religious organization Happy Science.
Both men categorically denied having any connection with either organization.
They stated that they did not know where the false information had originated.
They also suggested that Kotler may have relied primarily on English-language material without sufficiently examining information available in Japanese.
【The University’s Information Management and Accountability】
Why did Kotler know about both the existence and the contents of a public-records request that had not been publicly disclosed?
To investigate that question, Morgan and Yon submitted another request seeking email correspondence between Kaye and the university’s public-records personnel.
They suspected that information concerning their request may have been passed outside the university.
The records eventually released were largely incomplete.
The university then claimed that certain correspondence between Kaye and a records officer could not be disclosed because it was protected by attorney-client privilege.
Morgan and Yon asked whether Kaye had in fact acted as the attorney or legal representative of the university employee in question.
They requested evidence supporting the privilege claim.
Again, they received no clear answer.
As long as the university maintains this explanation, its legal and factual basis should be made public.
If the claim of privilege lacked a valid legal or factual foundation, the issue would concern not only institutional accountability but also the professional conduct of those involved.
【Emails Between Kaye and Dudden】
The information released by the University of California, Irvine was limited.
Nevertheless, Morgan and Yon stated that some of the records supported their concern about the close working relationship between Kaye and Dudden.
The emails reportedly indicated that Kaye relied heavily on Dudden’s judgments and advice while preparing his 2017 UN report on freedom of expression in Japan.
Kaye forwarded messages from organizations and individuals to Dudden and asked her to assess their political positions and credibility.
Dudden classified certain people and groups she opposed as “conservative” or “far right” and warned Kaye about them.
In an email dated May 3, 2017, Dudden reportedly warned Kaye and two others about the Japanese organization the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact.
She described the group as directly connected to the administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
On May 11, 2016, Kaye asked Dudden for help identifying a person who had contacted him concerning his UN activities.
“I do not know this person,” he wrote in substance.
“Do you?”
That same day, Dudden sent information concerning a “Ms. Kitajima” connected with Fujisankei Communications International.
She described the person as a central figure in media opposition to the installation of comfort women statues in California.
The message reportedly included descriptions such as “the center of far-right reporting” and the word “wacky.”
It was unclear whether the word referred to the person or to the surrounding situation.
However, the disclosed exchange did not appear to show Kaye asking for clarification or objecting to language that could be understood as disparaging a journalist.
On the previous day, May 10, 2016, Dudden had sent Kaye a warning concerning Sankei Shimbun journalist Yoshihisa Komori.
She reportedly described Komori, a longtime Washington bureau chief, as someone who produced nothing but fabrications.
Later that day, she sent another message criticizing what she called an outrageous article written by Komori.
【The Involvement of Jeffrey Wasserstrom】
Kaye also received support from Professor Jeffrey Wasserstrom of the University of California, Irvine.
Wasserstrom is a historian of modern China and was described in the article as being involved in the editorial work of the left-wing magazine Dissent and as maintaining a close relationship with Dudden.
He was also critical of the Sankei Shimbun.
On May 10, 2016, Dudden sent an email simultaneously to Wasserstrom and Kaye stating that “David” was being subjected to relentless and ridiculous treatment in a Sankei article.
In other exchanges, Wasserstrom reportedly helped Kaye and Dudden decide whether people contacting them about the UN investigation were acting in political good faith.
What emerges is the possibility that a UN special rapporteur did not independently and neutrally evaluate information received from Japan.
Instead, messages may have been forwarded to academics with clearly identifiable political positions, who then classified the senders as “conservative,” “far right,” trustworthy, well-intentioned, or suspect.
If a UN report is intended to provide an impartial assessment of the Japanese government, media, and environment for public expression, then its information-gathering and evaluation process must itself be transparent and politically neutral.
The released emails, however, appeared to reveal a network of academics, activists, and media figures united by a broadly similar critical posture toward Japan.
Members of that network may have participated in judging which Japanese sources were credible and which should be disregarded.
【UN Reports Must Not Be Accepted on Authority Alone】
The fact that a report carries the name of the United Nations does not by itself prove that its contents are accurate, fair, or neutral.
What matters is who supplied the information, who selected the witnesses, who excluded opposing views, and who advised the rapporteur in making the judgments on which the report was based.
If the Japanese government’s explanations were not adequately reflected, while the views of academics and activists holding a particular political position were given disproportionate weight, the legitimacy of the report must be examined from the ground up.
Individuals and institutions that invoke freedom of expression and freedom of the press must not reject public-records requests or critical scrutiny directed at themselves.
There is a serious contradiction when they demand transparency from others but refuse to disclose their own emails, sources, advisers, and decision-making processes.
Japanese citizens must not be overawed by labels and authorities such as the United Nations, universities, academics, activists, or major media organizations.
What is required is to read primary sources, verify personal and institutional relationships, and examine who is circulating information, for what purpose, and from what ideological standpoint.
To be continued.