If China’s financial contributions to international organizations such as the WHO are considered a legitimate basis for exercising political influence, why did Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs fail to use Japan’s enormous contributions to resist anti-Japanese propaganda within bodies such as the United Nations Human Rights Council?
Through a critique of remarks made by Kunihiko Miyake and Mariko Bando on BS TV Tokyo’s Nikkei Plus 10, this article examines Japanese diplomacy, international organizations, attitudes toward China, and media assessments of the Abe government’s response to COVID-19.

July 17, 2020
Recently, I have often found myself watching programs on TV Tokyo.
TV Tokyo’s World Business Satellite and BS TV Tokyo’s Nikkei Plus 10 are, to put it extremely, completely different programs.
Nikkei Plus 10 is no different from the reporting of NHK or the Asahi Shimbun.
To put it bluntly, it is a worthless program.
Kunihiko Miyake’s appearance last night was also appalling.
Although he attempted to present himself as moderate and balanced, his position was ultimately no different from a pro-China stance, and he devoted himself to defending China’s conduct within the WHO and other organizations.
What made his attitude even more unpleasant was the arrogance that appeared intermittently beneath it, as though he were saying, “Unlike all of you, I am thoroughly familiar with the United Nations and international politics.”
When the host asked for his opinion concerning China’s conduct toward the WHO, he defended China by saying something to the following effect:
“Providing money also means having a say and exercising political influence, and therefore it is not something that should be criticized.”
Inwardly, I raised a thunderous cry worthy of Nobunaga.
“If that is so, why did you officials of Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs fail to exercise political influence and prevent attacks against Japan based on anti-Japanese propaganda when the United Nations Human Rights Council repeatedly issued absurd human-rights recommendations against Japan?
Japan continued to provide the United Nations with an overwhelmingly enormous amount of money, second only to the United States and far beyond the contributions of most other nations.
Why did you not use that position to defend Japan?
Japan was providing several times more money than China.
You blockhead!”
I had already lost any desire to continue watching the program, but today I happened to turn to the channel again.
Mariko Bando appeared as a guest commentator.
As expected, she did not praise Prime Minister Abe as a political leader who had responded to the coronavirus crisis.
Like the many so-called intellectuals who display an excessive admiration for Germany, the politician she cited as having responded admirably was Angela Merkel.
I was thoroughly disgusted and immediately changed the channel.
That is why I have reluctantly written this article.
I also wish to say the following to Mariko Bando and to the program producers who treat people like her as figures deserving reverence.
Do you understand the difference between the German Constitution and the Japanese Constitution, and the almost unspeakably vast difference in the restrictions they impose?
Despite the absurd restrictions placed upon it, Japan—and Prime Minister Abe—achieved remarkable results.
The evidence can be seen in the number of infections, the number of deaths, and the substance and financial scale of the emergency economic measures, among other things.
The pattern in which graduates of the University of Tokyo, unable to understand something so simple that even an elementary school pupil could grasp it, demean Japan while being presented as intellectuals ended long ago.
Enough is enough.
Nikkei Plus 10.
Mariko Bando.
【Editorial Note】
The issue raised in this article is not whether financial contributions to international organizations are in themselves right or wrong.
If China’s conversion of financial contributions into political influence is to be explained as a natural part of international politics, the same logic must also be applied to Japan.
For many years, Japan was one of the principal financial contributors to the United Nations.
Nevertheless, when anti-Japanese claims and historically questionable assertions were advanced within United Nations institutions, were the Japanese government’s rebuttals and international communications sufficient?
Did the Ministry of Foreign Affairs exercise diplomatic influence commensurate with the enormous contributions made by the Japanese people?
This is the fundamental question presented by the article.
To accept China’s use of funding, personnel appointments, organized voting blocs, and diplomatic negotiation as a simple reality of international politics, while refusing to examine Japan’s failure to defend its own honor and national interests, is neither neutral nor moderate.
It is a profoundly unbalanced attitude that shows understanding toward China’s conduct while leaving Japan’s inaction unquestioned.
The same principle applies to international comparisons of responses to the COVID-19 crisis.
Any assessment praising Germany’s political leadership must take into account the differences between Germany and Japan in constitutional structure, statutory authority, administrative power, health-care systems, and demographic conditions.
The Japanese government was not granted the same coercive authority available to the governments of some European countries.
Ignoring those severe limitations, withholding recognition from the Abe administration, and praising only foreign political leaders cannot be regarded as an objective comparison.
What Japan’s media and intellectuals require is not the performance of sophistication through the praise of foreign countries.
They must accurately understand the legal, historical, and diplomatic conditions surrounding Japan, and fairly examine what was achieved and what remained inadequate within those conditions.