Resolutions with strong political overtones pass within Japan’s bar associations, driven by active minority factions and proxy voting.
What structural issues allow conclusions to be predetermined without full debate on security realities.
An examination of decision-making and political influence within legal professional organizations.

2019-01-31.
Meanwhile, a minority that enthusiastically engages in association affairs seizes control of the organization, gathers proxy votes, and attends en masse even at the general assembly—the highest decision-making body—thus dominating the venue.
The chapter I published on 2018-12-16 titled “Why the Japan Federation of Bar Associations Went So Far as to the United Nations to Spread Fabrications on the Comfort Women Issue” is now ranked 15th in Ameba’s official hashtag ranking for the bar examination.
Another chapter I published on 2017-04-05 titled “Left-leaning minority lawyers effectively control the Japan Federation of Bar Associations and local bar associations” is also now among the top search results on Ameba.
The following is from a feature article on the front page of today’s Sankei Shimbun, headlined “Unrealistic Anti-Security Resolution: 72 Years After the War, the Bar Association.”
Emphasis in the text other than headlines and the sections marked ~ are mine.
“It is not so much that I cannot accept it as that I cannot understand it.”
At the 65th regular general meeting of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations held in Sendai on May 30, 2014, Hiroshi Yasunaga (77), who took the microphone to ask questions, could not hide his frustration with the executive board’s responses.
The agenda was a resolution opposing the exercise of collective self-defense and reaffirming the significance of constitutionalism.
Considering China’s increasing military expansion around the Senkaku Islands, Yasunaga questioned what actions should be taken in the event of a crisis involving Japan.
“If China attempts to occupy the Senkaku Islands, can the Self-Defense Forces resist. Can we request assistance from the United States. Have you presented this proposal after reaching a clear conclusion.”
The vice president at the time replied that the federation had never presented specific directions or views, and that whether it should do so at all might itself be problematic given the nature of the organization.
While acknowledging the need for consideration, he stated that it was not appropriate to answer how they should think about it at present.
Yasunaga felt this was abstract reasoning that refused to confront the crisis at hand.
At the time he was an ordinary member, but in April 2012 he became president of the Saga Bar Association and concurrently served as a director of the federation until March the following year.
When statements opposing collective self-defense were brought before the board, he criticized them for ignoring real international conditions, but became completely isolated.
“My opinions are always rejected by an overwhelming majority. After board meetings, some would whisper to me, ‘Actually I agree with you,’ but…”
Yasunaga believes that since politics ultimately moves through law, it is natural in some sense for the views of a legal professionals’ organization to take on political significance.
The problem, he argues, is that conclusions are decided in one direction from the outset, leaving no room for real debate.
“It is a path to self-destruction.”
At the same general meeting, Tatsuo Suzuki (76) spoke in favor of the resolution from the opposite position.
“We must cut off Abe’s war politics with the power of everyone. That is the people’s stance in a situation where war is about to occur.”
According to Suzuki, after participating in the 1960 security treaty protests while at the University of Tokyo, he joined NHK and later took part in protests against the U.S. nuclear aircraft carrier Enterprise entering Sasebo.
He was temporarily detained and later studied law out of respect for the lawyer who handled his case, passing the bar exam at age 48.
He later formed a group aiming for a “constitution and human rights-based bar association.”
While he evaluated the executive board’s opposition to collective self-defense, he differed with them on judicial reforms such as expanding the number of legal professionals.
Though his views were entirely different from Yasunaga’s, he too questioned the vote being taken without proper answers from the leadership.
“The federation must debate. Not doing so is a path to self-destruction.”
The resolution passed by majority vote.
Proxies were gathered.
Among the federation’s 39,015 member lawyers, there are a wide range of beliefs and ideologies.
Why then are strongly political resolutions so easily passed.
A lawyer belonging to the Osaka Bar Association confided that a minority of left-leaning lawyers effectively control the federation and local associations.
Most lawyers are busy with daily work and either uninterested in management or keep their distance from anti-establishment activities.
Meanwhile, a minority enthusiastic about association affairs gathers proxies and attends in large numbers, dominating the general assembly.
This situation is precisely one in which countries with powerful intelligence agencies such as China, South Korea, and North Korea could easily conduct influence operations, or may have been doing so successfully for years—an obvious reality even to a schoolchild.
Why has the federation gone so far as to the United Nations to spread fabrications regarding the comfort women issue.
At that time, a senior federation figure, Etsuro Totsuka, promoted to the international community the outrageous definition that they were not comfort women but sex slaves, and boasted of it in magazines such as Sekai Nippo. I was further astonished when I searched him on Wikipedia. I will introduce this in the next chapter.*
There were no procedural flaws in the meeting that passed the resolution.
However, only 691 attended in person, with 8,782 represented by proxy.
Less than one-third of all members effectively raised the anti-security banner once again.
Can this truly be called the “consensus” of the federation.