Published on August 20, 2019. This chapter, originally sent out on December 13, 2018, introduces a major essay by journalist Udagawa Keisuke published in WiLL, discussing why Japanese media attack President Trump, the Japan-China Press Exchange Agreement, the influence of the Chinese Embassy, the connection with the Kono Statement and Murayama Statement, and the loss of journalistic independence in newspapers and television.

August 20, 2019.
“No, just between us, if we report in support of Trump, we get scolded from above,” says a director at a certain television station that does not have a very good reputation among conservatives.
This is the chapter I sent out on December 13, 2018, under the title: Officially, it is called the “Exchange of Notes Concerning the Exchange of Journalists between the Governments of Japan and China,” and in 1972 Hashimoto Hiroshi in China, Japan.
The following is from a major work by journalist Udagawa Keisuke, published in the monthly magazine WiLL under the title: The “Japan-China Reporting Agreement” that still binds newspapers and television.
Because Japanese people are foolishly serious, they are still bound by it.
Throw away such scraps of paper!
Why do they attack Trump?
The American midterm elections seem to have produced a satisfactory result for President Trump.
Japanese media reports are making a great fuss, as if President Trump’s policies have begun to show signs of decline because he lost the majority in the House of Representatives.
However, during President Obama’s time, the Democrats did not hold majorities in both the House and the Senate, and because of that America was unable to pass a budget, and there were even times when government facilities were temporarily closed.
Compared with that, the fact that the ruling party in the Senate is the Republican Party can be evaluated as making for a more stable politics than during President Obama’s time.
Nevertheless, there is no sign whatsoever that “Trump bashing” will disappear from the world of reporting.
It is understandable if it is the American media, but for the Japanese media to report in that way as well is a somewhat strange situation.
“No, just between us, if we report in support of Trump, we get scolded from above.”
So says a director at a certain television station that does not have a very good reputation among conservatives.
This was when we were talking over drinks about why the content of the midterm elections was not reported neutrally.
“Why?”
“Well, apparently a complaint comes in from ‘Moto-Azabu’ saying it violates the agreement.”
“The Chinese Embassy?”
The director put his index finger to his mouth, gesturing to me not to speak aloud, then suddenly brought his face close and said, “What will you do if you say that so loudly and someone hears you?
I’ll be fired immediately.”
“Who would hear?”
“Chinese people are everywhere, so you never know where something may connect to ‘Moto-Azabu,’ do you?”
The director said this in a very annoyed whisper, then hurriedly changed the subject.
But what on earth is this “violation of the agreement”?
The keyword for solving that mystery is the “Japan-China Press Exchange Agreement.”
The Japan-China Press Exchange Agreement.
Officially, it is called the “Exchange of Notes Concerning the Exchange of Journalists between the Governments of Japan and China,” and it was concluded in 1972 between Hashimoto Hiroshi, counselor at the Japanese Embassy in China, and Wang Zhen, deputy director of the Press Bureau of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
It is somewhat complicated, but its original form was a “Memo Concerning the Exchange of Newspaper Reporters between Japan and China,” exchanged before the normalization of Japan-China diplomatic relations, but because it expired with the conclusion of the Japan-China Trade Agreement, the same content was concluded on the same day.
However, the fact that it is an “official note” or a “memo” means that it is neither a formal agreement between the two countries nor a treaty.
Naturally, it is nothing more than an informal arrangement that was not ratified by the Diet.
Yet for some reason, the Japanese mass media have not only failed to break free from the spell of this agreement; they have been completely controlled by it.
This agreement arose because, in 1962, between Japan and China, which had no diplomatic relations, the “Memorandum Concerning Japan-China Comprehensive Trade” was exchanged, and economic exchange was given priority.
For the purpose of reporting on this economic activity, in 1964, matters concerning the exchange of newspaper reporters between Japan and China and the mutual establishment of trade liaison offices were arranged.
The representatives on the Japanese side were Takasaki Tatsunosuke, who was engaged in trade at the time, and Matsumura Kenzo, a member of the House of Representatives.
Matsumura Kenzo was a person who concurrently served as Minister of Health and Welfare and Minister of Education in the Higashikuni Cabinet, and he was a heavyweight of the “dove faction,” forming a faction within the Liberal Democratic Party with Miki Takeo.
After the resignation of the Ikeda Cabinet, he clashed with the powerful factions of the Liberal Democratic Party at every turn, such as by recommending Kono Ichiro, and his secretaries Tagawa Seiichi and Kono Yohei later founded the New Liberal Club.
Furthermore, that Kono Yohei later issued the “Kono Statement,” which has created serious obstacles in current Japan-China relations.
The contents of this agreement have been revised several times.
Among them is the 1968 “Communiqué of the Japan-China Memorandum Trade Talks,” in which fairly serious matters were discussed.
It may be a little difficult to understand, but let me list the main points here.
・Advancing friendly relations between Japan and China is beneficial to peace in Asia and the world.
・The obstacles existing in China-Japan relations were brought about by American imperialism and the China-hostile policy promoted by the Japanese authorities, and the Japanese side deeply understands this and will make further efforts hereafter to remove such obstacles and promote the normalization of Japan-China relations.
・Both Japan and China agree to firmly uphold the three principles of “not adopting a policy hostile to China,” “not participating in a conspiracy to create two Chinas,” and “not obstructing the restoration of normal relations between China and Japan,” as well as the three political principles and the principle that politics and economics are inseparable.
The “three principles” here are the official view shown in 1958 to Sata Tadataka, a Socialist Party member of the House of Councillors who visited China, by standing committee member Liao Chengzhi on behalf of Premier Zhou Enlai and Foreign Minister Chen Yi, and they are principles that China has brought out on every occasion thereafter.
It can be said that this complex relationship arose because, toward China before reform and opening, trade that pursued only one’s own profit was pressed forward without regard to the politics of Japan as a whole or the international situation.
For that reason, this trade was even called “LT Trade,” taking the initials of Liao Chengzhi and Takasaki Tatsunosuke, who began the agreement.
The sacrifice paid for the “statements.”
Japan, as a country, has sacrificed something important, such as politics and ideology, because it has prioritized the economy of a portion of people too much.
This agreement, too, was agreed to without much awareness, as if trade were being taken hostage, but the Japanese side agreed to various things, such as a policy hostile to America, the inseparability of politics and economics, and one China.
Moreover, since it took the form of a former Liberal Democratic Party minister adding another coat of paint to principles decided by Socialist Party members, it is beyond remedy.
What has preserved the spirit of this agreement as it is are the “Kono Statement” and the “Murayama Statement,” and indeed, through a joint effort by the LDP dove faction and the Socialist Party of that time, they looked to China’s mood and completely ignored matters important to Japan.
Let me repeat that this agreement, as well as the Kono Statement and the Murayama Statement, were not expressions of Japan’s will through formal procedures, nor were they treaties, nor were they ratified by the Diet.
Now, the explanation of this press exchange agreement has become long, but not a few people may be surprised to hear that this arrangement from more than half a century ago still controls the Japanese mass media.
However, the actual scene on the ground is the conversation at the beginning.
It is not particularly difficult to find people who go in and out of the Chinese Embassy in the television stations of Roppongi, the newspaper companies of Tsukiji, or in the lobby and meeting rooms of the broadcasting station in Shibuya.
Naturally, when it comes to China, they report mainly based on announcements by the Chinese Communist Party government.
Without verifying the content, or clarifying the true intention of China’s announcements by comparing them with the claims of other countries, they have reached a situation in which, even when the content is recognized as completely different from facts or international common sense, they report it as it is and think nothing of it.
Will this not become a situation in which the independence of reporting disappears?
Of course, there are not a few Japanese people who already understand this.
It is no exaggeration to say that the Internet is filled with criticism of the mass media, which report while worrying about China’s wishes.
However, this is becoming a situation that can no longer be dismissed as merely a domestic problem.
This article continues.