Originally published on October 18, 2019.
Based on an essay by Kadota Ryusho in the special issue of Sound Argument, “The Fallen Media,” this article examines the reporting stance of the Asahi Shimbun and the Mainichi Shimbun over Japan’s review of export controls toward South Korea, and discusses the pathology of Japanese media that place South Korean claims above Japan’s national interest.

October 18, 2019.
The Asahi Shimbun shows no posture whatsoever of denouncing Mr. Moon, and it never abandons its way of presenting the matter as “Abe equals evil.”
If this newspaper were asked, “Which country’s newspaper is this?” probably one hundred out of one hundred people would answer, “A Korean newspaper.”
The following is from an essay by Kadota Ryusho, which opens the special feature “Why Has the Media Fallen?” in the special issue of Sound Argument titled The Fallen Media, a publication recommended to me by a friend who is one of the most avid readers I know, because it is filled with essays and dialogues truly worth reading.
This book, which should be read not only by the Japanese people but by people all over the world, costs only 926 yen.
In particular, those who pay about 5,000 yen a month to subscribe to the Asahi Shimbun and merely watch NHK and the like should immediately go to the nearest bookstore and buy it.
The “Enemy Within” That Sides with South Korea While Ignoring the National Interest.
Japan is a strange country.
No matter how right Japan is, the mass media invariably side with foreign countries.
No, “foreign countries” is too broad.
To be precise, they side with “China” and “South Korea.”
In the past, they did the same toward the Soviet Union and North Korea.
A distorted nihilism, illusions about socialism and communism, and, to go further, self-intoxication with the phrase “watchdog of power.”
Japanese mass media and journalism continued to immerse themselves in such “illusions,” which would never be accepted in ordinary Japanese society, and they never tried to escape from them.
The Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet Union disappeared, the Socialist Party vanished in Japan as well, and the “1955 system” came to an end.
The reality of North Korea, once hailed as an “earthly paradise,” also became clear.
When the socialism and communism they had loved so much declined, what did they begin to do?
That was “anti-Japan.”
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, newspapers had no choice but to specialize in the “anti-Japan” element within themselves, in place of their former fondness for the Soviet Union and North Korea.
In other words, they came to act as mouthpieces for the claims of China and South Korea.
Astonishingly, Japanese media eventually came to mistake the act of degrading their own country and benefiting foreign countries for the mission of journalism.
They are Japan’s “enemy within.”
Even if there were an issue on which 90 percent of the people supported the Japanese government, the sense of the mass media alone would be different.
At any rate, to them, criticizing their own country, rather than supporting it, is what is “cool.”
Wondering what lies at the source of such behavior and intoxication, I published The Disease Called Newspapers from Sankei Shimbun Publishing at the end of May in the first year of Reiwa, and tried, in my own way, to clarify that root and put the question to readers.
Fortunately, it became a bestseller and received a great response.
However, even after the publication of that book, “the disease called newspapers” did not subside; rather, it became even more blatant.
Indeed, the first summer of Reiwa became noteworthy in the sense that the disease of newspapers went, on the contrary, into “full throttle.”
Specifically, this refers to the South Korea issue and, furthermore, to the turmoil over freedom and unfreedom of expression that occurred at the Aichi Triennale, an international art festival in Aichi Prefecture.
Here I would like to focus especially on the media that sided with South Korea while ignoring Japan’s national interest.
The “Lie” Born from Defeat.
As everyone recognizes, Japan-South Korea relations have reached their worst state since the war.
However, this is not ironic but “extremely welcome.”
Why?
Because, as a result, the possibility of building “true Japan-South Korea relations” has finally appeared for the first time.
Why is that so?
Just as in human relationships, when nation and nation deal with each other, a certain degree of “moderation” and “respect” is necessary, needless to say.
If one party merely insists on its own will, refuses to listen to the other side, and continues to insult it, it is only natural that a good relationship cannot be built.
Then what of Japan-South Korea relations?
I believe there is no other relationship in the world as strange as that between Japan and South Korea.
No matter how unreasonable the things said to Japan were, Japan simply endured them, tolerated them, and continued to apologize.
Some may have believed that doing so would contribute to friendship between the two countries, but the result was the opposite.
South Korea repeatedly grew more arrogant without limit, and eventually came to believe, with regard to Japan, that “anything is acceptable” and “anything will be forgiven.”
It ceased entirely to show the “moderation” and “respect” necessary between nations, and continued to adopt an attitude completely different from the one it takes toward China and the United States.
With the help of “anti-Japan media” inside Japan, South Korea thrust one thing after another at Japan, treating things that were not facts as though they were “historical facts.”
It came to have even young people who had headed to the Japanese mainland in search of white rice and high wages “pretend” to be victims of forced labor, along with the nonexistent forced taking of comfort women.
Japan continued to be unilaterally condemned over comfort women, the adoption of Japanese-style names, and wartime laborers.
And the Japanese mass media simply poured out South Korea’s claims as they were.
In response, South Korea, breaking promises, making treaties into dead letters, and acting as selfishly as it pleased, believed in the Japanese mass media that backed it up, and never changed its attitude at all.
In that sense, the measures Japan announced on July 1 could be called, in one sense, earth-shaking.
The Japanese government announced that, from July 4, it would review the operation of export controls toward South Korea and strengthen export controls on items such as high-purity hydrogen fluoride, indispensable in the semiconductor manufacturing process.
This measure would strike at South Korea’s core industries, beginning with the semiconductor industry.
At the same time, Japan also made clear its policy of removing South Korea from the preferential system of “white countries,” under which applications for export permission for cutting-edge materials and the like were exempted.
South Korea’s panic and anger in response were tremendous.
That is only natural.
South Korea had, for the first time, “suffered a counterattack” from Japan, a country it had believed it could do anything to.
It must have felt as though it had been bitten by a dog it kept.
The Asahi and Mainichi Criticize the Japanese Government.
Japanese media, known for routinely speaking for South Korea’s interests, immediately launched a major counterattack.
They bared their fangs not at South Korea, but at the Japanese government’s policy.
The representative example is the Asahi Shimbun.
Its editorial dated July 3 was fierce.
The column, titled “Immediately Withdraw the ‘Retaliatory’ Export Restrictions Against South Korea,” was, from whatever angle one looked at it, a South Korean newspaper itself.
“To use trade for political purposes. Will Japan also join the folly recently brandished by the United States and China? Measures that twist the principles of free trade should be withdrawn immediately.”
The editorial, which began with such sentences, sharply criticized the Abe administration’s measures as countermeasures against the South Korean government’s failure to take satisfactory action, saying that although Japan, as chair of the G20, had compiled a declaration on “free, fair, and non-discriminatory trade,” it had “exposed a selfish posture that makes light of multilateral agreements.”
On top of that, it argued, “Japan should openly state, domestically and internationally, specific reasons why the restrictions are being imposed now and why they concern security,” and, “The damage caused to Japan-South Korea relations by bringing political confrontation into economic exchange is immeasurable. … This hasty move has further complicated the situation. As if in step with it, South Korean judicial authorities have moved one step forward in procedures to convert Japanese companies’ shares into cash. South Korea is also said to be considering filing a complaint with the World Trade Organization, and the two countries could fall into an exchange of retaliation. It is time for both the Japanese and South Korean governments to cool their heads. They should hurry to seek a breakthrough through senior-level consultations between diplomatic authorities. More than half a century after the normalization of diplomatic relations, the accumulated trust and exchange between neighboring countries must not be destroyed.”
That is what it asserted.
Since it demanded “immediate withdrawal” of a policy supported by many citizens, it was something Japanese people could hardly understand.
Not to be outdone by Asahi, the Mainichi Shimbun, which also routinely sides with South Korea, argued similarly in its editorial dated July 4, titled “Export Restrictions Against South Korea Damage the Interests of a Trading Nation.”
“Resource-poor Japan has developed through active trade. Rule-based free trade is the lifeline of a trading nation. Last week’s Group of 20 summit declared the ‘realization of free and fair trade’ under the leadership of Japan, the chair country. Export restrictions that run counter to this will invite distrust from the international community. Japan is considering expanding the restrictions. South Korea is also prepared to file a complaint with the WTO. A chain of retaliation could make the Japan-South Korea confrontation decisive. Does the Abe administration not have an intention to appeal to conservatives by taking a hard line against South Korea? It must not damage long-term national interests for the sake of short-term popularity.”
At the Asahi Shimbun, a reporter in charge of editorials on international affairs even wrote the following column.
“In Japan recently, remarks fly about as if the purpose were not to solve the problem but to make South Korea suffer. However, neither the Japanese nor the South Korean government has the right to seize future possibilities because of past issues. It is said that support for the government proposal was overwhelming in the Japanese government’s public comment procedure, but will it really lead to a solution? The root of the problem is deep. One Japanese government official involved in the measures toward South Korea leaked, ‘We really should not be doing this.’ In those words, along with irritation toward the neighboring country, one can sense hesitation about deliberately making a bad move.”
This was from “Editorial Afterthoughts,” dated July 14.
Conveniently, an anonymous “government official” appears and declares, “We really should not be doing this.”
It can be called a highly dubious column.
In any case, one can feel intensely its desire to save South Korea at all costs.
The Fuji-Sankei Group’s Scoop.
However, Japan is not made up only of media that criticize the government and stand in complete opposition to the feelings of the people.
It was the Fuji-Sankei Group that delivered a severe counterattack against these Japanese media.
On July 10, Fuji Television obtained a list, prepared by the South Korean government, of illegal exports of materials that could be diverted to biological and chemical weapons, and reported, “According to the list, it has been found that materials capable of being diverted to weapons were illegally exported to third countries. From 2015 to March 2019, there were 156 cases of unauthorized exports from South Korea.”
The list included “materials strictly controlled and monitored by the international community because of the risk that they could be diverted to nuclear weapons or biological and chemical weapons,” and it was precisely something that “demonstrated the validity” of Japan’s review of export controls.
Furthermore, the next day, July 11, the morning edition of the Sankei Shimbun reported as its top front-page story, “South Korean Companies Illegally Export Chemical-Weapons Materials to Pro-North Korean Countries: Syria and Iran; Violations of International Controls.”
It scooped that the South Korean government had imposed administrative penalties on multiple South Korean companies for illegally exporting materials capable of being diverted to the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction, including biological and chemical weapons, to countries friendly to North Korea, such as Syria and Iran.
The article said the following.
“Japan has pointed to ‘inappropriate cases in export control’ as the background to its strengthening of export controls toward South Korea. The South Korean side is demanding withdrawal of the measures at the World Trade Organization’s Council for Trade in Goods, claiming that they are ‘measures that distort trade,’ but the fact that many companies attempted illegal exports and were exposed has highlighted South Korea’s lax awareness regarding the illicit international circulation of strategic materials.”
Among the main illegal exports to countries with friendly relations with North Korea were cases such as “diisopropylamine,” which can be diverted to chemical-weapons raw materials, to Pakistan; “sodium fluoride,” a raw material for sarin, to Iran; “biosafety cabinets,” capable of being diverted to biological-weapons production, to Syria; and “sodium cyanide,” a raw material for lethal gas, to Equatorial Guinea.
It was also reported that “hydrogen fluoride acid,” which was subject to regulation by the Japanese government, had been smuggled to the United Arab Emirates.
Indeed, the reason Japan sought to review export controls had been made clear.
Mr. Moon Jae-in and the Asahi Shimbun Do Not Flinch.
However, neither Mr. Moon nor the Asahi flinched.
What stunned Japanese people were Mr. Moon’s own words.
Despite South Korea’s fierce abuse and protests, Japan decided, at a Cabinet meeting on the morning of August 2, on a cabinet-order revision to remove South Korea from the “white country list” for export control.
In response to this decision, President Moon held an emergency Cabinet meeting that afternoon.
At the opening of that meeting, he uttered words that made one doubt one’s ears.
“It is a very reckless decision, and I express deep regret.”
“We can never sit idly by while Japan, the perpetrator, brazenly raises its voice like a thief crying thief.”
“I clearly warn that responsibility for any situations that occur from now on lies entirely with the Japanese government.”
“Brazenly like a thief crying thief”—one does not often see the leader of a state curse another country with such words.
It is clear that words were gushing forth as his emotions moved him.
In any case, they were words Japanese people could hardly understand.
How did the Asahi report this?
In the “Jiji-Kokkoku” column on the second page of its August 3 edition, it again developed an article critical of Japan, saying, “The Abe administration has gone ahead with the ‘second round’ of strengthened export restrictions against South Korea, with which relations continue to deteriorate. South Korea has fiercely reacted and announced retaliatory measures. U.S. President Trump has not shown a posture of actively intervening in the confrontation between allies, and the tension between Japan and South Korea is shaking the security framework of East Asia as well.”
It claimed that this decision involved Prime Minister Abe’s consideration of his support base, saying, “Behind the strong stance is also the existence of the Abe administration’s support base. Within the government, with conservatives in mind, there were views such as ‘it will appeal to a certain segment’ and ‘if we yield to South Korea, support for the administration could fall sharply.’
Public comments on the exclusion from preferential export countries, conducted until July 24, flooded in to a total of 40,666.
About 95 percent were in favor.
One senior official at the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry positioned exclusion from preferential export countries as ‘a step toward expanding the items’ and also suggested the possibility of moving on to a third round of strengthened export controls.
A senior Foreign Ministry official said, ‘From here, it will be a long-term battle.’”
The Asahi’s blade is not directed at the side that utters abnormal words such as “brazenly like a thief crying thief” and “responsibility for what happens from now on lies with the Japanese government,” but, to the end, at Japan.
The Asahi Shimbun shows no posture whatsoever of denouncing Mr. Moon, and it never abandons its way of presenting the matter as “Abe equals evil.”
If this newspaper were asked, “Which country’s newspaper is this?” probably one hundred out of one hundred people would answer, “A Korean newspaper.”
I suddenly wondered how the Asahi would report it if Prime Minister Abe were to say something like “brazenly like a thief crying thief.”
Surely it would unleash criticism to the greatest possible extent.
When I think of that, I cannot help finding it strange why this newspaper is able to “survive in Japan.”
This essay continues.