Published on November 4, 2019.
Continuing Otaka Miki’s essay, this article discusses her exchange with Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga Yoshihide, the Ainu New Law, the recognition of the Ainu as an indigenous people, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the idea of a Hokkaido autonomous district, and the interest shown by China and North Korea in Ainu policy.
It warns that, as with the comfort women issue, unless Japan fights from the outset with historical facts and evidence, the matter may develop into a serious national security issue.

November 4, 2019.
Why is the Japanese government trying to advance Ainu policy, a policy in which China shows abnormal interest and in which North Korean operations are openly visible here and there?
The following is the continuation of the previous chapter.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga’s View.
On September 22, Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga Yoshihide was invited as a guest to the “Genron TV Seventh Anniversary Thanksgiving Gathering,” hosted by Sakurai Yoshiko at Seiryo Kaikan, and I, who was allowed to participate as a panelist, also had the opportunity to ask Mr. Suga questions, so I will introduce that exchange.
To make it easier to read, I have changed the spoken style into written style, but I have not changed the content of the remarks.
Otaka.
“Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga, you serve as chairman of the Ainu Policy Promotion Council, do you not?
Since the Ainu were clearly written into the Ainu New Law as an ‘indigenous people,’ various contradictions have arisen.
For example, even in descriptions concerning history, matters to the effect that ‘Hokkaido was the land of the Ainu, and from the Meiji period onward, the Wajin invaded, and the Ainu were massacred and discriminated against’ are written in the Ministry of Education’s curriculum guidelines and so forth.
Is this not a falsification of history?”
Suga.
“I do not know how it is written there, but at the very least, what we are trying to do is based on the fact that the Ainu people were the indigenous people of Hokkaido, and I think this is a fact.
Well, within that context, in order to preserve honor and dignity and pass them on to the next generation, I am now also working to promote Ainu policy through this ‘Promotion Act.’”
Otaka.
“I think that whether they are an indigenous people is still at a stage where opinions are divided, but actually, regarding Ainu policy, a book written in the 1980s by Onoe Kenichi, a guide to North Korea’s Juche ideology, described Ainu policy for ‘independizing’ Japan, and the current Japanese government’s Ainu policy is proceeding in complete agreement with Juche ideology.
Also, even within the current Ainu Association, several people connected with Juche ideology are enrolled, and I wonder why, even though this is Japan, policies influenced by the North in this way are being carried out.
Furthermore, since the final objective of the Ainu Association is said to be the establishment of Ainu autonomy, that is, discussions have gone as far as the enactment of an autonomous Ainu constitution and a flag, there is concern that it is no exaggeration to call this a national division operation.
How does the Chief Cabinet Secretary view this?”
Suga.
“Regarding that, honestly, I do not feel such a thing.
In carrying out this Ainu policy, it is true that among the Ainu there are various people who are in conflict, but that is not all of them.
I also understand that not all the people called the Ainu people are united.
However, seen as a whole, I think that this is not such a matter.”
Otaka.
“Then, Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga, as chairman of the Ainu Policy Promotion Council, may I interpret the direction as meaning that Ainu autonomy and the like will absolutely not be recognized?”
Suga.
“No, well, I do not think that is being sought.”
Otaka.
“For the time being, it was written that way in the minutes of the Sapporo Ainu Association.
Is that all right?”
Suga.
“No, I do not think it goes as far as autonomy.”
Member of the House of Representatives Sugita Mio.
“Regarding the Ainu, I think many people are interested, but in fact, in 2008, the Cabinet decided that ‘the Ainu are an indigenous people.’
Also, Japan has concluded the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination with the United Nations, and in the provisions of that convention, regarding indigenous peoples, it says things such as ‘carry out policies like this’ and ‘preserve culture in this way,’ so the government must proceed in line with that.
Therefore, it is not the case that the Ainu suddenly emerged in the past one or two years, and I would like everyone to understand all of that background.
In such circumstances, I think the Chief Cabinet Secretary spoke despite the fact that it was probably difficult for him to do so.”
I will supplement Representative Sugita’s remarks.
In 2007, the United Nations issued the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and former Liberal Democratic Party House of Representatives member Imazu Hiroshi, representative of the “Diet Members’ Association for Considering the Establishment of Ainu Ethnic Rights,” Suzuki Muneo, and others acted as standard-bearers.
On June 6, 2008, the “Resolution Calling for the Ainu People to Be Recognized as an Indigenous People” was unanimously passed in both houses of the Diet.
I will introduce a pointed commentary on the merits and demerits of both men.
“What both House of Representatives members Suzuki Muneo and Imazu Hiroshi often cited as a basis for their argument was Hanasaki Kohei’s Quiet Earth: Matsuura Takeshiro and the Ainu People, published by Iwanami Shoten.
In his work, he harshly denounces the fact that the distress of the Ainu was caused by the rampant activities of unscrupulous merchants in places beyond the reach of the rule of the Matsumae domain and the shogunate, the capitalist economy left uncontrolled and unchecked, and the status system within Ainu villages.
Omitted.
This was brought into the Diet by the two men in the structure of ‘Wajin equals perpetrators’ and ‘Ainu equals victims,’ and it carved into our nation’s history an irreparable stain that is not based on historical fact at all.”
From A Scientific Denial of the “Ainu Indigenous People” Theory by Matoba Mitsuaki.
The same book also touches on the fact that this “unanimous passage” was carried out in a guerrilla-like manner, without sufficient opportunity for debate, and that it was a method equivalent to fraud, as well as the behind-the-scenes calculations connected with the political situation at the time, in which Mr. Suzuki and Mr. Imazu hurried ahead.
The Plan to Turn Hokkaido into an Autonomous District.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga says that he recognizes the Ainu as an indigenous people but does not recognize an Ainu autonomous district.
If one thinks about it carefully, is this not a contradiction?
The recognition of the Ainu as an indigenous people is a stepping stone toward the establishment of an Ainu autonomous district.
As evidence, Onoe Kenichi writes the following.
“It will also be important to make Hokkaido, where many Ainu people live, a special autonomous district.
Omitted.
The so-called history of Hokkaido is only one hundred years old, and the history before that is Ainu history.
However, the task of making Hokkaido a special autonomous district has not yet become a mature political issue.
What precedes such a political issue is the task of enacting a ‘law concerning the Ainu people.’”
From The Road of Independence by Onoe Kenichi.
Regarding the danger of an autonomous district, Mr. Onodera touches on something important.
On the October 3, 2019 broadcast of “Channel Sakura Hokkaido.”
In the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted at the 61st session of the United Nations General Assembly on September 13, 2007, there are provisions concerning military activities, and their contents are as follows.
“Article 30.
Prohibition of Military Activities.

1. Military activities shall not take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples, unless justified by a relevant public interest, or otherwise freely agreed with or requested by the indigenous peoples concerned.
2. States shall undertake effective consultations with the indigenous peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, prior to using their lands or territories for military activities.”
   The plan to turn Hokkaido into an autonomous district, into which Juche ideology has penetrated, is steadily advancing.
   Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga denied an autonomous district, but the strategies of the Korean Peninsula and China for aggression against Japan are being carried out from a long-term perspective of ten-some years to one hundred years.
   If in the future the current administration loses power and a nightmare administration like the Democratic Party is revived, who on earth can guarantee that there will be no danger of enacting an “Ainu Indigenous People Hokkaido Special Autonomous District”?
   If, by any chance, it is recognized as an autonomous district, is there not a danger that a situation could arise in which the Self-Defense Forces cannot be stationed in an area designated as an “Ainu Autonomous District”?
   Of course, this may be no more than groundless anxiety, but it is a problem that creates that much anxiety.
   Will the Same Mistake Be Repeated?
   In fact, the comfort women issue too was propaganda developed in the early 1990s with anti-Japanese activists in Japan and South Korea and the Asahi Shimbun playing the role of igniter, but despite the Japan-South Korea agreement, comfort women girl statues overseas continue to increase, and even now there is no sign that the issue will settle down.
   The failure of the comfort women issue was that Japan did not fight first and decisively with historical facts and evidence as weapons, and the responsibility of the Japanese government cannot be denied for having ridden on the South Korean government’s smooth talk, such as “if Japan apologizes here, South Korea will never again touch historical issues forever,” while neglecting sufficient verification of comfort women testimony.
   Why repeat the same mistake?
   Moreover, the Ainu campaign is more serious than the comfort women issue.
   That is because it contains factors related to national security.
   Why is the Japanese government trying to advance Ainu policy, a policy in which China shows abnormal interest and in which North Korean operations are openly visible here and there?
   Allow me to state my personal view.
   It is the suspicion that Ainu-related interests may perhaps be connected at the root to indirect financial assistance for the unification of North and South Korea on the Korean Peninsula.
   I have studied the comfort women issue for many years, and I came to realize that the historical issues prepared in sequence—“the issue of the return of Koreans remaining in Sakhalin, the comfort women issue, and the wartime workers issue, or requisitioned workers”—are connected with postwar compensation at the time of a future normalization of diplomatic relations between Japan and North Korea.
   This article continues.