2020-01-10
Because they are trapped by the prejudice that everything the state does is “evil,” they do not recognize at all the world-historical significance of prewar Japan’s proposal, as a “state,” to abolish racial discrimination.
The following is a continuation of the previous chapter.
Where Did Kubota’s “Will” Go?
I wrote that Kubota, who was a UN human rights officer, was the “chief culprit” who taught IMADR and the Japan Federation of Bar Associations how to use the United Nations, but Kubota himself was by no means a leftist.
This can also be seen from the following statement he made in his posthumous work.
“Among American Indians and indigenous groups, various forces from the right to the left have each obtained UN NGO consultative status. Even if their opinions differ, NGOs dealing with the same matters should compete in substance as better rivals.” (International Studies with a Human Face)
If we suppose that he were still alive today, and a conservative NGO from Japan went to the United Nations, would he take an exclusionary attitude like IMADR?
The author does not think so.
The author believes that he would give conservative NGOs the same kind of convenience that he gave to IMADR and the Japan Federation of Bar Associations.
Japan has a glorious history: in 1919, after the First World War, it submitted to the League of Nations the world’s first “proposal to abolish racial discrimination,” although it was rejected by an unreasonable method.
This was before the founding of the National Levelers’ Association, the predecessor of the Buraku Liberation League, in 1922.
Exactly one hundred years ago, Japan was the first country in the world to raise proudly before the world the banner of “anti-discrimination.”
However, even if one reads the founding prospectus of the International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism, not a single word is said about this.
It is concealing a grave historical fact.
Why?
Because IMADR is poisoned by left-wing ideology, it possesses an anti-state historical consciousness.
Because it is trapped by the prejudice that everything the state does is “evil,” it does not recognize at all the world-historical significance of prewar Japan’s proposal, as a “state,” to abolish racial discrimination.
Therefore, although it knows this as a fact, it deliberately ignores it without hesitation.
But Kubota is different.
Kubota was not a holder of “anti-state” ideology.
That can be understood by reading the following passage.
“One cannot overemphasize the importance of the role of international NGOs. Nevertheless, it must be confirmed that these NGOs are not anti-governmental organizations, but non-governmental organizations. For example, even in Amnesty International, members and each branch have adopted the principle of not taking up the human rights violations of their own country. … In any case, it is important to maintain a generally cooperative relationship with the Japanese government delegation.” (Kubota, aforementioned book)
Therefore, Kubota also properly evaluated the history of the prewar Japanese state.
His historical understanding is completely different from that of IMADR and others.
For example, regarding the proposal to abolish racial discrimination, which IMADR concealed, Kubota wrote as follows while he was alive.
“After the First World War, when the League of Nations was created, Japan’s representative proposed that a provision prohibiting racial discrimination be included in the Covenant of the League. … I pray that we will call to mind the tradition in which, long ago, the Japanese, as one nation, advocated the establishment of the principle of non-discrimination before the great powers of that time, and that Japan will contribute, however modestly, to the making of a new history for the world, not only as a country with a surplus in economy and trade, but also as a country with a surplus in human rights.” (Kubota Hiroshi, “Expectations for the International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism,” Human Rights, 10)
Kubota did not write this passage casually.
I wrote earlier that Kubota was the “birth parent” of the International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism, and this was a passage written by that “birth parent” to the “child about to be born,” with the “expectation” and “prayer” that IMADR should be as it ought to be.
However, this “expectation” of Kubota’s toward the establishment of IMADR was splendidly betrayed.
Today, IMADR takes an extremely exclusionary attitude toward right-wing NGOs, but this clearly goes against Kubota’s “will.”
That said, the relationship between the United Nations and these people has been built steadily over a period of thirty years.
Over thirty years, they explored the present form of their movement and made maximum use of the United Nations.
If that is so, then if conservative NGOs want to do the same thing, one must assume that it will take roughly the same length of time.
The movement of IMADR is “a stone from another mountain,” and there is much that we should learn from it.
For details, please refer to my essay, “How Did the International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism, or IMADR, Obtain UN NGO Status?” in Historical Awareness Issues Research, No. 5, Reiwa 1 Autumn-Winter Issue.