Published on January 26, 2020. This article introduces an excerpt from Kanji Nishio’s essay “Two Pathologies: South Korea’s Anti-Japan Sentiment and Japan’s Pacifism,” published in Hanada, focusing on South Korean propaganda over the UNESCO World Heritage registration of the Sites of Japan’s Meiji Industrial Revolution, the 2015 meeting in Germany, the response of Japan’s Foreign Ministry, and Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida’s remarks. It argues that Japan’s diplomatic posture, lacking strategy to defend national honor and interests, reveals the pathology of Japanese pacifism.

January 26, 2020
Because it was held in Germany, Koreans carried out propaganda in large numbers, and Germany supported them all at once, and a false and fabricated Japanese version of Auschwitz was narrated.
The essay by Kanji Nishio, published in this month’s issue of the monthly magazine Hanada under the title “Two Pathologies: South Korea’s Anti-Japan Sentiment and Japan’s Pacifism,” is essential reading not only for the Japanese people but also for people all over the world.
In this article, I will introduce the following excerpt.
The circumstances of what took place in Germany in 2015 are probably facts that almost all Japanese citizens and people all over the world, except Germans, will learn for the first time.
The preceding text is omitted.
The emphasis in the text is mine.
The Sites of Japan’s Meiji Industrial Revolution concern events before the annexation of Korea.
While Ms. Kato was making efforts to have them registered by UNESCO as World Heritage sites, South Korea bit into the issue.
The early period of Japan’s industrial revolution was long before the Japan–Korea annexation, and the historical period is clearly different, yet South Korea began saying that the island was a place where forced labor, which did not exist, had taken place, and modern Germany took on the “role of the devil.”
By chance, the UNESCO meeting that decided the registration, in 2015, was held in Germany, so Koreans carried out propaganda in large numbers, and Germany supported them all at once, and a false and fabricated Japanese version of Auschwitz was narrated.
At the time when the World Heritage registration was submitted to the UNESCO meeting, the Foreign Ministry promoted the project by giving priority to the registration itself above everything else, and, as usual, neglected the perspective of protecting Japan’s national interest and honor.
As long as it was registered, that was enough.
Registration was the entire purpose.
There was no resistance to having Japan’s words taken regarding the term “forced.”
Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, by giving a deceptive explanation that forced labor, “forced to work,” meant merely being made to work because there was no choice, was an accomplice who, on this issue, allowed South Korea’s argument to be accepted in an instant.
The registration itself succeeded, but by giving it priority over everything else, Japan left behind a great calamity.
There was clearly a lack of spirit to prevent Japan from having its words taken regarding the term “forced.”
Of course, I think the intentions of the Prime Minister’s Office were also at work there, but in any case, there was no strategy at all.
They were not even thinking about what the other side was thinking behind the scenes.
At that time, by chance, I was often talking with Ms. Kato about various things.
Ms. Kato had become the representative of an affiliated organization of the Foreign Ministry for the purpose of protecting this.
There was a committee of which she was the representative, and I also helped in the manner of an adviser, speaking and listening.
In practical terms, I could do nothing, but various pieces of information were coming in.
The Japanese side always gives priority to avoiding trouble.
There is absolutely no willingness to fight, even by daring to seek trouble.
Whether there is trouble or not, there is no spirit that says, “We will defend this.”
There is no perspective of defending honor or defending the national interest.
They register by avoiding trouble, and for that purpose they throw away anything.
Watching it, one can only call it foolish.
Here, I even felt that one could recognize a kind of structural defect in the Foreign Ministry’s way of negotiating, or in Japanese overseas negotiations in general.
And that is precisely the true identity of Japan’s pacifism.
This article continues.