Japanese lawmaker Kei Nagao challenges the belief that the United Nations is inherently benevolent.
Focusing on David Kaye’s report on freedom of expression, this chapter exposes how UN mechanisms are exploited to influence domestic opinion in Japan.

Many Japanese uncritically believe the UN is inherently virtuous.
This “UN supremacism” allows activists to exploit its authority to distort domestic debate.
The credibility of the UN itself is now at stake.

2017-07-07

The following is a truly straightforward argument contributed by House of Representatives member Kei Nagao to the latest issue of Seiron.
David Kaye, a professor of law at the University of California, Irvine,
and the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression,
reported on Japan’s state of free speech on the twelfth
at the UN Human Rights Council session held in Geneva, Switzerland.
Prior to this report, he visited Japan and delivered a lecture at Sophia University on the second.
Immediately before that, he visited the Liberal Democratic Party’s International Information Review Committee, to which I belong,
and held discussions with several lawmakers.
However, both his speech and the contents of his report were riddled with problems.
We pointed out these issues and urged him to recognize Japan’s situation accurately,
at the very least to correct factual errors, falsehoods, and distortions.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also appears to have exchanged views with him for two hours,
yet almost all of these points were ignored.
There have been a series of unacceptable actions by individuals holding the position of UN Special Rapporteur.
Kaye’s report stands as the most prominent example.
In addition, Joseph Cannataci, a professor at the University of Malta,
claimed in a letter that Japan’s anti-terrorism legislation could unduly restrict privacy and freedom of expression.
Furthermore, the UN Committee Against Torture abruptly recommended that the South Korean government reconsider the Japan–South Korea agreement on the comfort women issue.
Many Japanese people harbor a belief that the United Nations is inherently benevolent.
When news spreads that the UN has “recommended” something to the Japanese government,
people instinctively assume that the government must be acting improperly.
In reality, behind most of these moves lies a clear and deliberate scheme.
Japanese human rights groups, lawyers, and left-wing activist organizations serve as guides in these efforts.
Having lost influence within Japan, they have shifted their battlefield to the UN,
attempting to manipulate domestic public opinion from the outside.
Japanese people tend to accept UN recommendations as fair and neutral simply because they come from the UN.
In short, the UN’s nameplate is being abused.
The Human Rights Council in particular has become a breeding ground for such manipulation,
to the point that the credibility of the UN itself is now being seriously questioned.
For this reason, I want the public to widely understand the problems in David Kaye’s report that I personally witnessed.
To be continued.