Statements by commentators who reduce North Korea’s abductions to merely a “family request” and argue that normalization or economic aid should come first amount, in the author’s view, to rhetoric that harms Japan’s sovereignty and human rights.
This article examines remarks made by Masao Okonogi and Hiroshi Nakanishi in a Mainichi Shimbun roundtable discussion, sharply criticizing both their implications and the broader decline of Japan’s public and academic discourse that obscures the true nature of the abduction issue.
It is written from the position that the immediate and collective return of all victims must remain a non-negotiable demand.

2019-03-07
What kind of intellect do Professor Emeritus Masao Okonogi of Keio University and Professor Hiroshi Nakanishi of Kyoto University possess, when they brazenly speak on behalf of North Korea.

A chapter I posted on 2018-08-10 under the title, “I despise Keio University merely because Masao Okonogi is making remarks like this,” suddenly rose today to second place in Ameba’s search rankings.
What follows is a continuation of the previous chapter.

A Mainichi roundtable of commentators in which remarks benefiting the enemy were made.

Therefore, if the U.S.-North Korea talks over nuclear dismantlement show a certain degree of progress, North Korea will without fail next approach Japan.
That could happen as early as August.
North Korea has already begun preparing for that.
They understand that with a zero response on the abductions, they cannot extract money from Japan.
However, those in the operations apparatus surely do not want to return alive people such as Megumi Yokota and the other eight whom they unilaterally reported as “dead” in 2002, because those people know many secrets related to North Korean operations.
So they will intensify a prior information operation to make it accepted that Megumi and the others are dead.
That has already begun.

Also, if Japan and North Korea begin to move toward talks, the pro-North forces at home, which have remained quiet for some time, will launch a campaign saying that the dead do not come back to life, that even nuclear dismantlement alone would be a major achievement, and that Japan should provide compensation without insisting on the abduction issue.
How much that movement can be restrained will be the key to realizing the absolutely non-negotiable task of the immediate and collective return of all victims.

Therefore, I want to point out the dangerous arguments and trends that emerged immediately after the U.S.-North Korea summit and heighten vigilance.
First are the remarks made by Keio University Professor Emeritus Masao Okonogi and Kyoto University Professor Hiroshi Nakanishi at the June 14 roundtable of commentators in the Mainichi Shimbun.

Mr. Okonogi criticized the Japanese government’s policy of normalizing relations only after resolving the abduction issue and the nuclear and missile issue, and argued as follows that normalization should come first.
In doing so, he trivializes the abduction issue into a matter of “the families’ request,” while ignoring its essence as an infringement on sovereignty and human rights through state crime.

“At present, Japan’s policy is to normalize relations after resolving the abduction issue and the nuclear and missile issue.
The nuclear and missile issue cannot be resolved unless North Korea takes action.
As for the abduction issue, the demands of the victims’ families are extremely strong.
It will without doubt become a difficult situation.
North Korea’s order of priorities is the reverse of Japan’s, and it will demand normalization of diplomatic relations first.
Japan needs the resolve to readjust its order of priorities.”

Professor Nakanishi questioned the government’s assumption that the victims are alive, and said that Japan should accept their deaths even though there is no evidence whatsoever.
On top of that, he opposed the government policy of no economic aid without resolution of the abduction issue, and pressed for economic assistance for denuclearization to be implemented before the abduction issue is resolved.

“Because North Korea cannot be trusted, one can understand the negotiating method that proceeds on the premise that the abductees are alive.
But if, unfortunately, they had died, Japanese diplomatic officials need to make clear how that would be settled.
In the end, we would return to the basic spirit of the Japan-North Korea Pyongyang Declaration, namely, resolving outstanding issues and normalizing diplomatic relations.
Would it not be the best option now conceivable for Japan to play a certain role in denuclearization in parallel with negotiations for normalization?
If Japan provides economic aid without resolving the abduction issue, public backlash will certainly be strong, but denuclearization has legitimacy and would become an important channel related to the Korean Peninsula.”

If voices like these grow louder, Prime Minister Abe’s position—no aid without resolution of the abduction issue, and resolution meaning the immediate and collective return of all victims—cannot but be weakened.
These are grave remarks that benefit the enemy.

Even so, there still exists the Mainichi Shimbun, which ought long ago to have died, and upon its pages Professor Emeritus Masao Okonogi of Keio University and Professor Hiroshi Nakanishi of Kyoto University brazenly speak on behalf of North Korea.
What kind of minds do such professors possess.
I despise Keio University merely because Masao Okonogi is making remarks like this, and I despise Kyoto University merely because Hiroshi Nakanishi is making remarks like this.

To be continued.