Published on July 15, 2019.
This essay warns of North Korea’s possible approach to Japan after the U.S.–North Korea talks, and of pro-North Korean forces within Japan that may echo its agenda.
It criticizes remarks by Masao Okonogi and Hiroshi Nakanishi in a Mainichi Shimbun expert roundtable, arguing that they minimize the abduction issue and promote normalization and economic aid before the return of all abductees.

July 15, 2019.
A grave statement that benefits the enemy.
What on earth are Masao Okonogi, professor emeritus of Keio University, and Hiroshi Nakanishi, professor of Kyoto University, who shamelessly speak for North Korea in the pages of the Mainichi Shimbun, a newspaper that should long since have died?
The following is a continuation of the previous chapter.
An expert roundtable in the Mainichi Shimbun where statements benefiting the enemy were made.
Therefore, if the U.S.–North Korea talks over nuclear abandonment show a certain degree of progress, North Korea will certainly approach Japan next.
It may happen as early as August.
North Korea has already begun preparations for that purpose.
They understand that if they give zero answers on the abductions, they cannot get money from Japan.
However, the intelligence departments and others must not want to return alive Megumi Yokota and the others, the eight people whom they unilaterally notified Japan in 2002 were “dead,” because they know many secrets related to their operations.
Therefore, they will intensify advance information operations claiming that Megumi and the others are dead.
That has already begun.
Also, within Japan, when Japan-North Korea moves seem likely, pro-North Korean forces that had remained quiet for a while will begin a campaign saying that the dead cannot come back to life, that nuclear abandonment alone is a major achievement, and that Japan should provide compensation without being fixated on the abduction issue.
How to restrain that movement will be the key to realizing the absolutely non-negotiable task of the immediate 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 raise vigilance.
First are the remarks made by Masao Okonogi, professor emeritus of Keio University, and Hiroshi Nakanishi, professor of Kyoto University, in the Mainichi Shimbun expert roundtable on June 14.
Mr. Okonogi criticized the Japanese government’s policy of normalizing diplomatic relations after resolving the abduction issue and the nuclear and missile issues, and said as follows that normalization should come first.
In doing so, he diminishes the abduction issue into a matter of “the requests of the families,” and ignores its essence as a violation of sovereignty and human rights through a state crime.
“Japan’s current policy is to normalize diplomatic relations after resolving the abduction issue and the nuclear and missile issues.
The nuclear and missile issues cannot be resolved unless North Korea takes action.
The requests of the victims’ families regarding the abduction issue are extremely strong.
The situation will undoubtedly become difficult.
North Korea’s order of priority is the reverse of Japan’s, and it demands normalization of diplomatic relations first.
Japan needs to be prepared to readjust its order of priority.”
Mr. Nakanishi questions the government’s premise that the victims are alive, and says that Japan should accept their deaths even though there is no evidence whatsoever.
Furthermore, he opposes the government’s policy of not providing economic assistance without resolution of the abduction issue, and presses for economic assistance for denuclearization to be implemented before the abduction issue is resolved.
“Because North Korea cannot be trusted, I can understand to some extent the negotiating method that assumes the abductees are alive.
But in the unfortunate event that they are dead, Japan’s diplomatic officials need to make clear how the issue will be settled.
In the end, we will probably return to the basic spirit of the Japan-North Korea Pyongyang Declaration, which is to resolve pending issues and normalize diplomatic relations.
Would it not be the best option now for Japan to play a certain role in denuclearization in parallel with negotiations for normalization of diplomatic relations?
If Japan provides economic assistance without resolving the abduction issue, public backlash will be strong, but denuclearization has legitimacy and will become an important channel for involvement in the Korean Peninsula.”
If such voices grow louder, the position of Prime Minister Abe, who insists that there will be no aid without resolving the abduction issue, and that resolution means the immediate collective return of all victims, will inevitably be weakened.
It is a grave statement that benefits the enemy.
Even so, what kind of intellectual level do these professors possess: Masao Okonogi, professor emeritus of Keio University, and Hiroshi Nakanishi, professor of Kyoto University, who shamelessly speak for North Korea in the pages of the Mainichi Shimbun, a newspaper that should long since have died?
I despise Keio University simply because Masao Okonogi makes such statements, and I despise Kyoto University simply because Hiroshi Nakanishi makes such statements.
This essay continues.