Drawing on a major essay by Hiroyuki Hirakawa in HANADA, this piece analyzes how international misunderstanding arose over the Japanese Emperor’s abdication.
It examines the distorted interpretation by Le Monde, the role of Japanese scholars who implicitly guided foreign journalists toward such readings, and the unprecedented imperial remarks that came to be perceived as political statements.

March 6, 2017

As previously noted, until August three years ago I was unfamiliar with Mr. Hiroyuki Hirakawa.

In the current issue of the monthly magazine HANADA, he has published a ten-page, three-column essay titled “The Core of the Emperor’s Abdication Issue: Who Shifted the Focus?”

Within it, an article from Le Monde—written in a tone resembling that of the French edition of The New York Times—is cited. Upon reading it, I could not help but think, “France too—have you fallen to this?”

To think that Le Monde would require a thunderous rebuke, as if from the reincarnations of Kūkai and Nobunaga—this alone is proof that pseudo-moralism and pseudo-communism are corroding the media like a cancer.

[Opening paragraphs omitted.]

Emphasis and sections marked with asterisks are my own.

Regarding Item ③, concerning activities after abdication:

Once the Emperor becomes Emperor Emeritus, there are countless possibilities for problematic remarks to arise—through free overseas travel, visits by foreign journalists, diplomats, or friends asking various questions.

In fact, even the recent video has already been interpreted as containing problematic statements.

Although Le Monde is internationally regarded as a highly credible newspaper, its reporting on the abdication issue this time is extremely distorted.

In what could be described as a “testament,” the Emperor, backed by the “overwhelming trust” of the people, is said to have conveyed several messages.

First, he once again expressed his attachment to the Constitution, which defines the Emperor as “the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people.”

He also repeatedly expressed his “deep attachment to peace” and his “sense of regret for the suffering Japan caused neighboring countries during the war.”

Another force of this message lies in its political implications.

Prime Minister Abe, described as a staunch nationalist, can only be perplexed by the Emperor’s wishes.

He is said to have no choice but to submit to the public support the Emperor enjoys.
(The debate over revising the Imperial House Law could also delay constitutional revision.)

The Prime Minister, supported by the most reactionary elements of Japan’s political forces, intends to revise the Constitution—specifically Article 9.

Le Monde, what level of incompetence does it take to write something this childish? Do you not even know what the one-party dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party is doing today? And yet, with such intellect, you have dared to call yourself “Le Monde” before the world. The genuine intellectuals France has produced throughout history must be shrinking in shame in the afterlife at such an unforgivable insult to Japan and the Japanese people.

Despite possessing no political authority whatsoever, Emperor Akihito has, it is claimed, skillfully demonstrated that he can obstruct—indeed, even prevent—the grand designs of those who long for a coercive, imperialistic Japan.

Le Monde, Editorial, August 11, 2016
“Le testament de l’Empereur du Japon”

Thus it was written almost immediately in this manner.

Upon reading it, I concluded that the first problem lies with the French journalist who adopted such an interpretation; the second problem lies with the Japanese scholars whose biased tendencies suggested such interpretations to foreign journalists; and the third problem lies in the Emperor’s unprecedented words, which were taken as expressing political claims.

Considering the international misunderstanding that arose, I cannot help but feel saddened and disappointed that there appears to have been no one close to His Majesty who offered counsel or restraint.

[End excerpt.]