Premised on the argument that it is in fact South Korea and China that have continued to engage in racist conduct toward Japan, this passage forms part of a body of work produced by people who, living quietly in one corner of society, devoted their own money and labor to ensure that the facts were posted on the official website of a UN committee.
This chapter examines the September 2018 incident surrounding South Korea’s international fleet review, in which the South Korean government asked Japan not to display the ensign of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, arguing that the demand was grounded in misunderstanding and paranoia fostered by anti-Japanese education and constituted a grave breach of international courtesy.
Noting that the ensign is legitimate under both Japanese law and international law and is respected by navies around the world, it argues that the incident deeply wounded the pride of the Japanese people.

2019-03-02
Yet it was precisely those people who had continued to live in one corner of society as the very “treasures” spoken of by Saichō, who finally rose up for Japan and the Japanese people at their own expense and caused the facts to be posted on the official website of a United Nations committee.

What follows concerns the fact that it is in fact South Korea and China that are engaging in racial discrimination against Japan…。
They do so with state budgets…。
South Korea spends 2 billion yen every year, and China’s sum must be astronomical, and considering the more than 100 trillion yen they extracted from Japan, they are likely pouring virtually limitless funds into sympathetic individuals and organizations all over the world…。
Yet it was precisely those people who had continued to live in one corner of society as the “treasures” spoken of by Saichō who, at their own expense, finally stood up for Japan and the Japanese people and got the facts placed on the official website of a UN committee,
a work by people truly deserving of the Nobel Prize.
3-1-3. Forcing Japan not to use the ensign of the Self-Defense Fleet.
In September 2018, the South Korean government asked Japan not to use the ensign of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, to which the United States and the navies of other countries pay respect, during the international fleet review held in South Korea.
Fleet reviews had also been held in South Korea in 1998 and 2008, but at those times no such request had been made.
After that, however, as anti-Japanese sentiment deepened through anti-Japanese education, a tendency spread to misunderstand the ensign of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force as a “symbol of militarism.”
The South Korean government, pandering to such anti-Japanese public opinion, requested that Japan refrain from displaying the ensign, but this was an extremely rude demand that gravely lacked international courtesy.
The ensign of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force is required to be displayed under Japanese laws such as the Self-Defense Forces Act, and under international law it corresponds to an “external mark” indicating that a vessel belongs to the armed forces of a state.
Furthermore, the ensign is a source of pride for Maritime Self-Defense Force personnel, and even the United States Navy, which fought against Japan in the Second World War, pays respect to it.
Faced with South Korea’s utterly unreasonable demand, Japan had no choice but to cancel the dispatch of its ship to the fleet review.
Although South Korea asked participating countries to display only their own national flags and the South Korean flag, at the October 11 fleet review the South Korean naval vessel carrying President Moon Jae-in displayed an “anti-Japan flag.”
Moreover, the navies of the participating countries refused South Korea’s demand and paraded while flying their own naval ensigns.
This incident was caused by South Korea’s paranoid sense of fear toward Japan, brought about by anti-Japanese education, and as a result the pride of the Japanese people was deeply wounded.
To be continued.