Russia's aggression against Ukraine and the Japanese Communist Party's position
[Editorial Note: This is an English translation of the first chapter of the booklet, "Russia's aggression against Ukraine and the Japanese Communist Party's national security policy". The booklet is based on a lecture given by JCP Chair Shii Kazuo in Tokyo on April 29, 2022.]
1,Russia's aggression against Ukraine and JCP's position
To begin with, I will talk about Russia's aggression against Ukraine and the JCP's position on it.
More than two months have passed since the invasion began. I know many of you feel grief and anger as the media keep reporting about innocent citizens (including children) killed in the war.
The JCP on April 7 held a national assembly to work to achieve a victory in the House of Councilors election and I addressed the assembly on behalf of the Executive Committee. In the address, I stressed that although the crisis is serious, the JCP position has proven to be reasonable and progressive in regard to the crisis. I underscored the need to have conviction on the four points I made and exert efforts to restore peace.
Today, I want to explain more about the core issues involved.
The importance of using the U.N. Charter and international law as the most important criterion for dealing with the crisis
The first is about the JCP's basic stance on the issue. We use the U.N. Charter and international law as the most important criterion for dealing with the problem. I will explain why it is important.
[Putin administration's three international law violations-how to end the war and in what form]
The JCP has condemned the Putin administration for violating international law in three ways.
Firstly, what the Putin administration is doing is an act of aggression which is in violation of the U.N. Charter banning the use of force.
Secondly, Russia's indiscriminate attack on civilians and mass killings are a huge problem. They are war crimes in violation of Geneva Convention and other international humanitarian laws that must face justice.
Thirdly, Moscow's threat to use nuclear weapons is totally unacceptable, as it is in violation of the U.N. Charter and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Then, what should be done to stop the war? While it is necessary for the international community to impose economic sanctions on Russia in a coordinated and effective way, I want to emphasize that the most important thing to do is to surround the Putin administration with voices of protest in the international political arena. "Russia must stop the invasion and abide by the U.N. Charter", the world's governments and civil societies need to raise their voices and work together. That is the most powerful force to stop Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The JCP has called on various individuals and organizations at home and abroad to work in line with this position.
Some may wonder if President Putin cares about international opinions. In reality, it is what he cares about most. Recently, a surprising thing happened to us. JCP member of the House of Councilors Inoue Satoshi criticized Russia's invasion of Ukraine on the "Sunday Debate" program aired on NHK on March 6. Soon after that, we received a letter from the Russian ambassador to Japan, Mikhail Galuzin, which states that Inoue's remark at the TV debate was "regrettable" and that the ambassador wants to "exchange opinions" with Inoue. After considering the offer, we thought it was a good opportunity. Inoue met with Galuzin in the Diet building and explained to him in detail how the JCP viewed the crisis. The ambassador justified Russia's military offensive, citing "NATO's threat". Inoue in reply said, "No country has the right to use arms to deal with perceived threats." The ambassador just said that he would report the JCP position to Moscow. That ended the meeting. As such, the JCP has directly told Russia that the invasion is in violation of the U.N. Charter and that Russia should stop the military action.
Through such experiences, we have realized how much the Putin administration cares about international public opinion. For more than 30 years, I have appeared on NHK's "Sunday Debate" program many times and criticized the United States or China. But the embassies of the two countries have never made a complaint against me. The fact that Russia protested against us reveals how concerned Moscow is about international public opinion.
This war must be stopped as soon as possible. And in what form the war ends matters greatly. It will have a significant influence on the world's order of peace in the future. Let us make utmost efforts to stop the war with the power of international public opinion, hold the aggressors responsible for the war, and restore the international order of peace based on the U.N. Charter.
What I said so far may sound nothing special at all but it actually is. It is what many countries in the world are talking about. However, the Japanese government takes little notice of it. The other day (April 27), I took part in a debate with leaders of other political parties for a TV program to be aired on May 1 on NHK. I condemned Russia's military action as a violation of the U.N. Charter. However, Prime Minister Kishida did not use the phrase "U.N. Charter violation" even once in the debate to criticize Russia. He did not mention a need to work to restore the world order of peace based on the U.N. Charter. That situation made me realize once again that it is important for the JCP to analyze the crisis and seek a solution from the viewpoint of the U.N. Charter and international law.
[The JCP rejects the argument that both Russia and Ukraine are to blame as it ignores the difference between the aggressor and the victim]
In relation to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I will explain how the JCP views the problem of military alliances from two perspectives.
The first perspective is about the cause of the war. Some say that both Russia and Ukraine are to blame, ignoring the difference between the aggressor and victim. We reject such an argument. It is unreasonable and will not take hold in international society.
The JCP has maintained that military alliances fuel military confrontations, accelerate arms races, and undermine peace. The JCP Program states that the party will do all it can do to establish "a world without military alliances". From this point of view, the JCP has opposed NATO's eastward expansion and deployment of NATO troops outside its territory. However, the problem of military alliances cannot be used to justify Russia's act of aggression which is in violation of the U.N. Charter. Even if Moscow perceives a threat, it does not mean Russia has the right to attack its neighbor. All countries, regardless of how they view military alliances, need to unite and jointly urge Russia to stop the war and abide by the U.N. Charter. I think that is the most important thing right now.
[Binary thinking of "democracy vs. autocracy" -will not lead to a solution]
Secondly, we criticize any move to form or strengthen military blocks as a response to the crisis.
On March 1, shortly after the start of the invasion, U.S. President Biden gave the State of the Union Address. In the address, he condemned Russia. However, there is not a single mention of the "United Nations Charter" in the text. Even the word "United Nations" does not appear. Instead, he talked about "the battle between democracy and autocracy". The Putin administration is an autocratic regime without doubt. But the question now is not about values. Forcing countries to choose sides does not provide momentum and instead creates confusion on which path to follow. In fact, such an attitude by the U.S. has attracted criticism from many emerging and developing countries. The important thing now is not to divide countries according to their values, but to unite and jointly urge Russia to abide by the U.N. Charter.
How about Prime Minister Kishida? As I already explained, he merely criticizes Russia's military action as a violation of the U.N. Charter. However, when JCP Vice Chair Tamura Tomoko the other day at a Diet meeting asked Kishida if he thinks the invasion is a U.N. Charter violation, Kishida was unable to deny it. Kishida sometimes uses the phrase "U.N. Charter violation" but only when answering a question. He doesn't make any remark about the need to restore the international order of peace based on the U.N. Charter. What he repeats is the need to restore the order led by the G7, a community of shared values. He mentioned it in the party leaders' TV debate to be aired on May 1. Instead, I want to stress that what needs to be restored is not a G7-led order, but an order of peace based on the U.N. Charter. This is what all countries, including emerging economies and developing countries, can unite for.
I think strengthening military blocks in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine is highly problematic as it will hamper the effort to build international solidarity to stop the military action and can fuel the war. We will criticize such a move from the viewpoint of restoring the order of peace based on the U.N. Charter.
The issue of nuclear weapons-How to refute the nuclear deterrence theory
Secondly, how to deal with the problem of nuclear weapons. I will explain the importance of refuting the nuclear deterrence theory.
[Use of nuclear weapons is unacceptable-raise voices of protest from the A-bombed nation of Japan and the rest of the world]
The risk of a nuclear war is becoming real. President Putin repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons, and this is not without warning. The Putin administration in 2020 issued a presidential decree titled, "Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence" which sets preemptive use of nuclear weapons as part of a basic strategy. The U.S. also endorses the preemptive use of nuclear weapons. The U.S. in its Nuclear Posture Review, which is being prepared for publication this year, stopped short of denying such an option although having discussed the issue. However, only the Putin administration sets the preemptive use of nuclear weapons as part of its basic strategy and has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons.
If a weapon of mass destruction is used, it will have extremely serious and irreversible consequences for humanity. Countries around the globe, especially Japan, the world's only A-bombed country, need to declare their determination to prevent nuclear weapons from being used. I want to stress this point more than anything.
[The emergence of the Putin administration has made it even clearer that the nuclear deterrence theory is irrelevant]
As the Putin administration repeatedly makes nuclear threats, there are dangerous arguments about the need to fight nuclear weapons with nuclear weapons. Among them, the worst example is that Japan needs to share nuclear weapons with the U.S., which is claimed by former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo and lawmakers of the far-right the "Nippon Ishin no Kai" (Japan Innovation Party). The Japan Confederation of A-and H-bomb Sufferers Organizations (Nihon Hidankyo) strongly criticizes the Japan Innovation Party's proposal on nuclear sharing as a dangerous proposal which could nudge Japan toward a path leading to a nuclear war, heavy death tolls, and the devastation of the land, urging the party to retract the proposal. Many other nuclear advocates, though in a less radical tone, assert, "Nuclear deterrence is important more than ever" and "The nuclear umbrella is essential". I heard this kind of argument also in a TV debate among party leaders to be aired on May 1.
However in reality, what the world is now witnessing is not the importance of nuclear deterrence, but the collapse of it. The JCP is determined to refute the theory through public discussions.
In the debate among the party leaders, I criticized the nuclear deterrence theory from two points of view.
First, I pointed out that as President Putin includes preemptive use of nuclear weapons in Russia's basic strategy and shows no hesitation in resorting to nuclear attacks without considering its dire implication for people in Russia, it is now even clearer that no one can defend the nuclear deterrence theory, an idea that maintaining nuclear arsenal deters other states from using theirs.
The nuclear deterrence theory sits on the assumption that leaders of the both sides at least want to avoid decisions that will have a huge toll on their own citizens. However, President Putin shows no such inclination in the first place. Moreover, he made a horrible remark in 2018 (in a documentary, titled, "The World Order 2018"). Russian media repeatedly aired this video clip during the invasion of Ukraine.
"If someone decides to destroy Russia, then we have a legal right to respond. Yes, for humanity it will be a global catastrophe, for the world it will be a global catastrophe. But still, as a citizen of Russia and the head of the Russian state, then I want to ask myself the question: 'Why do we need such a world if there is no Russia there?'"
"Why do we need such a world if there is no Russia there?" This is horrifying. It means that President Putin will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons and wreak havoc on not only his own citizens but also on all of humanity.
Under such a circumstance, it is increasingly evident that the nuclear deterrence theory will not hold. And it is also increasingly evident that the only way to eliminate the possibility of a use of nuclear weapons is to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world. This is urgent.
[There is a clear contradiction between supporting the nuclear deterrence theory and criticizing the inhumanity of nuclear weapons]
Secondly, the nuclear deterrence theory can be criticized in a more basic and essential point of view.
In the debate, political party leaders discussed whether Japan should take part in the nuclear weapons ban treaty. PM Kishida showed a negative attitude, citing a number of excuses. He stressed that Japan needs to "continue working with the U.S. to strengthen the reliability of nuclear deterrence, including extended deterrence in various forms such as nuclear deterrence discussions". As such, the single biggest reason why Tokyo turns its back on the nuclear weapons ban treaty is, in short, because it is fearful of possible negative impacts on the reliability of nuclear deterrence.
Then, what is nuclear deterrence? Nuclear deterrence sits on the assumption that nuclear weapons will be used, and that the nuclear button will be pushed in times of emergency.
Former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz said in effect: You cannot implement nuclear deterrence without actually using [nuclear weapons] in times of emergency. No one can drop nuclear bombs while knowing that hundreds of thousands or millions of people would be killed. No leader of civilized countries can use nuclear weapons. If they cannot be used, they cannot act as a deterrence.
I think this remark highlights the essential problem of the nuclear deterrence theory. Supporting this theory is committing to use nuclear weapons without hesitation when necessary and bring about a catastrophe with grave humanitarian consequences such as the horrible atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The Japanese government criticizes nuclear weapons as having an inhumane nature. You cannot talk about the inhumanity of nuclear weapons while sticking to the nuclear deterrence theory. That is an obvious contradiction.
As the government of the world's only country that suffered nuclear attacks, Tokyo should be ashamed of itself for adhering to such a theory.
[Humanity has set off on a great journey to overcome the nuclear deterrence theory with the nuclear weapons ban treaty]
Having considered the above-mentioned points, some may still contend that a nuclear arsenal is necessary for security. In reply, I want to say this.
As I already explained, the nuclear deterrence theory sits on the assumption that nuclear weapons need to be used. If a country resorts to a nuclear attack, how will the target country react? A retaliatory attack with nuclear weapons will transpire. The result is a nuclear holocaust, a mass killing by nuclear bombs. Nuclear deterrence does not ensure the security of anybody.
I want to stress that the nuclear weapons ban treaty prohibits states parties to not just possess or use, but also "threaten to use" nuclear weapons (Article 1), thus rejecting the nuclear deterrence theory. This is why the treaty matters. In other words, with the nuclear weapons ban treaty, humanity has already set off on a great journey to overcome the false argument about nuclear deterrence.
I once again urge the Japanese government to throw off the yoke of the nuclear deterrence theory and join the treaty.
The worldview of the Program--the crisis is serious, but history is not wasted
Thirdly, I want to talk about the worldview of the Program of the Japanese Communist Party.
Some people may come to feel that the world has turned into what it was in 19th century after having witnessed Russia's lawless acts.
The crisis is serious. However, I want to emphasize that history is not wasted. Such a broad perspective is very important now.
[How to view the current situation of the United Nations--countering the argument that the U.N. is powerless]
How should we view the current situation of the United Nations? There is an argument that the U.N. is powerless as vetoes were exercised in the Security Council meetings. U.N. Under-Secretary-General Nakamitsu Izumi just after vetoes were exercised said, "The U.N. has multiple faces. When one aspect of the U.N. fails to work for peace, as it did yesterday, we in the United Nations keep working on the ground to prevent and help victims. We have been making plans for the worst case scenario. The U.N. will never give up."
I was truly touched by this remark. It is true that the Security Council is not functioning, but the U.N. General Assembly is. And humanitarian agencies of the U.N. are active. The other day, I met with officials of U.N. agencies and the International Red Cross to turn over to them donations of 150 million yen the JCP had collected to support humanitarian assistance to the people of Ukraine. I was deeply impressed to hear that a large number of staff of U.N. humanitarian agencies and the Red Cross International Committee are working day and night in Ukraine despite the risks and dangers involved.
They said to me, "The global refugee problem is not just about Ukraine. We hope Japan will provide more support to the world's 80 million refugees." I agree. We have renewed our determination to work to help their admirable efforts by, for example, addressing such requests.
[Two U.N. General Assembly resolutions--Showing how powerful "the structural change in the world" is]
I think it is especially significant that the U.N. General Assembly adopted two resolutions [regarding Russia's aggression of Ukraine]. On March 2, the resolution, which condemns Russia's aggression as a violation of the U.N. Charter and calls for an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine, was adopted with 141 countries voting in favor. On March 24, another resolution, which criticizes the aggression and demands compliance with international humanitarian law, was adopted with 140 countries supporting.
Six times in the past, U.N. Security Council permanent members were condemned for violating the U.N. Charter at U.N. General Assembly meetings. Among the six cases, support from over 140 countries is the highest level ever. More than half of the supporting countries are non-aligned or neutral countries.
We in 2020 amended the Program and included in it the sentence, "The structural change in the world which took place in the 20th century, i.e., the collapse of the colonial system and the creation of more than one hundred new sovereign nations, has begun to demonstrate its vital power promoting peace and social progress in the 21st century." The power of "the structural change in the world" in the 20th century is reflected in the two UNGA resolutions.
It is also important that it was non-superpowers, such as Austria, Costa Rica, Ireland, and New Zealand that rightly criticized Russia's military action as an act of aggression based on the U.N Charter and led discussions on this regard. The ambassador to the U.N. from Austria, whose constitution stipulates neutrality, stated, "Neutrality does not mean neutrality of values. Nor does it mean taking no position when faced with unprovoked and unjustified violation of international law... And we support clear language in our humanitarian resolution--in Ukraine's resolution: clear language that differentiates between victim and aggressor."
They are also countries the JCP worked together with in the process of the formation of the Treaty on the prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. They took a rational stance on the issue of Ukraine as well.
[Democratic reforms in U.N. systems-give General Assembly more authority]
The need to reform the U.N. system is being discussed. The JCP believes that a reform is necessary to review the privileges enjoyed by the Permanent Members of the Security Council. More specifically, the General Assembly should be given more authority.
As the first step forward to this effect, the JCP takes extra notice of the consensus adoption of a resolution aimed at holding permanent Security Council members accountable at UNGA meetings for their use of veto. It was tabled by Lichtenstein, a small European nation, and adopted on April 26 by consensus without taking a vote. A consensus adoption means that consensus was so broad that there was no need to take a vote. The JCP believes that it is necessary to keep tenaciously working to reform the U.N. system in this direction.
[See the situation from a broad perspective-it is a part of humanity's journey for a world free from war]
I want to stress that the current situation should be understood as a part of humanity's great journey toward a world free from war.
In the early 20th century, states in general were thought to have a legitimate right to wage war. After the devastation of the World War I, the 1928 Treaty for the Renunciation of War made war illegal for the first time ever. Furthermore, following the tragedy of the World War II, the 1945 U.N. Charter stipulates that all member states should refrain "the threat or use of force", setting an international goal of achieving a world free from war.
However, until the late 1970s, amid the U.S.-Soviet confrontation, the U.N. was able to do little to realize a world free from war. Concerning the U.S. invasion of Vietnam at that time, the U.N. General Assembly, let alone the Security Council, adopted no resolution to condemn the U.S. act of war.
That situation changed as the colonial system collapsed and more than 100 newly-established sovereign states joined the U.N. by the end of the 1960s. Its power began to be demonstrated in the 1980s. Since then, Security Council permanent members were condemned in the U.N. General Assembly for their lawless acts in violation of the U.N. Charter on the occasions of the former Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. invasion of Grenada, the bombing of Libya, the invasion of Panama, the Russian annexation of Crimea, and the ongoing invasion of Ukraine. There are six cases so far. The time has already come for U.N. Security Council permanent members to be officially denounced in the U.N. General Assembly.
Furthermore, the "structural change of the world" demonstrated its vital power when the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was adopted in a U.N. conference in 2017.
In the past century, human history saw a series of twists and turns, setbacks, and tragedies. However, from a broader perspective, humanity made a steady advance toward a world free from nuclear weapons, free from war. Keeping this firmly in mind, the JCP will envisage a hopeful future and continue working hard. This is our position.
"JCP opposes any nation's hegemonism" -- On the history and program of the JCP
Fourth, I would like to talk about the history and program of the JCP -- "The JCP opposes any nation's hegemonism."
["Isn't Russia originally a communist state?" - In the first place, the Soviet Union was unrelated to socialism and communism]
When talking to the general public, I am sometimes asked, "Isn't Russia originally a communist state?" This is a gross misconception.
It has been 31 years since the fall of the former Soviet Union. The collapsed regime was a regime of hegemonism and despotism that had nothing to do with socialism or communism. The JCP is a party of independence that has thoroughly condemned the Soviet Union's acts of hegemonism, including its invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, saying that those acts have nothing to do with socialism. The Soviet Union mobilized its entire state apparatus to launch a fierce interventionist attack on the JCP, but we repelled it all.
Today, I have brought this document (photo) [A copy of the JCP statement on the dissolution of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union]. After the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991, the JCP issued this statement entitled, "We Gladly Welcome the End to the Party of Colossal Historical Evil, Great-Power Chauvinism and Hegemonism -- On the dissolution of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union." This represented the JCP's actual feeling. I think it is safe to say that the JCP is the only communist party in the world that issued a statement welcoming the dissolution of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
[JCP's position on Japan-Russia territorial issue attracts new public attention]
Regarding this issue, I would like to note that public attention is now being paid to the JCP's claim on the Japan-Russia territorial issue. Recently, a special feature program entitled "The Northern Territory Issue and the Japanese Communist Party" was broadcast as a part of "Teleto BIZ", an online news show of TV Tokyo. It is available on YouTube and I hope you will watch it. At the beginning, the program's MC, who is the chief of the TV Tokyo news crew covering issues related to the Prime Minister's Office, said as follows:
"While the government requests Russia to return the four Russian-controlled northern islands ("northern territories") to Japan, there is a political party that adopts a harder-line stance and demands that not only the four islands but also the entire Chishima (Kurile) Archipelago be returned from Russia to Japan. It may be a little surprising, but it is the Japanese Communist Party. Let us see what logic they are using to make their demands."
He went on to report the JCP's position in detail, citing what I said in press conferences in the past.
The root of the territorial issue between Japan and Russia lies in the occupation of the Chishima (Kurile) islands by Stalin, in violation of the principle of "non-expansion of territory," which was the main principle to be upheld in post-war disposition after World War II -- that even countries that won the war should not expand their territories. The JCP has established its position and has been calling for the return of the entire Chishima (Kurile) archipelago, taking a fundamental scalpel to this hegemony. Light is now shining on this claim. This video has been viewed 860,000 times so far.
On the Japan-Russia territorial issue, I would like to emphasize that, with the international community now concentrating its harsh criticism on Russian hegemonism, new conditions have emerged for a solution to the territorial dispute between Japan and Russia from a broad perspective. Put simply, the occupation of the Chishima (Kurile) Islands by the Soviet Union is the result of the same hegemonistic stance as Russia's current aggression in Ukraine. Taking these new conditions into account, the JCP is strongly calling for a switch to territorial negotiations that go back to the basics of correcting the unjust post-war disposition caused by hegemonism. I would like to say that the position of the JCP is now shining on this issue as well.
[Where did Russian hegemonism begin? -- The history of Russian Empire's hegemonism lives on in President Putin]
Furthermore, I would like to discuss historical issues.
Where did Russian hegemonism begin? The historical origins can be traced back to the Russian Czarist Empire from the 18th century onwards: in the 18th and 19th centuries, the Russian Czarist Empire encompassed Finland, the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), Poland and Ukraine, and was described as a "prison of nations". Throughout their lives, Marx and Engels consistently denounced and fought against the two types of hegemonism in the 19th century: expansionism of Russian Czarist Empire and colonialism under British capitalism. In particular, they fought against the hegemonism of Czarist Russia as a bastion of reactionary forces in Europe.
In the immediate aftermath of the Russian Revolution of 1917, Lenin made a historic achievement in taking a scalpel to the roots of Russian hegemonism. It was the declaration and practice of the "right to national self-determination". At this time, Finland, Poland and the Baltic states seceded and became independent states. Lenin's declaration and practice at this time were of world historical significance, leading to the subsequent collapse of the colonial system.
However, after Lenin's death, under Stalin, the Russian hegemonism that had existed since the Russian Czarist Empire was revived in a more barbaric form. During the Second World War, the Soviet Union annexed three Baltic countries, enclosed Eastern Europe in its sphere of influence and occupied the Chishima (Kurile) Islands unlawfully. The hegemonism was inherited by his successors after Stalin's death. In 1991, the Soviet Union was dissolved, but the hegemonism remained. It was taken over in a barbaric form by President Putin and is now raging.
In his recent remarks and statements, President Putin has repeatedly condemned Lenin's declaration and practice of the "right to national self-determination". This only proves that President Putin is a follower of the hegemonism dating back to the Russian Czarist Empire and Stalin's hegemonism. The history of Russian hegemonism lives on in President Putin. I would like to state unequivocally that he has absolutely nothing to do with communism in any sense of the word.
I would also like to make the case that the JCP's position is the one that carries on the position of Marx and Engels for the modern 21st century.
[Significance of the partial revision of the JCP Program in 2020 -- Based on the history of the JCP's struggle against the four hegemonic powers]
Based on these historical experiences, the JCP specified the following provisions into the party Program at the time of the partial revision of the Program two years ago (2020).
"The JCP will do all it can to build up international solidarity to help stop hegemonistic interventions, war, oppression and domination by any nation, establish an international order for peace"
The important point is where it says "any nation". Until then, the stipulation was "U.S. hegemonism". However, it is not only the U.S. that conducts acts of hegemony in the world today. China is also conducting it. Russia is also wielding hegemony. That is why the JCP has specified in the JCP Program that the JCP does not approve hegemonistic acts by any nation, and I think this has a very important significance under the current crisis.
This year marks the 100th year since the JCP was founded, and it can be said that in its 100-year history it has fought against four hegemonic powers.
The first is pre-war Japanese imperialism and militarism.
The second is post-war U.S. imperialism and hegemonism.
The third is the hegemonism of the Soviet Union and Russia.
The fourth is hegemonism by today's China.
I am proud of the fact that the JCP has fought squarely against the four hegemonic powers and advocated for peace throughout its 100-year history, and I am strongly determined to make an advance in the Upper House elections. Please give the JCP your strong support.