Year 20222In May, President Joe Biden held a press conference on the Afghanistan Central Bank, which was kept in the custody of the U.S. financial institutions.70The Whereabouts of US$100 MillionannouncementThe Taliban forces were Taliban forces were2021These are the assets that the U.S. had frozen in Afghanistan's Central Bank assets as a result of the retaking of power in Afghanistan in 2006. Half of these were to be returned to Afghanistan without the Taliban regime. The Biden administration has called this "humanitarian aidcalled "support," but it goes without saying that "support" is not synonymous with the return of another country's assets to the country in question. As for the other half of the assets,2001The company says it will continue to store the information for the possibility of providing it to the families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks in 2001.scheme to seizeThe Biden administration proudly announced that the

How did the Japanese media report this plan by the U.S. government to seize the property?Asahi (newspaper)is "frozen assets4000billion yen to be used for humanitarian assistance",Mainichi Newspapersis "U.S. to Support Afghanistan with Frozen Assets 35billion dollars to be utilized," while the Yomiuri Shimbun reported, "U.S. to support Afghanistan.4000Billions of yen" (2022counter for years (following a number in the hito-futa-mi counting system)2month13The article was published with headlines such as "The Day of the Dead" and "The Day of the Dead".Nihon Keizai ShimbunandNHK The report also reported that the project was "humanitarian aid". In both of these news organizations, the U.S. plan to seize the assets was not negatively worded, with phrases such as "leave" without conveying the nuance of "seizure. The Yomiuri Shimbun did not even mention how this half of the assets would be used. In other words, the Yomiuri Shimbun only reported what the U.S. president said and did not go into the essence of the event.

Thus, international reporting by the Japanese media very often simply follows the viewpoints and arguments held by the U.S. government and the U.S. media. In other words, it must be said that even if it is propaganda originating in the U.S., the Japanese media will believe it. Why has such a cycle been created?

The United States is the most powerful country in the world politically, economically, and militarily. It is also the most powerful country in terms of information transmission. For Japan and other countries, the U.S. has a significant influence in all areas, from hard power, such as security and economics, to soft power, such as culture. In this article, we will analyze information and propaganda originating from the U.S. and explore the image and reality of the U.S. as conveyed in Japan, this time focusing on two perspectives: democracy and war.

A report on the whereabouts of frozen assets of the Central Bank of Afghanistan (Photo:Virgil Hawkins)

What is propaganda?

Encyclopaedia BritannicaAccording to the "Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs," propaganda is "the dissemination of facts, arguments, rumors, half-truths, or false information in order to influence public opinion. Although not necessarily a "lie," propaganda also includes the intentional bending of facts or discarding of some information or viewpoints by governments, media, and others, for example, to manipulate impressions. Although the degree of propaganda varies from country to country and government to government, it can be said that all governments use propaganda to maintain and strengthen their national power and position in power. The first casualty of war is truth."wise sayingThis is especially true in wartime, as there are

In a democracy, citizens' freedom of speech and press is ensured under the law. This means that, in theory, citizens are not subject to explicit censorship or control of any expression and can criticize state power. Therefore, it is generally accepted that in a democratic system, government propaganda is less likely to penetrate the citizenry.interpretationIt is.

However, as the history of the U.S. shows, the U.S. has been more sophisticated in its propaganda in order to create a favorable information environment or public opinion for itself.developmentThe first World War I was a time when the term "propaganda" was used openly and was perceived as a negative. After World War I, with the recognition that the word "propaganda," which had been used openly until then, had a negative connotation, the term "public relations" or "public diplomacy" for external use, mainly in the U.S., graduallyThey changed.The U.S. government is also working to develop relationships with the press, educational and research institutions. In addition, the U.S. government is deepening its relationship with the news media, educational and research institutions, and other organizations, while also deepening its relationship with the public and the dissemination of information that is convenient for itself.techniquehas been refined.

Colorful Newspaper (Photo:ReadyElements / Pxhere [CC0 1.0])

A democratic state against a despotic state?

According to the U.S. government, the country emphasizes "democracy" and "human rights" in its foreign policy and seeks to promote these values around the world. These assertions frequently appear in statements and official documents by the President and other government officials, and similar expressions are frequently used in the Japanese media. For example, in its coverage of major speeches, such as the President's State of the Union address, Japanese newspapers publish summaries, but they are relatively longsummaryand therefore the claim that the U.S. values "democracy" is more likely to be conveyed to readers. In addition, the Asahi Shimbun quotes the President as saying, "We cannot remain silent when basic human rights are violated.articleand the Yomiuri Shimbun, which summarizes the President's words by saying, "He also stressed the importance of democratic values.articleoften recapitulates expressions used by the U.S. government, as in

On the other hand, some articles are problematic because the press has determined that individual actions of the U.S. government deviate from the promotion of democracy and human rights. For example,2021U.S. troops from Afghanistan in 1949.withdrawaland by President Biden.2022The visit to Saudi Arabia in 2006 is problematic from a democracy promotion perspective.articlein the United States. However, these criticisms of the U.S. government's stance can be considered exceptions. The Asahi Shimbun's criticism of President Biden's visit to Saudi Arabia.editorialin the "The United States," Biden decried President Biden's stance, saying that the importance of economic and strategic interests "is no excuse for bending human rights and democratic principles. On the other hand, this expression also conveys the nuance that the U.S. has "principles" of human rights and democracy and that the government is usually active in promoting democracy. Such nuances were echoed by the Asahi Shimbun, which claimed that "What has not changed in Biden's words and actions on foreign policy is his commitment to democracy and human rights issues.Press Commentary Article(in Japanese history)2021counter for years (following a number in the hito-futa-mi counting system)12(May).

Also prominent in recent discourses is the existence of a "democracy versus despotism" structure on a global scale. This has been the Biden administration's diplomatic and security posture against the backdrop of the U.S.-China confrontation as well as Russia's invasion of Ukraine.emphasisThe "I" in "I" is the one I have been working on.2022In 2006 alone, the Asahi Shimbun37The article, Mainichi Shimbun.23The article, Yomiuri Shimbun.11The article mentions the "democracy versus despotism" structure. Most of the coverage introduces it as a structure held up by the President of the United States and points out that the world operates in an antagonistic structure of "democracy vs. despotism". Some point out that some countries cannot choose sides and the problems this confrontational structure createsarticleAlthough there were also3In the paper, articles that mention the possibility that this conflict structure itself does not reflect the reality of the world are71In Article.2There were only a few cases (*1). This2All of them are members of the editorial board of the same Asahi Shimbun newspaper.opinionEach of them is aware of the deception of the "values" held by the major powers. The "democracy vs. despotism" axis of opposition advocated by the U.S. administration of U.S. President Joe Biden does not resonate," and "Many countries feel that the democracy vs. despotism debate is a conflict of power, not values.claimThe first time the company was in

President Biden greets the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia (Photo:Saudi Press Agency / Wikimedia Commons [CC BY 4.0])

U.S. Foreign Policy and the Realities of Democracy

As noted above, from the information emanating from U.S. government leaders and the Japanese media, it appears that the fact exists that the U.S. government is trying to protect and promote democracy in the world. However, a closer look at the reality reveals that the U.S. government's message is not accompanied by actual actions.

The U.S. government has repeatedly taken numerous military and political actions in the world, and that its actions have protected democracy.I can't tell you how much.. This was especially true during the Cold War, when it overthrew numerous democratic regimes and installed dictatorships around the world. In the process supporting dictatorships that suppress democratic processes,Indonesia, ,Guatemala, ,Vietnamand other countries have a history of assisting military actions that cause genocide, human rights abuses, and war crimes that have resulted in millions of deaths. During the Cold War, the U.S. overthrew other governments through interference in elections, coups d'etat, assassination plots, etc.72Let's say they tried twice.researchThere are many democratically elected governments among them. AnotherresearchThen,1946Since the year2000Except for coups against other countries conducted by the U.S. over the years, only direct interference, such as shoulder to shoulder with a particular candidate in electoral intervention,80The report states that this is twice as many times as the number of similar election meddling actions by the Soviet Union and Russia. This is more than double the number of times compared to similar election meddling actions by the Soviet Union and Russia.

Even after 2000, it is difficult to say that the U.S. government is actually trying to promote democracy and human rights in the world. For example, Truthout'ssurveyAccording to,2015As of 2006, the United States was the world's "dictatorship" of the world.73The company provided arms and military training to the U.S. and Canada (U.S.A.). In particular, the large amount of arms provided and the close friendship with Middle Eastern and North African countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt stand out, although the degree of democracy in these countries is very low.2015He also said that the situation has changed dramatically since 2006.I can't tell you.The United States has been involved in a number of coup d'état attempts. In addition, cases continue to point to the involvement of the U.S. government in coups to overthrow democratically elected governments. Recently, although in many cases the extent to which the U.S. was directly involved is unclear because information is often concealed, cases in which the U.S. actively supports the government to be formed after the overthrow or nominates a new head of state and prevents the restoration of the overthrown government have been reported in Haiti (2004Year,2021year), Honduras (2009year), Egypt (2013years), Ukraine (2014year), Bolivia (2019(2006) and others.

It is clear that the actual foreign actions of the U.S. are hardly democratic, and thus the world today cannot be described in terms of a simple bipolar structure of democracy versus despotism. Rather than a competition between political systems, it is a struggle for U.S. hegemony and influence.

Demonstrations against the coup in Bolivia (2019) (Photo:Mandarina420 / Wikimedia Commons [CC BY-SA 4.0])

War and Propaganda: "Policemen of the World"

Let us then look at how the Japanese media perceive the wars in which the U.S. is a party. After World War II, the U.S. was active in many parts of the world in the conflict with the Soviet Union.military movementsThe U.S. has begun to take As part of this effort, the U.S. has itself become a "World PolicemanThe image of the U.S. as the "world's policeman" has been popularized as a role model. After the Cold War, the United States became the sole superpower, further reinforcing the image of the "world's policeman. However2010In the 1950s,Former President Barack Obamaand subsequentFormer President Donald Trumpstated that the U.S. is no longer the "policeman of the world.President Biden.also continues this concept.

The "world's policeman" has long been used in the Japanese press as a label to describe U.S. military intervention in other countries.2018〜tilde2022Year.5During the year, Asahi Shimbun26case, Mainichi Newspaper27Case, Yomiuri Shimbun40The article in question referred to the "policeman of the world". Most of the articles presented the role of the U.S. in a context in which it was assumed that the U.S. had remained the "world's policeman," such as "no longer the world's policeman" or "cannot continue to play (the role of) the world's policeman. References that took this view were.3When the paper is combined, the entire4-th (e.g. one fifth)3It accounts for more than The definition of how these newspapers interpret "world policeman" is ambiguous, but the Yomiuri Shimbun's editorial (2022(2006) described its role in terms of "leading the resolution of all disputes." Other examples include the U.S.2003An article by an editorial board member of the Asahi Shimbun newspaper connecting the role of "world policeman" to the start of the Iraq War in 2006 (2019year), as well as a Mainichi newspaper article claiming that various post-Cold War U.S. military interventions in the Middle East were part of the "policing of the world" (2019(1949) was also there.

However,3Paper Total93Few articles can be identified that question the original premise that the U.S. was ever the "world's policeman" in the first place. On the contrary, the article states, "The days when the U.S. played the role of the world's policeman will not return. Even if we lament this and hope for the reappearance of the policeman, peace and stability cannot be restored.2022(*1) in 2006). Only one (*2), a contributed article to the Yomiuri Shimbun (2020(1949), which commented, "Since World War II, the U.S., as the world's dominant power, has deployed U.S. forces around the world for its national interests, and the role of 'world policeman' is merely an external effect of that.

American Militarism and International Law

In general, the police are entities that serve the role of maintaining security and order in society. However, the mafia and warlords (*3) are similarly entities that "maintain order" through the use of force. The difference between them and the police depends on whether they are entities that function based on fair laws agreed upon by society as a whole.

So what about the case of the United States? To confirm this, we need to check on the scale of U.S. military intervention in the world. After the end of the Cold War1991Since the year2022The number of times the U.S. has intervened militarily in other countries by251times. The U.S. is,2013As of 2006, the world's70Hit the % country.134Special forces were deployed in the countries. Also,2020As of the year750s military bases outside the country.He was posturing.The following is a list of the most common problems with the2001At least in the wars that began with U.S. intervention after 1949.90It is estimated that 10,000 people died.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATOOil refinery in Serbia bombed by the1999) (Photo: Darko Dozet / Wikimedia Commons [CC BY-SA 3.0])

Some of these military interventions are clearly contrary to the UN Charter and other international law. Specifically,1999The case of Kosovo's "independence" in 1949, when the U.S. separated Kosovo from Serbian territory through massive air strikes, also,2003This was the case with the invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime and the subsequent occupation of Iraq in 1979. Other,2001Although the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 is sometimes justified on the grounds that it was in self-defense against the terrorist attacks that occurred that year, the fact that the U.S. overthrew the Afghan government and occupied the country, which was not involved in the attacks at the time, clearly exceeds the scope of self-defense. Also,2011With regard to the intervention in Libya in 2006, the UN Security Council resolution authorized the protection of Libyan civilians, but the fact that the rebels were complicit in the overthrow of the then Libyan regime was a violation of the Security Council resolution.

Kosovoand ... andLibyaThe U.S. government has called it a "humanitarian intervention" over thejustificationHowever, it is difficult to say that this was "humanitarian intervention" in light of the fact that the U.S. government and others conducted large-scale airstrikes targeting civilian infrastructure over several months,KosovoandLibyaIn the case of the U.S. intervention in the "war on terror," it is possible to conclude that the "humanitarian intervention" explanation was nothing more than propaganda by the U.S.

In addition to this, the U.S. has also been using drones in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.aerial bombinghave been conducting. According to leaks by whistleblowers, the casualties of the U.S. airstrikes90percent was not the goal. Also, in Syria, the U.S. has been secretly providing rebel groups, including militants, with large quantities of weapons.offerwhile at the same time, the expectation that the Syrian government would be a threat.IS(Islamic State) to rise.I was watching over them.There was a time. Even today, U.S. forces are still on Syrian territory.illegal stationing (e.g. of troops)continue to do so. Elsewhere, the U.S.2005In 2006, many countries andcooperationand at least one from each region of the world.136They have also abducted and tortured people.

In some cases, the United States uses economic measures as weapons. For example, the U.S. military's Manual on Irregular Warfare includes a section on the International Monetary Fund (IMFand the World Bank, and that the U.S. influence at the World Bank and other international financial institutions can be used to make economic threats against other countries.statementThe company has been Also,2014In 2006, the U.S. manipulated oil prices to damage the economies of hostile oil-producing countries by causing the world's oil prices to plummet, thereby involving the entire world.armsThe U.S. is also believed to have used computer viruses as a weapon against Iran and other countries. In other cases, the U.S. has used computer viruses as weapons against Iran and other countries.cyber attackI have also done the following.

International Criminal Court, The Hague, Netherlands (Photo: OSeveno / Wikimedia Commons [CC BY-SA 4.0])

Furthermore, it tends to deviate from the actions and norms taken by the world majority. For example, the U.S. is a signatory to treaties to which the majority of the world's nations are signatories, such as the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines and Cluster Munitions, the Arms Trade Treaty, and the International Criminal Court (International Criminal CourtThe company has not signed or ratified any treaties or other instruments related toInternational Criminal Courtfor alleged war crimes and manipulation of war crimes by U.S. military, government officials, and others.International Criminal CourtThe U.S. military has even adopted a law that allows the U.S. military to use force to release U.S. troops and government officials if they are put before the tribunal of the This refers to The Hague, the Netherlands, where the ICC's headquarters are located.Hague Invasion ActIt is also referred to as the "United States of America". Furthermore, in some years, the U.S. is responsible for about70%.The number of votes cast against the "no" vote was the largest in the world.

In light of this reality of U.S. foreign policy, the U.S. is more like a "mafia" than a "police force.claimSome researchers argue that the U.S. is acting based on its own "order" and not on international law. According to these arguments, the U.S. bases its foreign actions on its own "order" rather than on international law, and it tends to punish countries, forces, or individuals who oppose it (*4).

Background of Propaganda Dissemination

Why is there such a wide gap between the image of the United States in Japan and the reality of its activities to promote democracy and its military actions? And why does the Japanese media help so much in promoting the image that the U.S. government has been trying to create in the world? Each of Japan's media organizations has a bureau or several branch offices in the U.S., and they attend press conferences hosted by the U.S. government and conduct news gathering activities. In other words, Japanese media organizations in the U.S. operate through a mechanism similar to that of local news organizations. Let us take a look at the relationship between the U.S. government and the Japanese press.

In the U.S., as in other countries, the media is overly dependent on power for its sources of informationtrendThe government may be a little too close to the truth. Therefore, there are cases in which information from the government is conveyed as it is without checking its authenticity. This kind of behavior is calledshorthand journalismIt is also called "shorthand journalism. The advantage for news organizations of "stenographic journalism" is that they can easily report on events involving the U.S. government at low cost. In extreme cases, a story can be completed simply by attending a press conference or compiling a press release prepared by the government.

Presidential Spokesman answering a reporter's question (Photo: Rawpixel [CC0 1.0])

It could also be argued that the safe path for the press is to recite the government's views. Suppose that a "permissible range of discussion" on an issue is implicitly defined, and that any member of the press or news organization that deviates from that range is excluded.researchThere are Journalists who deviate from or object to the policy or narrative that the government is trying to promote are no longer allowed to ask questions at press conferences, and attendance at press conferences itself isForbidden orIn some cases, they may be fired from their news organizations and no longer employed by major news organizations. In addition, they may be dismissed from their news organization and no longer employed by a major news organization.journalistThere are also

The U.S. government is not the only source of media influence. Think tanks can also be a source of information for the media, but most influential think tanks are closely connected to the U.S. government, military, and military industry, and the government's views and similar information environmentmaintenanceThe news is a commercial activity. In addition, since news reporting is a commercial activity, it is necessary to sell news as a product to readers, viewers, or sponsors. For this reason, in reports on conflicts and wars between nations, countries and characters are often cast as "villains," "victims," or "heroes," and the simple "heroic" role of the hero is often used to justify the "bad guy," the "victim," or the "hero.tale of good and evilThis is explained by the Furthermore, emphasizing nationalism also leads to sales for news organizations, which, in line with the policy of the "home" side of thebe given a roleThe following is a list of the most common problems with the

While these are issues faced by the Japanese and U.S. media, there are also issues unique to the Japanese media. For example, the Japanese governmentforeign policyThe Japanese government and the Japanese media have a close relationship. Under these circumstances, information and viewpoints that do not conform to the narrative and image of a strong Japan-U.S. relationship that has long been portrayed by the media are easily excluded from the Japanese press.

U.S. Secretary of State and Japanese Defense Minister meeting in front of the press (Photo:U.S. Secretary of Defense / Wikimedia Commons [CC BY 2.0])

Dangerous double standards

Year 20223The Yomiuri Shimbun in May.editorialIn , the paper blamed Russia and China for Russia's invasion of Ukraine as follows.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a blatant interference in a sovereign nation by a military power. It is clearly contradictory that China turns a blind eye to Russia's outrage while advocating 'opposition to outside interference. China justifies "changing the status quo by force" of despotic states such as itself and Russia, while positioning countermeasures by the democratic camps of Japan, the U.S., and Europe, which oppose these measures, as "interference. It is a self-serving logic."

This assertion is generally true. However, considering that the U.S., a "military superpower," is engaged in "blatant interference" and "changing the status quo by force" in several countries on a scale far beyond Russia's invasion of Ukraine, should the U.S. actions be overlooked by the media and described as "humanitarian intervention" and legitimate actions by the "world policeman"? (*5). And why is it that the world stands by the innocent victims of Ukraine, but not the equally innocent victims of Yemen?indifferentAre you in?

The Japanese media should not be subservient to either the US or Japanese governments. They should be aware of and question US propaganda, just as they are aware of propaganda by Russia, China, and others. Otherwise, they may continue to play a role as propagandists.

1 Referring to Russia's opposition to the confrontational structure set forth by the U.S.articleand claim that such an adversarial structure is simplistic.articleThere were also

2 An interview with the Asahi Shimbun newspaper ("Neither the overwhelming sole superpower nor the world's policeman")2022(1949), but we have not counted it here because it is ambiguous as to whether this expression applies to the U.S. itself in the past, and it was difficult to determine from the context of the article.

*3warroad(in Japanese history)warlord) refers to armed groups that pursue private interests. They are born in areas where the government is not capable of governing and become the effective rulers of the area. Unlike rebel groups, they do not seek to overthrow governments and avoid conflict with government forces. They also control economic activity and profit by monopolizing the security environment in the occupied territories and areas of operation.

4 The case of a state is Cuba, which the U.S. is trying to blockade thoroughly, and the case of an individual is Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, who has released many internal documents of the U.S.

5 For "humanitarian intervention" (in Kosovo and Iraq), see "Humanitarian Intervention: 'Liberation from Oppression' and the Positive Argument in Favor of the Iraq War (Commentary)," Yomiuri Shimbun ("Yomiuri Shimbun").2003counter for years (following a number in the hito-futa-mi counting system)9month6(2) and "World Policeman" (Iraq, etc.), "U.S. involvement shrinks, changes in the Middle East (commentary)," The Yomiuri Shimbun (Japanese only).2020counter for years (following a number in the hito-futa-mi counting system)9month17(Sun.).

Writer:Virgil Hawkins