Executive Summary
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the international community has strongly condemned Russia’s claim that “Ukraine is a Nazi regime.” This assertion is widely recognized as baseless and propagandistic, designed to justify aggression.
However, within Japan, statements by foreign resident activists asserting that “Japan is a country that will commit Nazi-like mass murder” have been allowed to persist from 2019 to the present without any legal or social consequences.
This report provides a detailed comparison of these two cases and highlights the clear double standard in international responses, along with the serious dangers this inconsistency creates.
Key Points:
- Structural Similarity: Both Russia’s rhetoric and the activist’s statement baselessly label their targets as “Nazi,” making them structurally identical
- Asymmetric Response: The international community harshly condemns Russia but ignores similar rhetoric against Japan
- Logical Contradiction: This double standard undermines the credibility of universal human rights values
- Future Risks: This precedent could legitimize “Nazi-labeling” of Japan by other nations
This report calls for the international community to apply universal and consistent standards.
1. Comparing Two Cases
1.1 Russia’s “Nazi” Label Against Ukraine
Statement Content
On February 24, 2022, Russian President Putin announced the invasion of Ukraine with the following justification:
“I have decided to conduct a special military operation for the purpose of denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine”
Russia’s claims:
- The Ukrainian regime is “Neo-Nazi”
- Russian-speaking residents in eastern Ukraine are suffering “genocide”
- Russia is conducting humanitarian intervention
Facts
- Ukrainian President Zelensky is Jewish, with family members who perished in the Holocaust
- Far-right parties in Ukraine (such as Svoboda) hold minimal parliamentary seats
- OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) monitors found no evidence of “genocide”
- Russia’s claims are completely false, designed to justify aggression
International Response
- UN General Assembly: 141 countries adopted a resolution condemning Russia
- EU, US, Japan: Imposed severe economic sanctions
- International Criminal Court (ICC): Issued an arrest warrant for President Putin
- Major media outlets: Universally criticized as “baseless propaganda”
- Academic community: Historians and political scientists completely rejected Russia’s claims
International Consensus: Russia’s “Nazi-labeling” is dangerous falsehood used to justify aggression.
1.2 Activist’s “Nazi” Label Against Japan
Statement Content
On September 7, 2019, at the “Japan-Korea Solidarity Action 0907” held in Shibuya, Tokyo, a participant stated:
“I imagine that the assets of Zainichi (Korean residents in Japan) will be frozen and they will be sent to camps. I also think that this country will definitely do things like sending people to gas chambers like the Nazis. I also imagine that neighbors will attack us, like in Rwanda.”
Characteristics of the statement:
- While using “imagine” in some places, “this country will definitely do” is a clear assertion
- Predicts Japan will engage in “Nazi-like gas chamber” activities
- References the Rwandan genocide (mass murder of approximately 1 million people)
- Claims that Japanese people in general (“neighbors”) will attack foreign residents
Facts
- No systematic confiscation of assets or detention of foreign residents occurs in Japan
- No mass murder facilities like “gas chambers” exist
- No large-scale inter-ethnic violence has occurred
- The speaker’s claims are extreme speculation without factual basis
Response from International Community and Japan
- International Community: Silence (virtually no reporting or condemnation)
- Japanese Government: No official response
- Major Media: Some reporting, but no significant criticism
- Legal Action: No criminal or civil cases filed
- Speaker: Faced no sanctions whatsoever
Reality: This statement has been effectively “tolerated.”
1.3 Structural Comparison of Two Cases
| Element | Russia → Ukraine | Activist → Japan |
|---|---|---|
| Label | “Nazi,” “Neo-Nazi” | “Nazi,” “Gas chambers” |
| Assertiveness | “Ukraine is a Nazi regime” | “This country will definitely do it” |
| Historical References | Nazi, Holocaust | Nazi, Holocaust, Rwandan genocide |
| Factual Basis | None (false) | None (false) |
| Target Scope | Ukrainian government/people | Japanese state/Japanese people in general |
| Intent | Justify aggression | Cultivate distrust/hostility toward Japan |
| International Response | Severe condemnation | Silence/tolerance |
Conclusion: Despite being structurally identical, international responses are diametrically opposed.
2. Asymmetry in International Response
2.1 Harsh Condemnation of Russia
The international community responded immediately and forcefully to Russia’s “Ukraine is Nazi” propaganda.
Main Points of Criticism
- Baseless Falsehood
- Contradicts the fact that President Zelensky is Jewish
- No far-right regime exists in Ukraine
- No evidence of “genocide”
- Desecration of Nazi Memory
- Political exploitation of Holocaust memory
- Criticism of trivializing the term “Nazi”
- Justification of Aggression
- Attempting to legitimize illegal military invasion through false claims
- Concealment of international law violations
- Dangerous Propaganda
- Incites ethnic hatred
- Creates psychological foundation for justifying violence
These criticisms are completely justified.
2.2 Silence on Japan’s Case
In contrast, the international community remains almost completely silent about “Nazi-labeling” of Japan.
Why the Silence?
Possible Factors:
- Geopolitical Factors
- Russia is an adversary of the West, making it easy to criticize
- Issues within Japan are treated as “domestic matters”
- Reluctance to intervene in internal contradictions of an ally (Japan)
- “Perpetrator/Victim” Stereotypes
- Japan has a strong image as a “pre-war perpetrator nation”
- Statements by minorities (foreign residents) are easily justified as “resistance by the weak”
- Implicit assumption that “Japanese people should tolerate some things”
- Information Asymmetry
- Statements in Japanese don’t easily reach the international community
- Insufficient proactive information dissemination from Japan
- Only the “victimhood narratives” of some activists reach international audiences
- Political Use of Human Rights
- “Human rights” are conveniently used based on geopolitical considerations
- Essentially becomes merely “distinguishing between allies and enemies”
2.3 Reality of Double Standards
This asymmetry demonstrates the following double standard:
| Principle | Applied to Russia’s Case | Applied to Japan’s Case |
|---|---|---|
| Baseless “Nazi-labeling” is unacceptable | ✓ Strictly applied | ✗ Not applied |
| Incitement of ethnic hatred is dangerous | ✓ Strictly applied | ✗ Not applied |
| Political exploitation of Holocaust memory is wrong | ✓ Strictly applied | ✗ Not applied |
| False propaganda should be condemned | ✓ Strictly applied | ✗ Not applied |
This double standard undermines the credibility of the very concept of universal human rights.
3. Dangers of Logical Inconsistency
3.1 Erosion of Human Rights Standards’ Credibility
Values proclaimed by the international community—”human rights,” “democracy,” “rule of law”—derive their meaning from being universal.
However, the current situation shows:
- Russia’s “Nazi-labeling” → Harshly condemned
- “Nazi-labeling” of Japan → Tolerated
This double standard sends the following message:
“Human rights standards are applied only when politically convenient. They are not universal principles but merely political tools.”
This undermines the credibility of the entire human rights framework that the international community has built over decades.
3.2 Risk of Future Exploitation
If this double standard becomes established, it creates extremely dangerous precedents.
Anticipated Scenarios
Scenario 1: Chinese Criticism of Japan
- China: “Japan is historically Asia’s Nazi, and remains militaristic today”
- China: “Japan’s actions in the East China Sea and South China Sea are aggressive”
- China: “We must act to prevent Japan’s ‘Nazi-like behavior'”
- International Community: “But ‘Nazi-labeling’ of Japan is already tolerated domestically, isn’t it?”
Scenario 2: North Korean Claims to “Protect” Korean Residents in Japan
- North Korea: “Japan is trying to send Korean residents to gas chambers”
- North Korea: “We have a duty to protect our compatriots”
- North Korea: “Humanitarian intervention is necessary”
- Basis: “Resident activists themselves are saying so”
Scenario 3: Formation of International Opinion
- “Japan = Nazi” image becomes established fact
- Japan’s legitimate claims treated as “Nazi excuses”
- Decline in Japan’s voice in international community
- Economic and diplomatic isolation
These are not mere fears. Russia used exactly this method to justify its invasion of Ukraine.
3.3 Loss of the Word “Nazi”‘s Significance
The Holocaust was one of humanity’s worst organized mass murders. Over 6 million Jews were killed, giving the words “Nazi” and “Holocaust” immeasurable historical weight.
However, when this term is casually used as a political label:
- Loss of the Word’s Weight
- “Nazi” becomes merely an insult
- Desecration of actual Holocaust victims
- Genuine Warnings Ignored
- Overuse of “Nazi” means real signs of fascism won’t be believed
- “Boy Who Cried Wolf” effect
- Complicity in Historical Revisionism
- If “Nazi” becomes just a political label, actual Nazi crimes may be trivialized as “not so serious”
To protect Nazi memory, casual use of this term must be prevented.
4. Perspective from International Law and Human Rights Norms
4.1 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Adopted 1965, Japan joined 1995)
Article 4 Provisions
States Parties (…) shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin (…)
Interpretation:
- Incitement of racial hatred is designated as “an offence punishable by law”
- “Against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin”
In other words, incitement of hatred against minorities and majorities alike should be equally prohibited.
Japan’s Reservation
Japan has reservations on Articles 4(a) and (b), citing reconciliation with freedom of expression. However, the treaty’s intent is clear: incitement of racial hatred against any ethnic group is impermissible.
4.2 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Adopted 1966, Japan ratified 1979)
Article 20, Paragraph 2
Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
Interpretation:
- Incitement of “national” hatred is also prohibited
- This includes incitement of hatred against specific nationals (Japanese people)
The claim that “Japanese people are a race that will commit gas chamber murders” clearly violates this provision.
4.3 European Legal Regulations
German Criminal Code Section 130 (Incitement to Hatred)
Whosoever, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace, incites hatred against a national, racial, religious or ethnic group (…) shall be liable to imprisonment from three months to five years.
- Holocaust denial is also punishable
- Use of “Nazi” symbols is regulated
- In Germany, baselessly labeling another country as “Nazi” could also be prosecuted
French Press Freedom Law (1881, amended multiple times)
Incitement to hatred or violence based on race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion is a crime
- Up to 1 year imprisonment and €45,000 fine
- Includes social media statements
United Kingdom Public Order Act 1986
Part III: Criminalizes incitement to racial hatred
Up to 7 years imprisonment
4.4 Deviation from International Standards
From the above international treaties and national laws, the international standard is clear:
- Incitement of racial/ethnic hatred is a crime
- It doesn’t matter whether the target is a minority or majority
- Using Nazis or genocide to denigrate other ethnic groups is impermissible
Japan’s (and the international community’s) tolerance of “Nazi-labeling” of Japan significantly deviates from this international standard.
5. Analysis as Information Warfare
5.1 Possibility of Organized Japan-Denigration Campaign
The 2019 statement may not be an isolated incident.
Pattern Recognition
Similar statements and claims:
- “Japan persecutes foreign residents”
- “Japan is a militaristic state”
- “Japan has not reflected on its history”
- “Japan is Asia’s Nazi”
These may be disseminated in an organized and strategic manner.
Information Warfare Techniques
In modern information warfare:
- Construction of Victim Narrative: Position oneself as the “victim”
- Demonization of Enemy Image: Portray the opponent as “Nazi” or “fascist”
- Formation of International Opinion: Utilize foreign media and human rights organizations
- Establishment of Facts: Make claims “common sense” through repetition
Russia is using exactly this method against Ukraine.
5.2 Long-term International Impact
If such statements are allowed to spread:
Short-term Impact (1-3 years)
- Amplification of anxiety and fear within foreign resident communities
- Cultivation of baseless hostility toward Japanese people
- Deepening of inter-ethnic conflict within Japan
Medium-term Impact (3-10 years)
- Establishment of “Japan = potential perpetrator” image in international community
- Japan’s policies and claims become easily criticized as “Nazi-like”
- Further deterioration of Japan-Korea and Japan-China relations
Long-term Impact (10+ years)
- Falsehood that “Japanese people are a dangerous ethnic group” becomes established fact
- Decline in Japan’s international standing
- Adverse effects on diplomacy, economy, and security
- Increased risk of discrimination and violence against Japanese people abroad
5.3 Risk of Fait Accompli
Historical Lesson:
“Jewish conspiracy theories” also started as extreme fringe claims. However, through repeated assertion, lack of refutation, and tolerance, they became deeply embedded in German society, ultimately contributing to the Holocaust tragedy.
The falsehood that “Japanese people are a Nazi-like ethnic group” also risks similar establishment if left unchallenged.
Early response is essential.
6. Required Responses
6.1 Raising the Issue to the International Community
Necessary Actions
- Create Detailed Report in English
- Accurate recording of facts
- Detailed comparison with Russia’s case
- Analysis from international law and human rights norms perspective
- Engage International Human Rights Organizations
- Amnesty International
- Human Rights Watch
- UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
- Demand “correction of double standards”
- Reach Out to Academic Community
- Publish peer-reviewed papers
- Present at international conferences
- Collaborate with hate speech researchers
- Provide Information to Media
- Contribute to conservative international media
- Cooperate with documentary filmmakers
- Partner with fact-checking organizations
Effective Messaging
- “If Russia’s ‘Ukraine is Nazi’ propaganda is condemned, why is ‘Japan is Nazi’ rhetoric tolerated?”
- “Double standards undermine universal human rights principles”
- “This is not about historical revisionism—this is about current hate speech”
6.2 Role of the Japanese Government
Diplomatic Channels
- Statement at the United Nations
- Raise issue at Human Rights Council
- Point out “double standards”
- Bilateral Consultations
- Share information with allies (US, UK, etc.)
- Gain support
- Utilize International Treaties
- Reference in implementation reports for racial discrimination convention
- Consider reviewing reservations
Domestic Legislation
- Enact Comprehensive Hate Speech Regulation Law
- Regulation regardless of majority/minority status
- Introduction of criminal penalties
- Active Application of Existing Laws
- Expand application of defamation and insult laws
- Prosecute crimes against groups
6.3 Role of Civil Society
Grassroots Level Response
- Documentation and Monitoring
- Database problematic statements
- Continuous monitoring
- Construct Counter-Narratives
- Fact-based rebuttals
- Accurate dissemination of Japan’s reality
- Dialogue and Education
- Promote mutual understanding between communities
- Education for younger generations
NGO and Civic Organization Activities
- Build International Networks
- Collaborate with overseas human rights organizations
- Global problem-raising
- Legal Support
- Litigation support for victims
- Promote strategic litigation
6.4 Media Responsibility
Role of Journalism
- Balanced Reporting
- Not just one-sided “victim narratives,” but fact verification
- Point out double standards
- Fact-Checking
- Verify and correct false claims
- Prevent spread of misinformation
- International Comparison
- Comparative reporting with Russia’s case
- Introduce European responses
7. Conclusion: Establishing Universal Standards
7.1 Reaffirming Core Issues
This report has clarified:
- Structural Identity: Russia’s “Ukraine = Nazi” and activist’s “Japan = Nazi” are structurally identical
- Clear Double Standard: The international community harshly condemns the former but tolerates the latter
- Logical Contradiction: This double standard undermines the very concept of universal human rights
- Serious Risk: If left unchallenged, it will be exploited in future conflicts and severely harm Japan’s national interests
7.2 Need for Universal Principles
What we seek is an extremely simple principle:
Using terms like “Nazi,” “Holocaust,” and “genocide” against other nations or ethnic groups without factual basis is impermissible, regardless of who does it.
This principle:
- Should be applied to Russia (already applied)
- Should be applied to resident activists (currently not applied)
- Should be applied equally to all countries and all ethnic groups
7.3 Call to Action
To the Japanese Government:
- Raise this issue to the international community
- Enact domestic legislation
- Demand correction of double standards through diplomatic channels
To the International Community:
- Maintain logical consistency
- Don’t use human rights standards selectively for geopolitical convenience
- Apply universal values truly universally
To Civil Society:
- Don’t remain silent
- Document and disseminate facts
- Build international solidarity
To the Media:
- Report on double standards
- Conduct thorough fact-checking
- Provide balanced reporting
7.4 Final Words
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine demonstrated to the world how dangerous “Nazi-labeling” propaganda can be.
However, if the international community refuses to apply the same logic to Japan, it proves that “human rights” and “democracy” are merely political tools.
We point out this contradiction and demand the establishment of universal standards.
This is not just for Japan, but for all humanity.
Because in a world where double standards are permitted, no one is safe.
Today Russia calls Ukraine “Nazi,” tomorrow someone may call your country “Nazi.”
Universal standards are the only bulwark protecting us all.
References
Russia-Ukraine Related
- President Putin’s Speech (February 24, 2022)
- Official Kremlin website
- UN General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1
- “Aggression against Ukraine” (Adopted March 2, 2022, 141 votes in favor)
- ICC (International Criminal Court) Arrest Warrant for Putin
- Issued March 17, 2023
Japan Case Related
- IWJ “Japan-Korea Solidarity Action 0907” Report (September 7, 2019)
- Act on the Promotion of Efforts to Eliminate Unfair Discriminatory Speech and Behavior against Persons Originating from Outside Japan
- Act No. 68 of 2016
International Law and Human Rights Treaties
- International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965)
- Ministry of Foreign Affairs Treaty Database
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)
- Ministry of Foreign Affairs Treaty Database
- Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)
National Legal Regulations
- German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) Section 130
- French Press Freedom Law (Loi sur la liberté de la presse)
- United Kingdom Public Order Act 1986
Academic Literature
- Shiooka Yasuko, “What is Hate Speech” (Iwanami Shinsho, 2013)
- Timothy Snyder, “The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America” (2018)
- Analysis of Russian propaganda methods
- Anne Applebaum, “Twilight of Democracy” (2020)
- Democracy and propaganda
Reporting and Analysis
- BBC, “Why does Russia say Ukraine is run by Nazis?” (2022)
- The Atlantic, “Putin’s Lying About ‘Denazification'” (2022)
- Human Rights Watch, “Russia: Invasion of Ukraine Violates International Law” (2022)
About This Report
- Date: November 8, 2025
- Purpose: To point out double standards in the international community and call for establishment of universal human rights standards
- License: CC BY 4.0 (free to use with attribution)
- Redistribution: Welcome. However, avoid alterations or partial excerpts that could cause misunderstanding
- Translation: Translation into other languages is encouraged
This report is not intended to attack specific individuals or organizations, but aims to achieve logical consistency and realization of universal human rights.