In February 2022, President Joe Biden made an announcement at a press conference about the fate of the $7 billion of the Afghan central bank’s assets kept in U.S. financial institutions. These were assets that the United States had frozen after the Taliban retook power in Afghanistan in 2021. Half of the funds were to be returned to Afghanistan without going through the Taliban government. The Biden administration called this “humanitarian aid,” but needless to say, returning another country’s assets to that country is not synonymous with “aid.” As for the other half, the Biden administration openly announced a plan to seize and continue holding the funds, stating they might be provided to families of victims of the 2001 terrorist attacks.

How did Japanese media report on this U.S. government seizure plan? The Asahi Shimbun ran the headline “Frozen assets ¥400 billion to be used for humanitarian aid,” the Mainichi Shimbun reported “U.S. to use $3.5 billion in frozen assets for Afghan aid,” and the Yomiuri Shimbun published “U.S., Afghan aid ¥400 billion” (February 13, 2022). The Nikkei and NHK also reported it as “humanitarian aid.” Across these outlets, the U.S. plan to seize the funds was presented without conveying the nuance of “seizure,” instead using expressions like “keep” and avoiding negative wording. The Yomiuri did not even mention how the other half of the assets would be used. In other words, they merely relayed the U.S. president’s statements without attempting to get at the essence of the matter.

As such, Japanese media’s international reporting very often simply follows the perspectives and claims of the U.S. government and U.S. media. That is to say, even if it is U.S.-originated propaganda, one has to admit Japanese media tend to swallow it whole. Why has this cycle come about?

The United States is the most powerful country politically, economically, and militarily. It is also the country with the greatest capacity to disseminate information. For Japan and other countries as well, U.S. influence is significant across all fields, from hard power like security and the economy to soft power such as culture. This article analyzes U.S.-originated information and propaganda, focusing on the two perspectives of democracy and war, to explore the image of the United States as conveyed in Japan and the reality behind it.

Reporting on the fate of the Afghan central bank’s frozen assets (Photo: Virgil Hawkins)

What is propaganda?

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, propaganda is “the dissemination of information—facts, arguments, rumors, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion.” It is not necessarily “lies,” but when governments or media intentionally distort facts or selectively present certain information or viewpoints for the sake of impression management, that too qualifies as propaganda. The degree varies by country and government, but it can be said that all governments engage in propaganda to maintain or strengthen state power and the position of the regime. As the saying goes, “the first casualty of war is truth” (famous quote), and this tendency becomes particularly pronounced during wartime.

In democracies, citizens’ freedom of speech and of the press is secured by law. In theory, this means citizens can express anything without overt censorship or control, and can criticize state power. Therefore, the general interpretation is that under a democratic system, government propaganda has a harder time permeating society.

However, as its history shows, the United States has developed ever more sophisticated propaganda to build an information environment or public opinion favorable to itself. After World War I, recognizing that the word “propaganda” had acquired negative connotations, the United States in particular gradually shifted to terms like “public relations” and outward-facing “public diplomacy.” The U.S. government also honed techniques for releasing and disseminating information favorable to itself by deepening ties with news outlets and educational and research institutions.

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

Democracies countering authoritarian states?

According to the U.S. government, the country’s diplomacy emphasizes “democracy” and “human rights” and seeks to promote those values worldwide. Such claims frequently appear in statements by the president and other government officials and in official documents, and similar expressions are often used in Japanese media. For example, Japanese newspapers publish summaries of major speeches such as the State of the Union, and because those summaries are relatively long, the claim that the United States places importance on “democracy” becomes all the more likely to reach readers. In addition, as seen in Asahi Shimbun’s article quoting the president’s words—“We cannot remain silent when fundamental human rights are infringed”—and Yomiuri Shimbun’s article summarizing that “he also emphasized the importance of democratic values,” the media often repeat the expressions used by the U.S. government.

On the other hand, there are articles in which news organizations judge that specific actions by the U.S. government deviate from the promotion of democracy and human rights and treat them as problematic. For instance, articles that criticized the 2021 withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, or the criticism of President Biden’s 2022 visit to Saudi Arabia from the standpoint of promoting democracy. However, such criticisms of the U.S. government’s posture are exceptions. In an editorial by Asahi Shimbun criticizing President Biden’s visit to Saudi Arabia, it stated that prioritizing economic and strategic interests “does not excuse bending the principles of human rights and democracy.” At the same time, this expression carries the nuance that the United States has “principles” of human rights and democracy and that the government is usually actively engaged in promoting democracy. Such nuance is also evident in Asahi Shimbun’s reporter’s analysis (December 2021) claiming, “What remains unchanged in Biden’s words and deeds on foreign policy is his insistence on democracy and human rights issues.”

In recent discourse, what stands out is the assertion that there exists a global structure of “democracy versus authoritarianism.” The Biden administration has emphasized this within its foreign and security posture against the backdrop of U.S.-China tensions and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In 2022 alone, Asahi Shimbun referred to this “democracy versus authoritarianism” framework in 37 articles, Mainichi Shimbun in 23, and Yomiuri Shimbun in 11. Most coverage either introduced it as a structure posited by the U.S. president or pointed out that the world is moving within a confrontational structure of “democracy versus authoritarianism.” There were articles noting that some countries cannot choose sides and pointing out problems created by this binary, but among the three papers, only 2 out of 71 articles mentioned the possibility that the structure itself does not reflect the reality of the world (※1). Both of those 2 were opinions by the same Asahi Shimbun editorial writer, stating respectively, “They are thoroughly aware of the hypocrisy of the ‘values’ brandished by great powers. The axis of confrontation touted by the Biden administration—‘democracy versus authoritarianism’—does not resonate,” and that “not a few countries see the democracy-versus-authoritarianism debate as a confrontation of power, not of values” (argument).

President Biden greeting the Saudi crown prince (Photo: Saudi Press Agency / Wikimedia Commons [CC BY 4.0])

U.S. foreign policy and the reality of democracy

As noted above, information disseminated by U.S. leaders and Japanese media creates the impression that the U.S. government seeks to defend and promote democracy around the world. But a closer look shows that the U.S. government’s actual behavior does not live up to its messaging.

The U.S. government has repeatedly undertaken numerous military and political actions around the world, actions that can hardly be said to have defended democracy. This was particularly pronounced during the Cold War, when it helped topple numerous democratic governments and install dictatorships around the world. In supporting dictatorships that suppress democratic processes, it helped enable military actions that resulted in mass atrocities, human rights abuses, and war crimes—leading to millions of deaths—in countries like Indonesia, Guatemala, and Vietnam. One study finds that during the Cold War the United States attempted to overthrow foreign governments 72 times through election interference, coups, assassination plots, and more—many of them democratically elected. Another study finds that between 1946 and 2000, excluding coups and the like, there were as many as 80 instances of direct interference in other countries’ elections, such as backing specific candidates—more than double the similar interference attributed to the Soviet Union/Russia.

Even after 2000, it is hard to say the U.S. government has actually sought to promote democracy and human rights worldwide. For example, according to a study by Truthout, as of 2015 the United States was providing arms and military training to 73% of the world’s “dictatorships.” Particularly notable are the large volumes of arms and close ties with Middle Eastern and North African countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt—countries with extremely low levels of democracy. The situation has hardly changed since 2015. Moreover, cases continue to be pointed out where the U.S. government is involved in coups that overthrow democratically elected governments. While information is often obscured and the extent of direct U.S. involvement is unclear, there are cases in which the United States actively supported the government formed after a coup or designated a new head of state and prevented the return of the ousted government, including in Haiti (2004, 2021), Honduras (2009), Egypt (2013), Ukraine (2014), and Bolivia (2019).

These actual U.S. actions abroad can hardly be called democratic, and it is therefore clear that the current world cannot be described by a simple binary of democracy versus authoritarianism. Rather than competition between political systems, it should be seen as a struggle over U.S. hegemony and influence.

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

War and propaganda: “the world’s policeman”

Next, let us look at how Japanese media perceive wars in which the United States is a party. After World War II, the United States began taking active military actions around the world amid its confrontation with the Soviet Union. As part of this, the United States spread the image of itself as “the world’s policeman.” After the Cold War, as the United States became the sole superpower, the “world’s policeman” image grew even stronger. But in the 2010s, former President Barack Obama and later former President Donald Trump stated that the United States was no longer “the world’s policeman.” President Biden has inherited this line of thinking.

The label “world’s policeman” has long been used in Japanese reporting to describe U.S. military interventions in other countries. Over the five-year period from 2018 to 2022, Asahi Shimbun mentioned it in 26 articles, Mainichi Shimbun in 27, and Yomiuri Shimbun in 40. The majority presented the United States as having long been “the world’s policeman,” saying things like “no longer the world’s policeman” or that it can “no longer continue to shoulder [the role of] the world’s policeman.” Such treatments accounted for over three-quarters of references across the three papers combined. While their definition of “world’s policeman” is vague, a Yomiuri Shimbun editorial (2022) described the role as “taking the lead in resolving all conflicts.” Some articles linked the U.S. launch of the Iraq War in 2003 to the role of “world’s policeman,” such as an Asahi Shimbun editor’s piece (2019), while a Mainichi Shimbun article (2019) claimed that various U.S. military interventions in the Middle East after the Cold War were part of being the “world’s policeman.”

However, among the 93 articles across the three papers, almost none questioned the premise that the United States has been “the world’s policeman” in the first place. On the contrary, Asahi Shimbun’s Washington bureau chief wrote in 2022 with wording that seemed to lament the end of a “peaceful” era maintained by the United States: “The era when the United States fulfilled the role of the world’s policeman will not return. Lamenting this and wishing for the policeman’s return will not restore peace and stability.” The only exception (※2) was a contribution to Yomiuri Shimbun (2020) stating, “Since World War II, as the world’s hegemon, the United States has deployed its military worldwide for its national interest; the ‘world’s policeman’ role is merely an externality of that.”

U.S. militarism and international law

Generally, police are entities that maintain public safety and order in society. But mafias and warlords (※3) also use force to “maintain order.” The difference from the police lies in whether they operate on the basis of fair laws agreed upon by society as a whole.

So what about the United States? To check this, we need to look at the scale of U.S. military interventions worldwide. From 1991, when the Cold War ended, to 2022, the United States intervened militarily in other countries 251 times. As of 2013, U.S. special operations forces were deployed in 134 countries—70% of the world. As of 2020, it maintained 750 overseas military bases. Wars that began following U.S. interventions since 2001 have caused at least 900,000 deaths.

Serbian oil refinery bombed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) (1999) (Photo: Darko Dozet / Wikimedia Commons [CC BY-SA 3.0])

Among these interventions, some clearly violate international law, including the UN Charter. Specifically, the 1999 case in which the United States used large-scale airstrikes to sever Kosovo from Serbian territory and render it “independent,” and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime, and the subsequent occupation of Iraq. In other cases, the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 is sometimes justified as an exercise of self-defense following the terrorist attacks that year; however, toppling the then Afghan government that was not involved in the attacks and occupying the country clearly exceeded the scope of self-defense. As for the 2011 intervention in Libya, while the UN Security Council authorized protection of Libyan civilians, aiding the overthrow of the Libyan government by anti-government forces went beyond the Security Council’s mandate.

Regarding Kosovo and Libya, the U.S. government sought to justify its actions as “humanitarian intervention,” but given that the U.S. and others conducted large-scale bombing over months, including targeting civilian infrastructure, it is hard to call them “humanitarian.” Probing the motives for U.S. intervention in Kosovo and Libya also leads to the conclusion that the “humanitarian intervention” explanation was merely U.S. propaganda.

Beyond these, the United States has carried out airstrikes using drones and other means in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. According to leaks by whistleblowers, 90% of those killed by U.S. airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Syria, the United States secretly provided large quantities of weapons to anti-government forces, including extremists, and there was a period when it watched the rise of IS (Islamic State) in the expectation it would threaten the Syrian government. U.S. forces also continue to maintain an illegal presence on Syrian territory. In addition, in 2005 the United States, working with many countries, coordinated the abduction of at least 136 people around the world, including torture.

The United States also weaponizes economic measures. For example, the U.S. Army’s manual on unconventional warfare states that U.S. influence at international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank can be used to economically coerce other countries. In 2014, the United States is said to have used global oil price manipulation as a weapon to damage the economies of hostile oil-producing countries by triggering a sharp fall in global oil prices. The United States has also conducted cyberattacks, using computer viruses as weapons, against countries such as Iran.

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

Furthermore, the United States tends to deviate from actions and norms adopted by the majority of the world. For example, the United States has neither signed nor ratified treaties banning anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions, the Arms Trade Treaty, or the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC), which most countries have joined. Regarding the ICC, the United States even adopted a law allowing the use of force by U.S. forces to free U.S. military or government personnel should they be brought before the ICC on charges of war crimes or subject to investigation for war crimes. Because the ICC is headquartered in The Hague, the Netherlands, this is known as the “Hague Invasion Act.” Moreover, in some years the United States has voted against roughly 70% of the resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly—the highest number in the world.

In light of this reality of U.S. diplomacy, some researchers argue that the United States is closer to a “mafia” than a “police force.” According to such arguments, the United States conducts its foreign actions based not on international law but on an “order” that suits itself, and it has a tendency to punish countries, groups, or individuals that defy it (※4).

The background to the spread of propaganda

Why is there such a gap between the image in Japan of the United States’ activities to promote democracy and its military actions, and the reality? And why do Japanese media so greatly help spread the image-building efforts the U.S. government has pursued worldwide? Japanese news organizations have bureaus and multiple offices in the United States, attend government press conferences, and conduct reporting. In other words, Japanese outlets in the United States operate in some ways under mechanisms similar to local U.S. media. Let us look at the relationship between the U.S. government and Japanese news organizations.

In the United States, as in other countries, media tend to overly rely on those in power as sources. Thus, they sometimes relay government information without verifying its truthfulness. This is also called “stenographic journalism.” The benefit of “stenographic journalism” for news organizations is that it enables low-cost, easy reporting on events involving the U.S. government. In extreme cases, an article can be completed simply by attending a press conference or summarizing a press release prepared by the government.

The press secretary answering reporters’ questions (Photo: Rawpixel [CC0 1.0])

It can also be said that repeating the government’s view is the safe path for reporters. One study posits that in any given issue there is an implicitly defined “range of permissible debate,” and reporters or outlets that stray outside it are excluded. Journalists who deviate from or object to the policies or narratives the government seeks to advance may stop being called on at press briefings or be barred from attending them entirely. Some journalists have also been fired by their outlets and no longer hired by major media organizations.

It is not only the U.S. government that influences the media. Think tanks also serve as sources, but most influential think tanks are closely connected to the U.S. government/military and the arms industry, structuring an information environment aligned with government views or close to them. Moreover, since journalism is a commercial activity, news must be sold to readers, viewers, and sponsors. Thus, reporting on interstate conflict and war often fits countries and individuals into the roles of “villain,” “victim,” and “hero,” explaining events through a simplistic good-versus-evil narrative. Emphasizing nationalism also boosts sales, so these roles are assigned to match the stance of the “home side.”

These issues are challenges faced by media in both Japan and the United States, but there are Japan-specific challenges as well. For example, the Japanese government’s diplomatic policy is that “the Japan-U.S. alliance is the cornerstone of Japan’s diplomacy,” and the Japanese government and Japanese media are closely connected. In such circumstances, reporting in Japan tends to exclude information and perspectives that do not fit with the long-standing narrative and image of a strong Japan-U.S. relationship.

The U.S. Secretary of State and Japan’s Minister of Defense speaking before the press (Photo: U.S. Secretary of Defense / Wikimedia Commons [CC BY 2.0])

A dangerous double standard

In a Yomiuri Shimbun editorial in March 2022, the paper criticized Russia and China over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as follows:

“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a blatant interference by a military great power in a sovereign state. While China proclaims ‘opposition to external interference,’ turning a blind eye to Russia’s outrageous act is clearly contradictory. China justifies the ‘change of the status quo by force’ by authoritarian countries such as itself and Russia, while labeling the countermeasures by the democratic camp of Japan, the United States, and Europe as ‘interference.’ This is self-serving logic.”

This assertion is broadly correct. However, considering that the United States, a “military great power,” has carried out “blatant interference” and “changes to the status quo by force” in multiple countries on a scale far exceeding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, is it acceptable for the media to overlook U.S. actions and present them as legitimate “humanitarian intervention” or actions by “the world’s policeman,” thereby upholding a double standard in journalism (※5)? And why is the world empathetic to the innocent victims in Ukraine, yet remains indifferent to the similarly innocent victims in Yemen?

Japanese media are not supposed to be subordinate to either the U.S. government or the Japanese government. Just as they can recognize propaganda by Russia and China, they should also be able to recognize and question propaganda by the United States. Otherwise, they risk continuing to play the role of agents spreading propaganda.

※1 Articles mentioned include an article referring to Russia’s rebuttal to the U.S.-framed confrontation structure, and another article asserting that such a structure is an oversimplification.

※2 There is an Asahi Shimbun interview piece (2022) stating that the United States is “neither the overwhelmingly sole superpower nor the world’s policeman,” but it is unclear from the context whether this applies to the United States in the past as well, making it difficult to judge; therefore it is not counted here.

※3 Warlords (warlord) are armed groups that pursue private interests. They arise in regions where government governance is weak and become the de facto rulers. Unlike anti-government forces, they do not aim to overthrow the government and avoid clashes with government forces. By monopolizing the security environment in their occupied and operating areas, they also control economic activity and profit from it.

※4 In the case of states, Cuba—against which the United States has sought a thorough blockade—is one example; in the case of individuals, WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange, who published numerous U.S. internal documents, is another.

※5 For “humanitarian intervention” (Kosovo and Iraq), see Yomiuri Shimbun: “Humanitarian intervention: ‘Liberation from oppression’ and emerging arguments in favor of the Iraq War (analysis)” (September 6, 2003); for “world’s policeman” (Iraq, etc.), see “U.S. reduced involvement brings change to the Middle East (analysis)” Yomiuri Shimbun (September 17, 2020).

Writer: Virgil Hawkins