Leaders Participate in the Olympic Opening Ceremony - Prime Minister Abe Participated for the Athletes and Moon Jae - in Used for Political Use
2021-07-12
Category:Japanese comfort woman problem I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Former Prime Minister Abe participated in the opening ceremony despite opposition.
At the time of the Pyeongchang Olympics held in South Korea, Moon Jae-in had already spoken out about the invalidity of the comfort women agreement, and in Japan, there was much domestic public opinion against Prime Minister Abe's participation in the opening ceremony of the Games. However, it was thought that Prime Minister Abe would not participate, but Prime Minister Abe announced his intention to participate. The reason was that ``I had to participate as the country's top leader in order to encourage the Japanese national team players.''
South Korea intends to participate in the opening ceremony and do business with us
I have seen Moon Jae-in in this sense, and he is truly a disappointing person. The South Korean athlete did not even know whether his country would participate in the Tokyo Olympics until just before the Olympics, and his argument that he might boycott was so lame that it was dismissed by the IOC. As for Moon Jae-in's participation in the opening ceremony, it appears that he was trying to make a deal until the very end, unilaterally offering a deal in exchange for a summit meeting.
Who is using the Olympics for politics?
South Korea has been the most sensitive to the political use of the Olympics, and appears to have criticized Japan at every turn at the national level. From the perspective of Japan, the South Korean athletes who play the leading role in sports tournaments are nowhere to be seen, and it appears that Moon Jae-in, far from using the Olympics for politics, seems to think that the Olympics themselves are a political venue.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Korean anti - Japanese activities taking place in New York: How should we deal with them, as they are so outrageous?
In November 2019, the Korea Liberation Association urged the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to ban the use of the Rising Sun flag at the upcoming 2020 Tokyo Olympics in Manhattan Square, New York, United States. marching through the city.
The person who is kneeling down on the ground is Kim Won-eun, the chairman of the Gwangjukai. It is said that Japan is losing to South Korea's lobbying efforts, but this is the reality. Japanese people are not aware that they are conducting activities like this in the United States, a completely different country, which is completely based on no facts and deviates from common sense.
The Gwangbuk-kai, which refers to independence from Japan as Gwangbuk, is the central organization for anti-Japanese activities tied to the so-called Korean government.
In South Korea, there are many anti-Japanese organizations that receive support from the government.
They proudly print a historical error that equates the Nazis with Japan on flags and march through the streets of New York.
They are using this to appeal to the American people to ban the use of the Rising Sun flag at the Tokyo Olympics, which is another logically bankrupt activity, but they don't care about that.
The Nazis were a socialist party that practiced dictatorship and massacred six million Jews.
Japan's Greater East Asia War was a war of Western colonial liberation in Asia, and the only things Japan has in common with the Nazis are that the enemy was a power that continued to expand through colonial rule, and that they lost the war.
The Japan-German-Italy Tripartite Pact was not about jointly fighting a war, but rather a non-interference pact that stipulated that Japan would not intervene in wars in Europe, and Germany and Italy would not intervene in wars in Asia.
South Korea conveniently cites the Nazis and criticizes Japan. They know very little about the difference between Japan and the Nazis.
postwar compensation and Roh Moo - hyun Japan is waiting for the old people to die.They say it's time-buying, but it's the other way around.So far, the Korean government has compensated the people several times after the war.Moon Jae In is the one who is trying to buy time just because the current government is fleeing.At the time of 2005, Japanese Military Sexual Slavery was not included, but Japan said it would not recognize government-led coercion, and it goes without saying that the 2015 Japanese Military Sexual Slavery agreement was comprehensive.
-----
In February 2004, the Seoul Administrative Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, demanding that five of the 57 documents related to the Korea-Japan Claim Agreement be released.The trial began in September 2002 when a group of bereaved families of Japanese victims of forced mobilization demanded that the government confirm the details of the Korea-Japan agreement.
As a result, Japan's compensation issue, which was temporarily settled after the signing of the Korea-Japan Claim Agreement in 1965, and compensation in the 1970s, has resurfaced.It's a kind of second round.
At that time, the government appealed on the grounds of its impact on bilateral relations.However, in August 2004, former President Roh Moo Hyun abandoned the appeal after consulting with Cheong Wa Dae, the chief civil society office, and the National Security Council (NSC) at a meeting of senior aides.
After the release of the claim agreement in January 2005, public opinion began that the amount of compensation paid by the government in 1975 was very small compared to that received by Japan.From 1975 to 1977, the Park Chung-hee administration spent 90 percent of its 300 million dollars on economic development and only 10 percent on compensation.Only 8,552 of the estimated 1.03 million victims of forced mobilization benefited.
Accordingly, the Roh Moo Hyun government has prepared follow-up measures.At that time, former President Roh Moo-hyun and Prime Minister Lee Hae-chan set four criteria: (1) support in other ways than legal compensation, (2) support through national compromise and consultation, and (4) support in parliament.To this end, the organization organized is the Public-Private Joint Committee.It consists of 21 people, including 10 private committee members, including Yang Samsung Law Firm Hwa-woo, Prime Minister Lee Hae-chan, and 11 government officials.
On 26 August 2005, the Joint Committee on Civil and Government Affairs announced the results of the following discussions.
(1) Anti-humanitarian illegal activities involving Japanese military forces such as Japanese Military Sexual Slavery, Sakhalin compatriots, and atomic bomb victims are not included in the Korea-Japan Claim Agreement.
(2) The $300 million loan received from Japan reflects the South Korean government's claim to Japan, such as personal property rights (insurance, deposits, etc.), bonds with Japan, and funds related to the resolution of forced mobilization damage.
(3) The South Korean government is morally responsible for using a considerable amount of free money received from Japan to help victims of forced mobilization (the South Korean government calculated $360 million in compensation for forced mobilization out of $1.22 billion requested from Japan in 1961).
(4) While continuing to hold the Japanese government accountable for the issue of Japanese Military Sexual Slavery, it will continue to raise the issue through international organizations.
Source article: 中央日報
Legality of Japanese Annexation of Korea The Supreme Court's decision on recruitment is based on the unilateral recognition of torts under Japanese rule. There are two main points in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Korea. One is the issue of the Japan-Korea Claims Agreement. The second is the recognition of torts under Japanese rule, which was the premise of the decision.
The waiver of claims in post-war processing was under the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Japan has abandoned its diplomatic protection rights related to claims. Countries that do not ratify the peace treaty will individually conclude a treaty. Diplomatic protection means that the country does not diplomatically protect the exercise of claims against other countries. A-bomb survivors in Hiroshima have attempted to claim damages against the United States for indiscriminate attacks on civilians as a tort. At this time, the view of the Government of Japan is that the Government of Japan has abandoned its diplomatic protection rights and the government is not involved. However, he replied that the individual's claim was not extinguished. "Yanagi answer". It is the answer of the Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs and the administrative view.
In fact, South Korea has been activating the movement for individual claims by quoting this Yanai answer. Until then, South Korea, on the contrary, interpreted that the individual's claim itself had disappeared (described in the Korean side manual of the 1965 Agreement), and after hearing this Yanai's answer, he knew for the first time that the individual's claim would not be extinguished. It was. Aside from the administrative view of Japan, the legal view was that in 2007 the Supreme Court of Japan stated that it was not subject to protection, including individual jurisdiction. At the same time, the individual's claim right will not be extinguished.
In other words, the problem is that a treaty is a promise between countries, not a contract between individual citizens. Individuals do not lose their claims as individual rights, but the state does not act for them. The Supreme Court of Korea interpreted that the jurisdiction would not be extinguished. The first point is whether or not jurisdiction is included.
Regarding the second tort recognition, when Japan signed the 1965 Agreement, Japan is approaching the conclusion with a consistent view that the annexation of Korea is not an illegal act under international law. The eight articles presented by the South Korean side in the agreement are about claims for the property of natural persons (individuals), but it is written and agreed in the agreement to abandon them. And it is not the concept of compensation, but economic cooperation.
The Japanese annexation of Korea is not illegal because there is no fact that Japan occupied it by force and forcibly concluded it, and it was signed and stamped when the two countries signed the agreement. The letter of the emperor Sunjong's name is written on the power of attorney to delegate full authority to Prime Minister Ye Wanyong, and there is no debate about whether this is a signature, and Sunjong itself is not recognized as an emperor. There is a claim that there is no signature of Gojong, but the universal public law of international law at that time stipulates that the signature of the head of state is not always necessary for concluding a treaty.
The reason why tort recognition is the point is that the Korean side ignored the views and interpretations under international law and unilaterally recognized it as tort. Korean civil law stipulates that personal property rights and claims will be extinguished if not exercised for 20 years. In other words, normally, both the recruiter and the comfort woman have passed the extinction prescription of the claim. Looking at the cases of claims related to the claim right at the time of the annexation of Japan and South Korea in South Korea, there are a number of judgments that were dismissed because of the extinction prescription. What happens if the Japanese annexation of Korea becomes an illegal act? The claim right at point 1 does not expire. Since it is a principle of international law that the right to claim under tort has no statute of limitations, the Daiho-in Temple has unfoundedly recognized the annexation of Korea as a tort.
As mentioned above, an individual's claim will not be extinguished only on the premise of tort. The treaty exists as another matter, it is a promise between countries, and the Korean government has a strict obligation to keep the treaty.
Japanese Military comfort woman recruited through a newspaper contest. There are many questions about forced arrests from a necessity point of view.
The most questionable point is whether forced arrest of Japanese Military comfort woman was necessary.Lee Yong-soo, who is said to be a former Japanese Military comfort woman, said that the sex industry exists in modern countries and Japan, and that the balance between supply and demand seems to be balanced.In other words, the percentage of men who seek this and women who provide services as a profession.How about in Korea?It is not a situation where people should be forcibly taken away even if they omit ethical issues related to sexual morals.By the way, Japan's unemployment rate stood at 2.8 percent in September.
At that time, many people on the Korean Peninsula were too poor to find jobs, but the unemployment rate dropped dramatically due to Japanese investment, and Joseon itself was surprisingly modernized and developed.Japan was never rich during the war, but men would have to hire them first to get a job.Are there more women who need jobs financially than now?The proportion of men and women after birth or in nature is about 1:1 .It's a simple arithmetic problem.
Japanese Military comfort woman is open to the public through newspaper advertisements, as left as data from that time.And prostitution itself was legal under the laws of the time.In addition, they are paid several times as much as college-graduated men.That seems to have gathered enough people.There are many questions as to why 300,000 people were forcibly taken away.
At that time, Japanese Military comfort woman was paid a lot of money, and when I returned to Korea, I got enough money to buy a house in just about two years.
Agreement Japanese Military comfort woman without the letter coercion. The two governments of Japan and South Korea do not recognize coercion.
In Japan, politics does not recognize or evaluate history.This is because politicians do not have no such authority.Historical data stored in government agencies will be accepted by Congress after confirming the facts.Starting with Yoshida's testimony, Kono's discourse was about compulsion.The biggest flaw in Kono's speech was that he was a government minister who spoke without historical information.In other words, history is recognized arbitrarily.
In 2007, the Cabinet decided that no evidence of compulsory Japanese Military comfort woman recruitment was found under the Abe administration.This means that some of the amendments were made to the Kono Statement in accordance with a Cabinet decision higher than the Kono Statement.Former Prime Minister Abe did not say that there was no forced arrest.He's just saying there was no evidence.
The 2015 Japanese Military comfort woman Agreement did not include the word coercion.This compulsory part of the Korea-Japan issue is the most important issue.In other words, Japan followed the Cabinet decision and held talks, and South Korea agreed to omit the statement because it failed to provide evidence of compulsion.An important part of the Japanese Military comfort woman agreement is that the two countries did not recognize the compulsion rather than that the issue was finally and irreversibly resolved.If enforcement cannot be confirmed, the Japanese Military comfort woman problem does not exist from the beginning.
The Japanese and South Korean governments did not approve of evidence of coercion.Japanese Military Sexual Slavery The problem itself is no longer valid.
