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.
The testimony of Lee Yong-soo (former comfort woman) is full of contradictions - an ethical leap by a Korean civil society group to make this an international issue.
Testimony of a former comfort woman who turned around twice
Lee Yong-soo's testimony changes in content
Lee Yong-soo took the stand as a witness in America
Human trafficking broker arrested multiple times
35 years is too short for social change
What follows is the evolution of the testimony of Lee Yong-soo, a leading figure and activist for South Korea's former comfort women. In the trial in which Professor Ryu of Yonsei University, who lectured on the idea that ``comfort women are prostitutes,'' was sued by the Justice League (comfort women's organization), Professor Ryu pointed out the ambiguity of Lee Young-soo's testimony, and as a witness. is requested to appear in court.
Let alone the credibility of her testimony, neither the Justice League nor Lee Yong-soo, the woman herself, could even present any evidence that she was a comfort woman.. As you can see in the image at the beginning, comfort women were recruited through public recruitment in newspapers, and were paid a salary that was unprecedented in terms of monetary value at the time.
Lee Yong-soo's testimony
1992 Testimony Even though I was 16 years old at that time, I was almost naked and couldn't eat or wear clothes, but someone brought me a dress and a pair of shoes. He gave it to me. I wonder how good it must have looked in my young mind when I was told that I would give it to you and let's go. At that time, I thought I didn't need to know anything about that, so I followed him. 1993 Testimony A friend of my age had a child named Kim Boon-soon, whose mother was in the liquor business. One day, when I went to visit his house, his mother said, ``What kind of child are you, you can't even put your shoes on properly? You should go over there with my shoes. "You'll have everything you need. You'll eat a lot of food, and your family will be able to live comfortably." 2004 Testimony I lived in Goseong-dong, Daegu until I was 16 years old.One summer in 1943, when I was 16 years old, I put on a hat that only showed my nose and mouth. A Japanese military official forcibly took me along with my four older sisters from the town. I didn't know where I was going or how I was going to take it. They put us on a windowless train, but when we said we weren't going, they called us Koreans and stepped on us with their shoes and hit us. When I said I was going home, he hit me again. He was beaten so much that he couldn't even walk. 2006 Testimony Around 1942, when I was 15 years old and sleeping at home, I was taken to Taiwan by the Japanese military. Testimony, July 2014 One day in the year I turned 15, a Japanese military officer gestured to me to come. I was scared and ran away, but another Japanese soldier caught me and took me on a train to a Japanese military unit in Taiwan. Testimony, September 2014 A 16-year-old Japanese woman showing off her dress and red leather shoes said, ``I'll feed you to the fullest, and I'll make sure your family can live happily.'' Deceived by the man's words, I followed my friend out. He was forcibly mobilized to a comfort station in Taiwan via China. He was the owner of the comfort station. He was also subjected to electrical torture by this master. 2017 Testimony At the age of 15, he was sleeping at home when he was taken away by the Japanese military. ＜Translation excerpt: Korean wiki＞
Lee Yong-soo also participated in the comfort women movement in the United States, and in 2007, she attended the U.S. House of Representatives as a witness and gave testimony when the House of Representatives adopted a resolution calling for an apology from the Japanese government. There is. The comfort women issue is precisely what Lee Yong-soo's testimony and the comfort women's organization Chongdaehyup (currently known as Justice League) are promoting not only in Korea but around the world under the guise of a human rights movement.
According to newspaper articles from the time (during Japan's annexation of South Korea), Japanese police had busted numerous crimes in which Korean human trafficking brokers abducted girls and sold them. During the Joseon Dynasty, when a class system existed, slaves were exchanged for items such as cow heads through human trafficking brokers.
The period of Japan and Korea's annexation lasted only about 35 years, and of course that was not enough time for cultural customs and social customs that had lasted for more than 500 years to disappear. The human trafficking brokers who supported the slavery system would have no income if they did not work, and although slaves did not exist under the family registration system, it was clear that many people living in similar conditions were left behind. It is thought that At that time, deceiving and buying and selling girls from poor families from rural villages was a common practice on the Korean Peninsula.
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.
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.
South Korea's UNIQLO turns into a large profit.Where did the boycott movement go?Have we forgotten the past?
FRF El Korea, which operates Uniqlo in South Korea, has announced its results for fiscal year 2021 (September 1, 2020 to August 31, 2021).
Operating profit was 52.9 billion won (approximately 5.1 billion yen), a significant turnaround from a deficit of 88.4 billion won in the previous fiscal year. The company aimed to improve profits by reorganizing existing stores, and strengthened sales at its online store in response to increased demand for online shopping due to the spread of the new coronavirus.
One industry source said in an interview, ``The year after the boycott movement, the new coronavirus broke out.Uniqlo's shift to online was a blessing in disguise.''
Even in the midst of a country-wide boycott movement, it is amazing to see a return to surplus. The reason behind this seems to be the expansion of online shopping due to the coronavirus.
Fast Retailing's CFO Ken Okazaki said that ``boycotts will not last long,'' which infuriated the Korean media, and the fierce criticism of UNIQLO became heated.
Also, in the Korean UNIQLO commercial, a 13-year-old woman asks, "How did you used to dress when you were my age?" and a 98-year-old woman asks, "How did you use to dress when you were my age?" The woman further sparked a boycott by saying, "Oh my god, I can't remember that far back." as insulting to comfort women.
The 98-year-old woman was 13 years old during the Japanese colonial era, but she thought it was an insult to forget that. Looking at the results, CFO Okazaki's prediction was correct.
If he asked the boycotters about this, would he say, "I can't remember that far back"?
FCO Okazaki seems to have a good understanding of the Korean national character of getting hot easily and getting cold easily. In addition, there seem to be many people who completely ignore self-contradiction.
