severance of diplomatic relations betwee
2021-07-13
Category:South Korea I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
There are many people in both Japan and South Korea calling for a break in diplomatic relations, but I thought that a break in diplomatic relations between Japan and South Korea should be expected from the beginning after the recruitment ruling and the exclusion of White countries.Former Prime Minister Abe already expressed his opinion on July ３, ２０１９, that the exclusion of White Country was not retaliation for the recruitment ruling, but a failure to keep his promise between countries.The １９６５ Agreement is an agreement on claims in the treaty in which Japan and South Korea restored diplomatic relations.Abolition of this agreement is a loss of the premise of diplomatic relations, and it is obvious that diplomatic relations will break off.
Korea, a country that has no diplomatic relations but is hostile to Taiwan
Now, considering the specific problems of breaking off diplomatic relations at the private level, the video link I posted is a couple of Japanese and Taiwanese Youtuber.If private marriage is allowed, private economic activities are allowed.Strategic materials and military-related products that must be negotiated between governments will be regulated.It would be a substantial break in diplomatic relations if we could not communicate with each other at the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics.
Without diplomatic relations, there will be no interest.
On the other hand, countries without diplomatic relations have no further interests and do not lead to war.It is not the break of diplomatic relations that is in danger, but the travel ban order.Japan has a special relationship called Taiwan.The lack of intergovernmental exchanges has never been a problem at the private level.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Korea Real Estate Bubble This is the KOSPI chart.Why does it go up when investment from Japan has decreased by 50% and investment from the United States and the EU has decreased?You'd better imagine who's buying stocks.One is Chinese money. This is exactly what the current administration wants.Another is stock investment, which is secured by soaring real estate prices.Another is private investment by ordinary people who cannot buy real estate, even if they borrow money from rising stocks.In other words, it is a bubble.The IMF warned that Korea's household debt is above the danger level.Judging that this is a temporary phenomenon, it is better to stop borrowing money and investing in real estate and stocks to increase assets.
South Korean delegation insists on 'efforts from both countries' - Japan is fulfilling all its promises - South Korea is the one who is not making enough efforts
South Korea says efforts from both Japan and South Korea are necessary
Intentions of both countries passing each other
What is the destination that Korea envisions?
If we misunderstand the Korean issue, the government will tilt
Japan has already apologized many times
Japan fulfills all commitments
What does the effort of both countries mean?
While the recent South Korean delegation's visit to Japan has been reported as if the two countries have once again returned to the direction of improving Japan-Korea relations, the response of the Japanese government, including the prime minister, has been criticized. The South Korean side is keen to improve Japan-Korea relations, and as a result, interviews with the current prime minister, former prime minister, and other ministers were held. The most important point is that a gap that cannot be filled has been identified.
The rift is that while Japan is demanding that South Korea "fulfill its commitments," South Korea has consistently stated that "efforts from both sides are needed." This means that South Korea will not make unilateral concessions. More specifically, before the presidential election, President-elect Yoon Seok-Yeol met with Lee Yong-soo, a self-proclaimed representative of former comfort women, and said, ``We must demand an apology from Japan.'' has promised that he will receive it. That's probably what he's saying.
What kind of efforts does South Korea want from Japan? For example, is the Japanese Prime Minister going to South Korea, meeting with former comfort women, apologizing, and reporting the moving scene as an attempt to settle the matter? However, if South Korea's next government does not understand that this is an unlikely future, improving relations seems a long way off.
If Prime Minister Kishida were to do something like that, the Kishida administration would surely collapse, and even in this meeting with the parliamentary group, there are voices calling for Kishida to be removed from the position of prime minister. There are even voices saying that they will not vote for the Liberal Democratic Party in the next House of Councilors election. Reasons for this include the forced labor judgment and the abrogation of the Japan-Korea comfort women agreement.
Regarding the South Korean delegation's visit to Japan, since it was a group of parliamentarians before the inauguration of the new South Korean government, there were many opinions that Japan should also conduct the visit within the framework of parliamentary exchanges and that the government should not deal with it.
The comfort women agreement states, ``This is an issue that has deeply damaged the honor and dignity of many women, and from this perspective, the Japanese government is acutely aware of its responsibility.'' I would like to express my heartfelt apologies and remorse to the people of... Yun Seok-Yeol seems to think that since he has expressed his apology, it would be okay to apologize face-to-face. However, the agreement states, ``As the Japanese government declares the above and steadily implements the measures in (2) above (establishment of a foundation), this announcement will ensure that this issue will be finalized and irreversible.'' to make sure it is resolved."
The 1965 Claims Agreement, including the issue of forced labor, was already resolved. Japan is simply asking South Korea to faithfully implement these agreements. Japan has fulfilled all of its responsibilities, so all that remains is for South Korea to fulfill its own responsibilities. In other words, it is no longer an issue for both countries to make efforts.
Jeong Jin-seok, head of the South Korean delegation, claps his hands together and says that only by joining hands like this can relations be improved. Hearing these words, I can't help but think that South Korea's next new government may not even understand what the current situation is. This is because the efforts of these two countries resulted in the Claims Agreement in 1965, the Japan-South Korea Joint Declaration in 1998, and the Comfort Women Agreement in 2015, which is exactly the kind of hand-to-hand situation that Chung described. It is South Korea that unilaterally abolished these . Japan must not take a step back from this line.
If we look at Japan-South Korea relations after the restoration of diplomatic relations, South Korea has completely torn up all previous agreements. Is the next agreement really necessary?
The people's trial that began in the wake of the Itaewon accident - The horror of a country where all citizens think they are jurors
Is President Yoon responsible for the Itaewon accident?
A surprising public opinion poll
The police have administrative jurisdiction and are under the jurisdiction of the prefectural police
Is the president in charge of Halloween?
It appears that a candlelight demonstration was held in Itaewon, Seoul on Halloween in the name of commemorating the victims. South Korea is apparently the country of demonstrations, but organizers said ``50,000 people gathered.'' Police estimate the number of participants to be 9,000. The purpose seems to be to hold the current President Yoon's administration responsible for the Itaewon accident and demand his resignation.
A public opinion poll was conducted, and found that the government was responsible for the Itaewon disaster.73.1% said it was responsible, 23.3% said it was not responsible, and 53% said it was extremely responsible. Considering whether the decision should be based on public opinion polls in the first place, I wonder if South Korea's famous all-citizen jury trial system has started again. In the first place, it must be said that he is in a state of cessation of thinking, meaning that he does not have the composure to analyze the responsibility and causes of the problem.
Japan's police force is handled by the National Police Agency, which has administrative jurisdiction. The National Police Agency will be positioned as a special organization within the Public Safety Commission, which is an external bureau of the Cabinet. Rather than directing and supervising the National Police Agency on individual cases, the Public Safety Commission sets general policies and supervises whether they are being operated appropriately.
As it is an administrative organ, the main body of work lies with local governments, and prefectural police are responsible for accidents and incidents that occur under their jurisdiction. Hyogo Prefectural Police was held responsible for the Akashi fireworks display accident, and Nara Prefectural Police was held responsible for Abe's assassination.
They seem to be claiming that the president is responsible for the Itaewon accident, but that is not the case at all under Japanese law. What about Korean law? Normally, responsibility should be assumed by the person in charge, but does this mean that President Yoon should grasp the details of the security system and issue instructions regarding Halloween security? Or should we have decided by presidential order that this is how we should enjoy the Halloween festival?
Yun Seok - yue's manifesto aims to attract and circulate capital through a free economy.Will the National Assembly become a burden that hinders this?
South Korea is wavering between pro-China and pro-US
Original regime change through social policy
A country that thinks about what is better
Yin Seok-yue promotes free economy
Promoting free competition within the country and moving towards CPTPP
Legal development by the Diet is hopeless
Is South Korea wondering whether it should join China, which has achieved growth in recent years, or join the camp of free nations such as Japan, the United States, and Europe? I guess it's a question of which is better, but it seems like a very polarizing choice.
The Moon Jae-in administration completely abandoned its pride as a democratic country without hesitation and spent five years desperately trying to join China and North Korea, a country that violates human rights at its worst, but unfortunately there was no result. Ta.
The new president, Yun Seok-Yeol, has the exact opposite policy, aiming for Korea to be a member of the Japan-U.S. and liberal camp. This seems to be the composition of the right-wing and left-wing forces in South Korea.
The left tends to seek the enhancement of social institutions, while the right tends to seek free competition and liberal democracy. This is a question of the balance between social welfare and liberal economics, and a debate about competition versus distribution. This is an issue to be debated within a democratic country, and can be said to be a universal frame.
America's two-party system is very easy to understand. Republicans and Democrats can be broadly divided on the question of whether taxes should be primarily used for public welfare, or whether they should reduce taxes in the first place and increase competitiveness in a free economy. It is also expressed in the framework of big government and small government.
The choice of domestic social policy is not a question of which country will benefit you by following, but rather a matter of foreign policy. Prior to Japan's annexation of South Korea, there was intense conflict between pro-Russian and pro-Japanese factions on the Korean peninsula. Is nothing different from that era? Another characteristic of South Korea is that its foreign policy is also its domestic policy.
Looking at Yun Seok-Yue's manifesto from the perspective of economic policy, his economic policy is to bring back the capital that fled South Korea under the Moon Jae-in administration.
In particular, the focus is not on where to focus investment and foster industry, but rather the policy appears to be aimed at attracting investors by abolishing regulations and promoting a free economy and free competition.
It appears that the plan is to aim to join the CPTPP and other liberal nation frameworks based on this liberal economic frame, but in order to realize this, it will be necessary to obstruct the various free competitions that exist within Korea. Legislation must be put in place to abolish the regulations that apply.
This is the job of the National Diet, the legislative branch, but the opposition Democratic Party of Japan still holds nearly 60% of the seats. In other words, there are many hurdles for the time being in the economic policy advocated by Yun Seok-Yeol and cooperation with liberal countries. In other words, we will have to wait for the 2024 general election.
The South Korean government is lying about holding the Japan - Korea summit meeting - A country that lies about the results of diplomatic negotiations It is full of lies to begin with.
Japan-Korea summit meeting is another lie
Japan reacts to lies
Korea prioritizes pride
What all historical questions have in common
Kim Tae-hyo, First Deputy Director-General of the National Security Office of the South Korean presidential palace, announced that they had agreed to hold a summit meeting in conjunction with the General Debate Address at the United Nations General Assembly, which will be held in New York from the 20th of this month, and that they are coordinating the time. According to the presidential office, the meeting is expected to last about 30 minutes, and the agenda has not yet been decided. Regarding the announcement that Japan had agreed to hold a Japan-South Korea summit, Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirokazu Matsuno said at a press conference on the same day, ``Nothing has been decided at this point.'' What I personally noticed about this issue was the difference in the reactions of the people of the two countries.
Japanese people's reaction is largely a reaction to their government blatantly lying about the content of diplomatic negotiations between countries. Up until now, the American and Japanese governments have often denied that the South Korean government has agreed to diplomatic negotiations, even though they have not, or that they have agreed on the direction of the deal. I have the impression that this is the case again, but what Japanese people react to is the act of lying.
Looking at South Korea's reaction, they told us not to flatter Japan and why they wanted to hold a Japan-Korea summit meeting. Don't embarrass the Korean people. That is the criticism. In other words, even though there are various circumstances surrounding this issue with the Korean government, the people of both countries are focusing on completely different aspects of the same fact.
This problem seems to be related to historical awareness. I can't help but feel that there are completely different emotions about the same fact, or that the facts are changed by those emotions. Not only historical understanding, but even the details of the most recent negotiations between the two countries are being fabricated.
