Promise between Japan and Korea
2021-07-21
Category:South Korea I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
If you read the Korean news, They say that Japan and South Korea are using the Tokyo Olympics for political purposes, but they are not objective.This is because Japan has not done anything this time either.Prime minister Suga has done nothing but say that Moon Jae In will respond politely if she comes to Japan.Japan's attitude has not changed consistently, and the message has been conveyed to South Korea many times.Correction of violations of the １９６５ Agreement, which was the basis for the restoration of diplomatic relations.This is all Japan has demanded, so there is no bargaining or anything.It was Moon Jae In who underestimated the issue and played tricks on it.
In addition, there are opinions that Japan and South Korea need to compromise and that the leaders of the two countries need to make a decision, but if Japan obscures the １９６５ agreement, it will mean a break in diplomatic relations.The reason is that the agreement, which is a prerequisite for diplomatic relations, should be scrapped.The biggest problem is that the Korean people do not understand this and form public opinion.In other words, Japan will not budge an inch from implementing the １９６５ agreement to prevent the South Korean government from breaking off diplomatic relations.In this respect, the act of drawing concessions from Japan itself is far from maintaining diplomatic relations.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Korea claims that the Korean Peninsula has been modernized even without the Japanese rule: Korea does not know the prerequisites for modernization
There was a YouTube video by a pro-Japanese Korean who showed South Korean youth photos of the country before and after the Japanese occupation, showing the state of development at that time. The performers were all surprised and said it was the first time they had seen it, and they were also surprised to hear that the population had doubled and lifespans had doubled.
However, they all said that although it is clear that the country developed during the Japanese colonial era, it is still true that Japan invaded. He was unable to explain the counterargument that the Korean Peninsula would have developed even without Japan.
The photo of a unicycle ridden by yangban (Korean aristocrats) is interestingly introduced as a photo of the time before development, but as I have posted in the past, this one photo explains everything about this answer. . At that time, there was no technology to make wheels on the Korean Peninsula. And four slaves are supporting a unicycle.
Modernization was triggered by the Industrial Revolution, and the Industrial Revolution was a revolution in power, and the steam engine was a mechanism and machine that transferred large amounts of energy to gears and converted it into another repetitive motion. If you can't make wheels, it's impossible to make any industrial machinery. However, this is a technical matter, and even if one were able to learn how to make one and create one, it would be impossible to modernize it.
A necessary condition for the industrial revolution is that a mobile labor force, the proletariat, must exist in society. Production becomes possible only when the labor force is replenished in industries that can develop. In the society of the time, where slaves were slaves to the yangban, this would have been impossible. These are things that always come up when explaining the industrial revolution.
The Meiji Restoration abolished the shogunate system and liberated citizens from the land, creating a mobile labor force. It was Kim Ok-gyun who tried to achieve these goals on the Korean peninsula, but the Gashin Coup failed and Kim Ok-gyun defected to Japan, but was assassinated in Shanghai. Unless the class system can be abolished from within the Korean peninsula, modernization will never be possible.
South Korean President with 28% Approval Rating - Breaks Promises to China if Seeking Relations with Japan - Country that Breaks Promises to Japan if China [Contents]
South Korea's new president with low approval rating
It's advantageous if you don't make achievements
Anti-Japanese Appeal on the Takeshima Issue
China just waits and sees
Change of government will change things
President Yoon Seok-yeol's approval rating is 28% (according to Gallup Korea survey), and he has been facing a tough fight since he took office. Since the administration began as a lame duck in the first place, there is no change in the situation where the government cannot move unless the power of the people wins the 2024 general election.
Looking ahead to 2024, the Democratic Party of Korea, which is the enemy, will be at a disadvantage if President Yoon produces results and achievements. There is no mistake in going on the offensive of not letting the president do anything.
Although President Yoon Seok-yue has appealed for the improvement of Japan-South Korea relations, he is willing to make concessions on the Takeshima issue, such as by conducting marine surveys around Takeshima. Even at this stage, he is ridiculed as a pro-Japanese president or a betrayal president. In any case, from a Japanese point of view, it can only be seen as a double standard.
As for China, as was the case with Moon Jae-in, it seems that they are just watching the future of this administration.
The deployment of THAAD under the Park Geun-hye administration cooled relations between China and South Korea, but under the Moon Jae-in administration, they exchanged promises with China about the three non-compliances, and the current president has declared that he does not know about the three non-compliances.
Right-wing and left-wing South Korea have a unique structure of pro-U.S./pro-Japan and pro-China conflicts, and they seem to understand well that a change in government can lead to a major change in diplomatic policy.
In the first place, isn't there a question in South Korea about where the national ideology of South Korea, which goes back and forth between liberal democracy and socialist dictatorship, lies? On the contrary, they are constantly intimidatingly questioning each other about meaningless alternatives, whether they are pro-Japanese or anti-Japanese.
South Korea, where anti-Japan precedes the national ideology of democracy or socialism. Any problem can be dwarfed by anti-Japan fire, making it a very easy tool to use politically.
Masatoshi Muto, a former diplomat, says that making concessions to South Korea is a mistake and that South Korea needs a firm response.
Masatoshi Muto on his dealings with South Korea during his time as a diplomat. He says that he made a mistake by listening to everything and requesting as much as possible.
When asked about the anti-Japanese movement taking place in South Korea, Taro Aso, during his time as Prime Minister, asked, ``Does that have something to do with it?'' Japanese people don't care. As a result, the term ``virtual enemy country'' became popular. The view was that South Korea was conducting an anti-Japanese movement due to domestic circumstances.
There is no doubt that South Korea's current enemy is primarily North Korea. The Korean War is not over yet, and there is currently a ceasefire. When we see public opinion in South Korea calling Japan an enemy country while facing each other across the 38th parallel, we can't help but wonder to what extent South Korea is escaping reality.
When considered within the same framework, China is on the side of South Korea's enemy in the Korean War frame. Until now, the South Korean government has not been able to resolve security issues, and has abandoned its military and continued to focus on Japan, which has not fought back, because if it expressed hostility toward North Korea, China, or the United States, it would immediately take retaliatory measures. It's here. This is to gain the public's attention by saying something powerful. In doing so, it is easy to use stories from the past annexation era. Japan understands this environment and has tacitly tolerated South Korea's anti-Japanese movements.
What we need to clarify is that all of these environments are always real problems for South Korea. It seems that as long as Koreans remain anti-Japanese, they can temporarily feel as if their problems are gone. Even now, when the anti-Japan flag goes up, I forget everything due to a spinal reflex.
The Sino - Japanese issue is an intergovernmental issue. Japan and South Korea are civic issues. The people of Korea, a democratic country, cannot pretend to be innocent.
The difference between Sino-Japanese relations and Japan-South Korea relations is that Sino-Japanese relations are intergovernmental and Japan-South Korea relations is civic.As with the Takeshima issue, the Senkaku Islands issue is a territorial issue in Sino-Japanese relations.As for anti-Japanese education, both China and Korea have anti-Japanese education, and the two countries in the world are anti-Japanese.Although anti-Japanese, China and South Korea have completely different positions in history.Japan battled with China, and Korea was during the annexation of Japan and Korea, and above all, Japan didn't battle with Korea.
The Japanese do not criticize individual Chinese for the current Sino-Japanese issue.This is because the Chinese do not have the right to vote, and everyone knows that the expansion of the Communist Party of China's Xi Jinping policy is the cause.On the other hand, Japanese comments on Korea have attracted attention to the personality of Koreans.This is because the Japanese understand that the No Japan movement has become a social phenomenon in Korea beyond civic groups and that anti-Japanese education is the foundation of the issue.And most of all, Moon Jae In is a president elected by the people's votes.
It is natural that international relations will change somewhat if the regime changes.However, Moon Jae In hid behind the scenes and used private organizations to carry out anti-Japanese movements in the voice of citizens for political activities and diplomacy.That's all he's done for five years.Has he ever thought about how this would affect him in the future?
China and South Korea are both problematic countries for Japan, but the differences between the two countries need to be observed.
South Korea has always opposed registration as a World Heritage Site. The meaning of culture is different from the rest of the world. People from all over the world come to Japan for a variety of reasons, including culture, history, anime and manga, cat cafes, maid cafes, traditional Japanese food, and other gourmet food. These are evaluated within the framework of culture. If we look at the definition of culture, we find that `culture is a system of ideas and value standards shared within a society, and a unique style possessed by a group.'
Cultural heritage must be something that has survived for a certain period of time, and can be thought of as something that has had a major impact on subsequent eras, and can be considered to be the "culture" of each country. It can be said that it exists within the range of value standards and definitions. Furthermore, Japan has registered 20 World Cultural Heritage Sites.
In this sense, South Korea is the only country to raise questions about Japan's registration as a World Cultural Heritage Site. This is not a historical issue, but simply a difference in the definition and framework of culture. Can they explain why Auschwitz in Germany and the Colosseum in Italy are world heritage sites? The Colosseum is an arena for killing each other.
If the common concept of ``culture'' in each country is the premise of world cultural heritage, then no Japanese person would object to the fact that Auschwitz and the Colosseum are cultural heritage sites. This is the Japanese way of thinking. In other words, it is different from Korea.
People visiting Japan come to see that there is almost no garbage left on the roads all over the country, and to see that the natural environment is still kept clean in one of the world's most developed countries, which is unique in the world. Although it can be said that this is Japanese culture that cannot be seen, there is no framework or precedent for considering such a culture that spreads throughout the nation as a cultural heritage.
Even if such a cultural framework were to match the world's definition, only South Korea would be opposed to it.
