The Korean National Police Agency’s landing on Takeshima is a strategy of disruption aimed at the Japan - U.S. - Korea trilateral foreign ministerial talks.
2021-11-24
Category:Japanese comfort woman problem I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Japan declines Japan-U.S.-Korea joint press conference
A joint press conference scheduled for November 17th in Washington, D.C., after the trilateral Foreign Ministers' Meeting between Japan, the United States, and South Korea, was canceled at short notice. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman held a solo press conference on behalf of the three countries. Deputy Secretary of State Sherman said, ``There are bilateral differences between Japan and South Korea that need to be resolved. To that end, we have changed the format of the press conference.''
South Korea continues to criticize Japan
It is reported that the reason why the Japanese side refused to hold a joint press conference was that Korean National Police Agency Commissioner Kim Chang-ryong landed on Takeshima the day before the talks. Reports in South Korea said things like ``Japan destroyed America's face,'' ``Japan refused the interview without permission,'' and ``Deputy Secretary of State Sherman's solo press conference was a strange sight.''
In the first place, there seems to be no recognition that it was the South Korean side that took the outrageous step of landing on the Takeshima issue, which is a sensitive issue between Japan and South Korea, the day before the Japan-U.S.-Korea meeting. Moreover, the Commissioner of the National Police Agency is the head of the administrative agency.
MEMO The South Korean side is at fault in most of the Japan-Korea issues, but the reports published within South Korea only justify themselves.
Landing on Takeshima is a disturbance strategy aimed at timing
In the first place, Takeshima is an inherent territory of Japan both historically and under international law. What South Korea should do is not for the Commissioner of the National Police Agency to land on Takeshima, but to go to the International Court of Justice and seek a decision based on international law. It is clear that the landing on Takeshima was carried out to coincide with the trilateral foreign ministerial talks between Japan, the United States, and South Korea.
Strategic objectives are China and North Korea
This is related to the South Korean presidential election to be held in 2022, and is aimed at improving the current government's approval ratings, but the people most likely to be happy about this are China and North Korea. China is wary of Japan, the US, and South Korea getting closer.
That's why they started this commotion with the aim of holding talks between the vice ministers of foreign affairs between Japan, the US and South Korea. If you think about it this way, the objectives are completely consistent with what the Moon Jae-in administration has done thus far. And in this case, it can be said that that purpose was clearly demonstrated.
Intensification of anti-Japanese activities
Since the Moon Jae-in administration came into power, the Takeshima issue has become more radical, and issues such as the Rising Sun flag, forced labor, and comfort women have all crossed the line. They are engaging in brinkmanship diplomacy that is on the verge of destroying Japan-South Korea relations.
These can be seen as an appeal to North Korea and China, and also seem to be a love call to be included in the Chinese economic bloc. The South Korean people are enthusiastic about these movements and support Moon Jae-in's popularity.
POINT South Korea wants to join China and North Korea. This has been Moon Jae-in's wish from the beginning. If you look at it that way, everything you've said and done so far makes sense.
South Korea approaches a rogue nation
North Korea and China are authoritarian countries. Japan and the United States are democratic countries, and South Korea is also supposed to be a democratic country, but I wonder if the social system doesn't matter.The one country that the Moon Jae-in administration wants to get along with after saying goodbye to Japan and the United States is the UN sanctions resolution. One country that continues to suffer is North Korea, and one country that has been criticized by Europe, the United States, and Japan is China, which has been criticized for the Hong Kong issue, the Taiwan Strait issue, and the Uighur issue.
I feel like the future direction of Korea is becoming clearer.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
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.
A Korean Peninsula man kidnapped a woman and ran a Japanese Military comfort woman mediation business.
On June 30, 1933, a woman (41 years old at the time) with a husband and children was arrested in addition to a 35-year-old Korean Peninsula man who kidnapped a girl on the street and sold her to China.One of the kidnapped girls was sold to a 35-year-old man for 20 won and killed.
On April 5, 1933, Oh Cho-woong, a broker on the Korean Peninsula operating under the pseudonym Hannam, was arrested for counterfeiting his family register and obtaining permission to do business in South Gyeongsang Province bought a 16-year-old girl for 350 yen.
Kim Bok-soon, a female broker disguised as a lady, has been arrested.Kim Bok-soon led a group of four men and women, including Lee Jin-ok, who kidnapped 28 girls on the Korean Peninsula on December 31, 1935.Kim Bok-soon sold the girls to Joo Sung-ok in the primary and received a brokerage fee of 15 to 150 yen.
Daughter Kidnapping: Chun Doo-hwan (58 years old at the time) of Gaifuku Village in Gunsan, Busan, was arrested on November 15, 1938 for preparing a power of attorney to sell to a 19-year-old and 17-year-old woman in Manchuria.
Ha Yoon-myung's case: He is also a man of considerable wealth in Gyeongseong.He cleverly persuaded his parents, "I have children and daughters, so how about your daughter?" and paid 10 yen in advance to take over the family daughter (18 years old at the time).After that, I took my daughter to Tianjin, Republic of China, not Gyeongseong, and sold it for 1,000 yen.
On March 28, 1939, the Asahi Shimbun reported that Kim Oh-man and his family were arrested in Roh Moo Hyun Mountain, Gyeonggi Province.Since 1935, the Kim Oman family has been working as adopted daughters in rural areas across the Korean Peninsula and trafficked women in Manchuria.
Tan Jang-yeon case: Tan Jang-yeon, who was arrested after Ha Yoon-myung and his wife, sold more than 100 rural women to North China and Manchuria from 1935 to 1939.It was also revealed that lower-ranking civil servants cooperated in forging family registers.
The Japanese government's response strengthened the crackdown on sex traffickers from 1937 to 1938, and issued an order of caution against the crackdown on intermediaries.
Choi Myung-ho's case: On May 13, 1939, the Korean Peninsula edition of the Osaka Asahi Shimbun reported the girl's testimony.Choi Myeong-ho was hired as a maid, and Choi Myeong-ho became 16 entrepreneurs, including department store guides, nurses, and female clerks in Gyeongseong.The girl was found by Choi Myung-ho and his gang while trying to escape from the business contact book.After that, he was imprisoned and kicked with his foot day and night .
Busan Otome Trading Incident: Yoo In-ma, who was engaged in Otome Trading, was arrested in August 1939.The Dong-A Ilbo reported on August 31, 1939, that 45 brokers in Busan kidnapped more than 100 women.Companies cleverly said, "Manchuria is doing well."
Fraud Kidnapping: According to the Asahi Shimbun's Namseon edition on November 21, 1939, Kim Dong-yoon, a former temporary employee of Busan Prefecture, kidnapped a woman and a woman through official seal forgery.There were 28 victims, many of whom were kidnapped in the direction of Namyang.
What is the Japanese Military confort woman problem?Human trafficking was frequent on the Korean Peninsula, and people on the Korean Peninsula at that time were responsible for it.The Japanese police were cracking down on these.
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.
A Korean group planning to visit Germany to remove the statue of peace. Anti - Japanese activities are global. Activities to prevent it to the world. [Table of Contents]
Korean group planning to visit Germany
Activities by Koreans denouncing anti-Japanese groups
Collaboration with historians
Get the location of the prostitute rally all night
Who is the comfort women issue?
Kim Byeong-heon, director of the National History Textbook Research Institute, Lee Woo-yeon, research committee member of the Rakusei University Economic Research Institute, Juok-soon Mama Corps representative, Kenji Yoshida (Korean name Kim Min-suk), etc. He will visit the city of Berlin from the 25th to the 30th, meet with the ward office officials, and formally request the removal of the statue of the comfort woman girl installed in the area.
Director Kim and his colleagues formed the "Comfort Women Fraud Clearing Solidarity" last year and held a weekly confrontation rally for the Justice Federation's rally, revealing the falsehood of the comfort women issue symbolized by the image of comfort women.
Lee Woo-yeon is the co-author of "Anti-Japan Tribalism," which has become a bestseller in Japan, and Juok-soon held a demo rally in Korea
"Prime Minister Abe, our leader was helpless and ignorant and destroyed Japan-South Korea relations. I sincerely apologize," he said, denying the Korean government's response and defending the position of the Japanese government.
They are an organization that is in direct opposition to various anti-Japan movement groups, and are familiar with the history of the Japanese rule, such as Professor Yanagi of Yonsei University, who was sued for saying "comfort women are prostitutes". He will also collaborate with Lee Young-hoon of "Anti-Japan Tribalism", Professor Mark Ramseyer of Harvard Law School, and Tsutomu Nishioka, a visiting professor of Reitaku University in Japan.
Thorough demonstrations such as uncovering the lies of the comfort women in the immediate vicinity of the former comfort women's Wednesday rally, and securing applications for the same place all night before the notification of the Wednesday rally is issued to obstruct the activities of the comfort women. It's the first time.
As with the comfort women issue and the recruitment issue, Japan and South Korea have agreed to comprehensively resolve these issues through the 1965 Japan-Korea Claims Agreement. The problems that have arisen since then are not the problems of both countries, but the domestic problems of each. The Japanese way of thinking is that domestic problems should be solved domestically.
Will it really be a solution when their activities expand and the truth of history becomes clear? At least this is a problem that Koreans should solve. It is clear from the past that Japan's apology has twisted the facts and was only a temporary measure.
Professor Ramseyer's negative statement [There is no evidence of forced abduction of comfort women] is a complete lie. [Translated excerpt of Yonhap News article]
On January 5th, Mark Ramseyer, a professor at Harvard Law School in the United States, who defined South Korean comfort women as "prostitutes" and received international backlash, has now proven that "comfort women were forced to be recruited." It is expected that there will be a stir by asserting that there are no contemporary documents that do so.
Professor Ramseyer made this clear on the 5th in his article ``Sexual Contracts in the Pacific War: Responses to Criticism'' posted on the Harvard Law School website.
In this paper, which is a rebuttal of previous criticisms directed at her, Professor Ramseyer argues that ``Korean women were drawn into [comfort women] by the Japanese military who fought against their will, regardless of their will.'' I will respond to the allegation,'' and declared, ``This allegation is false.''
At the same time, he asserted, `` Korean women were not forced to serve as comfort stations due to planned coercion by the Japanese military.''
He specifically argued that the 1983 book ``My War Crimes'' by Japanese author and activist Seiji Yoshida was the de facto basis for the forced recruitment of comfort women.
For 35 years after the end of the war, there was no evidence (proving forced conscription). It was only in the late 1980s that some Korean women began to advocate this."
He added, ``The comfort women debate started with Yoshida's 'fraud'''' and ``Most of the experts who criticized me were from Japan and South Korea, but even though they knew about this book, no one He also didn't mention this book."
Regarding the paper in question, Professor Ramseyer said, ``The core of the paper was about the contract, such as why the comfort women received advance payment and what conditions under the contract determined the women's working hours.'' ``However, none of the criticisms leveled at me were aimed at this kind of economic analysis.''
In a paper published that day, Professor Ramseyer cited a study last year by Lee Yuken, a co-author of ``Anti-Japanese Tribalism'' and a research committee member at the University of Economics Research Institute, which received support from far-right groups in Japan.
Professor Ramseyer also claimed that comfort women victims, who remained silent for a considerable period after the war, changed their words after they began demanding reparations from Japan.
In a situation where there is no document proving forced recruitment, the only evidence, the testimonies of victims, lacks credibility..
In particular, he referred to comfort woman victim Lee Yong-soo as ``the most notorious (of all the people who changed their words)''.
[Excerpt above]
Professor Ramseyer says that no evidence of her forced abduction or her contract has been found anywhere. Similarly, the Japanese government has made a cabinet decision under the Abe administration that there is no evidence of forced recruitment.
