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.
2022-02-21
Category:South Korea
Photo by Unknown Auther (licensed under CC0 1.0 )
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Difference between government and private matter
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 relationship between whether you have the right to vote or not
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.
Korea spread by Moon Jae In
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?
POINT China and South Korea are both problematic countries for Japan, but the differences between the two countries need to be observed.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Lee Jae - myung, a South Korean presidential candidate, is frightened by the prosecution.An investigation battle that began before the election.
Meanwhile, Democratic Party presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung said yesterday, "If I lose this time, I will be sentenced to prison for making a crime."Lee said in a speech on the side road of Seokchon Lake in Songpa-gu, "The prosecution republic will be held.The fear of the prosecution republic is not just the sound of the wind, but the sound of the wind coming before us.It's really scary."
Lee's eldest son (29) is suspected of gambling and buying money.Lee was found guilty of violating the public election law for making false statements about his brother's forced hospitalization after the 2018 governorial election.Despite the crisis of losing his job, the Supreme Court reversed his decision.The Supreme Court justice, who acquitted at the time, was found to have been an advisor to a company involved in the Daejang-dong scandal after retirement, raising suspicions that he had an affair with an actress and a criminal record of drunk driving.
Under the Moon Jae In administration, a public investigation office was set up to separate the investigation of high-ranking government officials from the prosecution, but Moon Jae In was criticized for protecting itself by establishment this organization.Yoon criticized the prosecution for investigating Lee Jae-myung's rival, Yoon Seok-yeol, and even investigating his phone records.
Lee Jae-myung said he would be sent to prison if he lost the election, but the left-wing government wants to arrest Yoon Seok-yeol by using the Public Prosecutors' Office.
He seems to be frightened by the fear that what he is trying to do will eventually come to himself.In Korean politics, retaliation using prosecution power is common.
The South Korean government is responsible for the Korean government's refusal to allow its nationals to repatriate - Japan protected them out of human rights considerations.
The issue of forced labor and the issue of residents in Japan are related. Conscription on the Korean Peninsula took place from August 1944 until the end of the war the following year. Until then, Koreans on the Korean peninsula were not subject to conscription or conscription. Employment at Japanese companies is highly sought after, and despite being conscripted, Mitsubishi Mining received seven times as many applications as recruitment.
Normally, those living in Japan would be forced to leave because they are foreigners, but the reason why this is not the case is because of the 1965 Japan-Korea Status of Forces Agreement. The South Korean government at the time received a huge amount of aid, but refused to allow its citizens to return home. Since all Koreans in Japan were believed to be slave laborers who had been forcibly taken away from Japan, it would have been inconvenient for a large number of people who had experienced a different reality to return home. Japan restored diplomatic relations out of human rights considerations and guaranteed the Koreans' status in Japan.
As was made clear in the Gunkanjima issue, the recruitment at that time was legal recruitment under ILO standards. In terms of human rights issues, it lies with the South Korean government, which has refused to allow large numbers of its own citizens to return and has discarded them. That is a human rights issue. And what is being made a fuss about all this is the issue of conscripted labor.
Kim Koo and Moon Jae In Kim Koo went to North Korea to oppose trust rule and advocate reunification and independence of the two Koreas, but Kim Il Sung did not seem to deal with him.It was also abandoned by the United States.Moon Jae In is very similar.Moon Jae In names Kim Gu as the most respected politician.Do you mean that the right and left sides of Korea are Lee Seung-man and Kim Gu?Either way, they are anti-Japanese.
What has clearly changed due to the Japan - Korea issue - It is the Japanese sentiment toward Korea and the perception of Korea - It is not easy to overturn this.
What kind of Japan-Korea relations will the new South Korean government build in the future? Since it is the administration after the Moon Jae-in administration, we must see a completely different point from other administrations. It is different from the Kim Dae Jung administration and the Park Geun-hye administration. The biggest difference is the Japanese national sentiment. Since the 1998 Japan-Korea Joint Declaration, the Japan-Korea World Cup has been held, and the Japanese have supported the success of this soccer tournament. What was introduced in Japan during this period was Korea with a good image. It is a Korean drama and K-POP. Of course, this is a creative and fictional world of entertainment, but many Korean fans were born in Japan, and this played a role of friendship between Japan and South Korea to a certain extent. However, what Moon Jae-in revealed was the exact opposite of South Korea, which is completely different from these. It is the earnest desire of the Korean people to pray for the destruction of Japan.
The setting of the target point to return to the 1998 Japan-Korea Joint Declaration set by President-elect Yoon Seok-you should be evaluated to a certain extent. With the joint declaration of Keizo Obuchi and Kim Dae Jung, Japan-South Korea relations should have taken a normal direction. Then why couldn't we walk that way? This is an issue. In other words, Japan moved forward in line with the declaration, but South Korea retreated. Why is this? We have to think about this problem right now. If this is misunderstood, future negotiations between Japan and South Korea will not proceed well. On the contrary, not only the Korean government but also the Kishida administration will be blown away in an instant. China will be staring at it.
History must probably repeat itself if the core issues disappear as a result of the long-lasting stress of the change of government from the left-wing South Korean government. It should be back in 1965, or maybe 100 years ago. At least in 1965, Japan and South Korea solved the problem comprehensively in the efforts of both countries. Japan and South Korea have reached an agreement for the future in Asia, which is suffering from postwar reconstruction that is incomparably difficult due to the current friction between Japan and South Korea.
Meeting with South Korean parliamentarians and Foreign Minister Hayashi. Is it meaningful to deal with mere performance diplomacy? An unprecedented response between members of the Diet and government ministers
Foreign Minister Hayashi met at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the morning of the 25th with the "policy consultation delegation" sent by South Korean President-elect Yoon Seok-you to Japan. There have been criticisms within the Liberal Democratic Party of having a meeting between a mere parliamentary group that has not yet been established as a government and Japanese government ministers. Since it is unknown whether they are really delegations, will the Foreign Minister visit all of them when a foreign member visits Japan? And since I had an interview with the members of the Diet, there is no reason why Yoon Seok-you would not have an interview after taking office as president.
Interview in a state of violation of international law
Currently, the Japanese government is in a position not to negotiate unless the Korean government corrects the state of violation of international law, and the state of violation of international law has not changed yet. After that, They had a meeting with former Minister of Finance Fukushiro Nukaga of the Liberal Democratic Party and former Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Nakagawa of the Constitutional Democratic Party, who are the chairman of the Japan-Korea Parliamentary Union, at a hotel in Tokyo for about an hour and a half. One of the points that should be evaluated is that the Korean parliamentarians should return to the Japan-Korea relations at the time of the 1998 Japan-Korea Joint Declaration. In 1998, it became a joint declaration that embodied the ideal way of exchange between Japan and South Korea from the 1965 Japan-Korea Basic Treaty, such as the opening of Japanese culture in South Korea and the resolution of the problem of fishing rights in Takeshima. Even if it is simply said to improve Japan-South Korea relations, it is commendable that they have discussed them many times and have shown specific target points because the Korean side has destroyed everything for their own convenience. However, even if it returned to the time of the Japan-Korea Joint Declaration, this declaration was virtually invalidated by the National Assembly of South Korea in less than two years. How can we prevent it from being invalidated again even if it returns in 1998? That point is missing.
Do you make another promise with a country that does not keep your promise?
I think that the problem that South Korea does not keep its promise is that the country itself does not have a structure to keep its promise. Even if the president of that era considers the times and makes a promise with Japan through diplomatic immunity, Korean parliamentarians who have an anti-Japanese structure and an anti-Japanese constitution will invalidate them with the power of the legislature. Is the Kishida administration rushing for easy diplomatic achievements as it has no diplomatic achievements so far? Foreign Minister Hayashi is in a good mood playing the piano in the United Kingdom. Will he repeat the Japan-Korea relations that he has repeated over and over again?
