The Korean won is falling.It exceeded １,２４０ won. The reason that Japan must not make promises with the new Korean president prematurely .
2022-03-15
Category:South Korea
Photo by National Missile Defense image (licensed under CC0 1.0 )
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
The won's depreciation has not stopped, and there are many uncertainties
The won fell to 1,243 won against the dollar.If the Fed raises interest rates in real terms, it will fall further.The main reason is that Russia's economic prospects are pessimistic. And Yoon Seok-yeol won the presidential election on March 9 and became president on May 10.Yoon called for strengthening the U.S.-South Korea alliance and mentioned the deployment of THAAD.China accounted for 24.8 percent of Korea's exports, twice as much as the U.S., the second largest exporter.When the Park Geun Hye administration decided to deploy THAAD, China imposed severe economic sanctions.China's economic sanctions are only pessimistic for investors, so Korean investment is likely to rise further and the won is likely to fall further.
Next time, South Korea will break its promise with China
The Moon Jae In administration has made a promise with China that it will not be included in the U.S. missile defense system, and that the U.S.-Japan security cooperation will not develop into a military alliance,and that the THAAD, which has already been deployed in South Korea without additional THAAD deployment, will not harm China's security.In other words, economic sanctions will inevitably be imposed if South Korea break their promise to China.The Democratic Party has 58 percent of the seats in the ruling party, and domestic opposition is likely to be strong.If the won depreciates further, there will be more material to attack the president.
It's too early to get excited about improving Japan-South Korea relations
In Japan, it is reported that the president, who wants to improve Japan-South Korea relations, took office, but the environment is not that good.Even if the new president makes a simple promise between Korea and Japan, it is highly likely that Korean public opinion and parliament will not be able to fulfill it.On the contrary, if the won-dollar exchange rate exceeds 1,300 won, it will be out of control and even default again.
POINT All promises made in Japan and South Korea have been broken every time the president changes.The Japanese government should observe it a little calmly without rushing to achieve mere diplomatic results.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
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?
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.
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.
Representative Yuko Obuchi appeared at the Japan - Korea summit meeting *A wedge telling South Korea not to forget what she said. A meeting and dinner was held between Prime Minister Kishida and President Yun Seok-Yeol, and a press conference was held without a joint statement.
What has been decided is the resumption of shuttle diplomacy and the lifting of restrictions on three strategic items. In reality, the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, but the actual content is that the leaders met together to confirm the matter.
Regarding the lifting of restrictions on strategic substances, in reality there will be no major changes in distribution from Japan, and the 2019 restrictions will not reduce or stop exports, so nothing will actually change.
In particular, President Yun Seok-Yeol raised the issue of North Korea and showed South Korea's cooperative attitude toward Japan, but this has only confirmed that this is back on track. This is natural since the North Korea issue is being dealt with through the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and the U.S.-South Korea Security Treaty.
At the very least, future shuttle diplomacy should ask what South Korea can do for Japan, rather than the diplomatic relations that have been the case in the past, where Japan did something unilaterally.
That's what makes for healthy diplomatic relations. I can't think of anything specific that South Korea has done for Japan. No one is looking for diplomatic relations that involve chatting at the table and asking for wads of money under the table.
The next day, the Japanese media focused on the meeting between Suga, president-elect of the Japan-Korea Parliamentary Federation, and President Yun Seok-yeoul, but what I wanted to draw attention to was the woman in the very edge of the photo.
She is Yuko Obuchi, a lawmaker, and the daughter of former Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi. The reason I wondered why she was in this seat was because I remember her not holding any government-related positions.
What really struck me was the 1998 Japan-Korea Joint Declaration. President Yun Seok-Yeol insists that Japan-Korea relations should return to the Japan-Korea Joint Declaration, but the question is how to return. And Japan complies with all of the Japan-Korea Joint Declaration. Returning would be a problem only for the Korean side.
The points of the 1998 Japan-Korea Joint Declaration are as follows.
Japan-Korea Joint DeclarationHolding of the 2002 FIFA World Cup
Promoting Japan-Korea economic cooperation
Opening of Japanese culture in Korea
Fisheries agreement around Takeshima in accordance with the new United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
Response to North Korea issue
The holding of the Japan-Korea World Cup and the influx of Korean Wave content all stemmed from this joint declaration.
The Japan-Korea Joint Declaration was signed by President Kim Dae-jung, but the Japan-Korea World Cup was said to be the worst tournament in FIFA history, and it became unclear whether it was an anti-Japan movement or a soccer tournament.
Less than two years later, the South Korean National Assembly passed a resolution to invalidate this joint declaration. Japanese people must not forget that the area around Takeshima was subsequently filled with Korean fishing boats again, resulting in the current state of Takeshima.
The Japanese representative who concluded this agreement was former Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi. South Korea has completely torn up not only the 1965 Agreement, but also the 1988 Agreement.
Was Representative Yuko Obuchi invited to this meeting as a symbolic icon? In other words, this seems to have driven a wedge that returning to the Japan-South Korea Joint Declaration is the goal of the talks. It's about not forgetting what I said. Does the Korean side actually understand the meaning of this? I don't think they understand.
In conclusion, returning to the Japan-Korea Joint Declaration would be a very high hurdle. This joint declaration was scrapped because of the Takeshima issue. Perhaps the Korean side only understands this declaration as a resumption of cultural exchange.
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.
