The United Nations that has stopped functioning due to old - fashioned values - Japan remains an enemy country - Where is the country to be monitored?
2022-04-18
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
United Nations with Enemy State Clause
Enemy State Clauses in the Charter of the United Nations are set forth in Articles ５３, ７７ and １０７. The enemy country is a country that was an enemy at the time of World War II, and it is permitted to impose military sanctions against re-invasion by the enemy country without passing a resolution of the Security Council. The United Nations is a coalition of victorious nations, one of which is to monitor and control defeated nations. Needless to say, one of the enemy countries is Japan. Among such organizations, Russia, which is currently at war, and China, which aims to expand its power to Asia, exist as permanent members. China and South Korea are the countries that try to lower Japan's international status by taking advantage of the nature of the United Nations as a victorious coalition.
Japan, which has borne much of the United Nations
The contribution to the United Nations is determined based on GDP. As for the contribution, Japan, which is stipulated as an enemy country, is in ３rd place, and Germany is in ４th place. In recent years, China has been ranked second due to the growth of GDP, but Japan is still second in terms of cumulative contributions.
The United Nations does not work with old values ??
In the postwar US-Soviet Cold War era, NATO and the Warsaw Pact face each other. Nevertheless, this victorious alliance will continue to maintain the enemy state clause of World War II. And now, even when witnessing Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the United Nations is monitoring Japan and Germany with Russia and China as permanent members. The countries that the world must monitor will be clearly different.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Whether the debate on the ability to attack enemy bases is a matter of propriety, possession is an issue, or start is an issue - possession is an issue.
What is the point of the ability to attack enemy bases
1956 Ichiro Hatoyama
1999 Yoshinari Norota
2003 Shigeru Ishiba
1969 Cabinet decision
The debate over the ability to attack enemy bases has led to confusion in public opinion regarding whether it is permissible to attack enemy bases, whether it is permissible to possess such weapons, and what stage refers to the initiation of an enemy attack. appear. Looking at the government's views so far, it has consistently been stated that the ability to attack enemy bases falls within the scope of defense, and the government has also made clear its views on launching such attacks. The question is whether or not to actually own it.
Issues regarding the ability to attack enemy bases
[Possibility] Is it okay to attack enemy bases (enemy territory)?
[Initiation] What is the initiation of an attack by an enemy country (activation conditions)?
[Holding] When and what to hold
Regarding the ability to attack enemy bases, Prime Minister Ichiro Hatoyama already answered in 1956 that in the event of a missile attack, ``It is inconceivable that the purpose of the Constitution is to sit back and wait for self-destruction.'' Since then, the Japanese government has continued to interpret it as constitutionally permissible.
1956 Ichiro Hatoyama
The purpose of the Constitution is that if an imminent illegal violation is committed against our country, and if a guided missile or other attack is carried out on our land as a means of such violation, we should sit back and wait for our own destruction. I don't think I can think of it that way. In such cases, take the minimum necessary measures to prevent such attacks, for example, as long as it is recognized that there is no other way to defend against attacks by guided missiles, etc. I believe that hitting bases with guided missiles is legally within the scope of self-defense and should be possible.
In 1999, Defense Agency Director General Norota responded that the Self-Defense Forces would use the necessary force if there was a threat of an armed attack.
1999 Yoshinari Norota
In situations that do not result in an armed attack against our country, police agencies are primarily responsible for dealing with the situation, but in cases where the general police force cannot respond, the Self-Defense Forces respond by dispatching public order, and are not responsible for suppressing the situation. It's possible. Then, if a certain situation corresponds to an armed attack against our country or the possibility of such attack, a defense operation is ordered, and the Self-Defense Forces will use the necessary force to defend our country. That's why .
In 2003, regarding the launch of an attack on Japan, Director-General of the Defense Agency Ishiba announced that he would turn Tokyo into a sea of fire, and stated that if Japan began injecting fuel, this would be considered the start.
2003 Shigeru Ishiba
Now, I have a question from the committee members: There has been a statement that Tokyo will be reduced to a sea of fire, that it will be reduced to ashes, and for that purpose, in order to accomplish that, in order to make it come true. If they started injecting fuel or did something like that, then their intentions would be clear. This is a case where someone says, "I'm going to shoot this thing and reduce Tokyo to ashes," and then they just start pumping fuel, or they start making preparations, and they start taking action. Well, if you do that, wouldn't that be called a start?. That's true, because the intention is clear and that's what it is. Therefore, what I am saying is no different from what the Minister of Foreign Affairs is saying.
On February 16, 2022, Defense Minister Nobuo Kishi spoke at a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Budget Committee regarding the "capability to attack enemy bases" that the government is considering possessing. , stated that they would not rule out the option of bombing military bases, and acknowledged that it falls within the scope of self-defense.
As stated above, the government has already stated that the ability to attack enemy bases is within the scope of the right of self-defense. Regarding the next issue, ``retention'', there was a Cabinet decision in 1969.
1969 Cabinet decision
Possessing so-called offensive weapons, whose performance is exclusively used for catastrophic destruction of the enemy country's homeland, immediately goes beyond the minimum necessary range for self-defense. Therefore, it is not allowed under any circumstances. For example, the possession of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), long-range strategic bombers, and attack aircraft carriers is not allowed.
This is the current argument for ``possession'' of the ability to attack enemy bases. In other words, the debate is whether it is a minimal weapon for self-defense or whether it exceeds it.
Since the current government opinion has interpreted it as falling within the scope of the right of self-defense, it does not fall under "offensive weapons used only for catastrophic destruction" and can be interpreted as something that can be possessed. . Until now, the government's position has consistently been that possessing the ability to attack enemy bases is within the scope of the right of self-defense, but it has not actually possessed it and has kept it ambiguous. All that's happening now is an effort to actually own it. Possession of the ability to attack enemy bases has already been deemed constitutional, and the launch of an attack by the enemy has been defined, so it would be unreasonable to now say that we are opposed to actually having the ability to attack enemy bases. The premise of the argument seems to be different.
The cabinet decision defines weapons as those used only for the catastrophic destruction of the enemy's homeland, so it is clear that this does not apply to weapons used within the scope of the right of self-defense.
TSE market capitalization returns to number one in Asia - Expectations for Japan's competitiveness after withdrawal from Chinese investment?
On the 11th, the total market capitalization of stocks listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange exceeded that of China's Shanghai Stock Exchange. It seems that the TSE has returned to the top spot in Asia for the first time in about three and a half years. Various things are being talked about, including a move away from investment in China and expectations for Japan's competitiveness to recover. In the first place, the current strange international situation is the result of developed countries investing in dictatorial countries such as China and Russia.
In 1973, the G7 once accounted for 65% of world GDP. That's the GDP of only seven countries. This was seen as a monopoly on the world's wealth, and problems in developing countries were discussed. At that time, the world was also in the era of the Cold War, but the Cold War itself was at least a better era than now. Economic and political exchanges between communist and capitalist countries were closed off and blocked by a barrier called the Iron Curtain. Russia and China are calling for a return to the Cold War era, but is that really the case? One could argue that the Cold War era was the era with the least number of wars in the world.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the countries of Eastern Europe collapsed one after another. China also pursued a path of liberation and reform, aiming to become an open nation. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the world went crazy and thought the era of tension was over, but that was not the case at all. The loss of balance in the world has led to localized conflicts. Issues that were not highlighted during the Cold War era have been exposed as tensions have eased. Various things have been said about this, and while that may be true, I believe that it is essentially a matter of money.
What began with the collapse of the Cold War was global capital, or so-called globalism. Globalists are talked about as a conspiracy theory on social media, but there is no interest in knowing who is behind it. The problem is that the era when business and investment in authoritarian countries began can be thought of as the collapse of the Cold War. Did they simply think that the world would turn to democracy once communism fell? What is clear today is that the country has spent decades cultivating a state in which its domestic market is opened up to the capitalist state as much as possible, and wealth is distributed by a dictator.
The Cold War era was a great time. It was a time when the world was divided based on ideology, and it was a rational and peaceful time. The world should once again create an iron curtain of democratic and non-democratic countries. We no longer need to care how much wealth the G7 makes. Only countries that choose the democratic state form can receive democratic investment. As long as we continue to be a dictatorial nation, we should just live with the economy of dictatorial nations. You should rethink that. However, there will be some remorse for the times when we grew a nation that grew fat and threatened us with weapons.
State funerals are an exclusive matter of the Cabinet - clearly stated in the Cabinet Office Establishment Act, similar discussions have been made in the past and a conclusion has been reached.
Public opinion grills the perpetrator's motive
Don't politicians have freedom of religion?
State funerals are an exclusive matter of the Cabinet
Certified by Cabinet Office Establishment Act
It is the opposition members who are not based on the law
Public opinion in Japan is still agitated over the issue of state funerals. In the first place, I am appalled by the way the Japanese media is using the claims of the person who murdered former Prime Minister Abe as they are, changing it to a picture of the Liberal Democratic Party and the Unification Church. They are even using the murderer's crazy and erroneous motives to provoke the people.
Shouldn't politicians be religious? Freedom of thought and belief is a legitimate human right granted to all citizens. If there is a problem that violates the Political Funds Control Act, then that would be fine, but in that case, religious groups and companies are completely irrelevant. Former Prime Minister Abe merely offered his greetings. I tried looking for a law that says greetings are a crime, but I couldn't find anything. I would like the definition of the word "involvement" to be clear. But that's it.
The Kishida Cabinet decided to hold a state funeral, but I wonder if there is a problem. Opposition parties and the media are shouting that there is a problem with the decision-making process. Many say that at least the Diet should be involved in decision-making. For a long time after the war, there was no legal regulation regarding state funerals, and according to Yoichi Takahashi, similar points were raised and discussed at the time of former Prime Minister Yoshida's state funeral. In other words, it was not clear at the time who should make decisions, how they should be decided, and what process should be used, which was already discussed in the past.
In 1999, the Cabinet Office Establishment Act was enacted, and in the legislation that clearly stipulated matters decided by the Cabinet Office, Article 4, 3-32 states, `` Affairs related to national ceremonies and ceremonies and events conducted by the Cabinet.'' Regarding ”. In other words, the National Assembly, or the legislative branch, has enacted a law that states that state funerals, which are national ceremonies, are the exclusive domain of the Cabinet.
There is no problem with the process by which the Cabinet made decisions based on the Cabinet Office Establishment Act. If the Diet should be involved now, it means that all members of the Diet have already been involved, the legislative branch has enacted legislation, and the Kishida Cabinet has decided to hold a state funeral accordingly. Don't members of Congress have an obligation to obey the law?
This makes me question whether Japan really is a country ruled by law. Incendiary voices that sound like they are from a special country are corrupting a democratic society.
A summary of impressions of the numerous candidates competing in the 2024 Japanese LDP presidential election
As the LDP presidential election draws near, candidates are coming forward one after another. Ishiba Shigeru, Kobayashi Takayuki, Hayashi Yoshimasa, Takaichi Sanae, Kono Taro, Koizumi Shinjiro, Aoyama Shigeharu, Mogi Toshimitsu, and Kamikawa Yoko (in no particular order) are some of them. Among them, Ishiba, Kono, and Koizumi are the ones who are frequently mentioned in the media, so perhaps they are the ones who are getting the media votes. Ishiba has little conservative thinking, such as accepting a female emperor or promoting separate surnames for married couples, and has a strong liberal tendency, so much so that some have mocked him and asked him if he should transfer to the Constitutional Democratic Party.
The issue of imperial succession has already been narrowed down to two proposals by a panel of experts: "a proposal for female members of the imperial family to remain in the imperial family after marriage" and "a proposal for adopting a male member of the former imperial family as a son in the male line." A report has been sent to the Diet. Since Prince Hisahito was born, there has been no consideration of a female or female-line emperor, and they are moving towards the idea of ??adopting a male in the male line. In response to this, the Speakers of the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors, as well as the leaders of each party, have gathered to hold discussions since May 17th, but even LDP members have ridiculed Ishiba's comments as being table-top-turning.
As for the separate surnames for married couples, one of the issues that was initially pointed out was that it would be difficult to change back to the maiden name in administrative agencies, financial institutions, and other procedures upon divorce, but the law has been revised to allow the use of maiden names without making any major changes to the family registry system, so I wonder if the discussion is a bit outdated, or if the comments are just for the media.
As for Takayuki Kobayashi, he is a conservative who supported Sanae Takaichi last time, but his way of thinking is almost the same as the late Abe and Takaichi, and as a result, I get the impression that he has less impact. In that case, Takaichi will likely be chosen, but as a young candidate, she may be a good candidate to reduce Koizumi's party member votes.
As for Kono Taro, he scrapped the Aegis Ashore deployment plan when he was defense minister, and in the last presidential election, he expressed opposition to the possession of enemy base attack capabilities, and as a result, he presented himself as a pro-China politician without even thinking about it, and I remember him suffering from severe burns all over his body, but he seems to be running, and it seems like his expiration date has already passed, and voters are getting tired of him.
I can't think of any notable achievements for Koizumi Shinjiro, and perhaps his popularity is due to his father's use of words that are conscious of the message he uses, but in any case, he seems unable to break away from his base of anti-nuclear power and clean energy. He is recommended by Suga, but I can't help but wonder if there are energy interests in Kanagawa Prefecture.
Mr. Motegi seems to have a clear mind, which is a good point, but he has mentioned local voting rights for foreigners several times, and I get the impression that he has a strong left-leaning tendency. Looking at Europe, many countries do not allow non-EU nationals to vote in local elections, and there are also cases where only certain non-EU nationals are allowed. Only Northern Europe grants voting rights to non-EU nationals. If we think about it this way, what kind of foreigners are in Japan? As for the proposal to grant voting rights to Chinese and Koreans from anti-Japanese countries, I have serious doubts about the logic that Europe is the model for.
As for Mr. Aoyama Shigeharu, I agree with his historical awareness, etc., and I would like to support him as a patriot, but the fact that he is a member of the House of Councillors is a problem. There is no precedent for a member of the House of Councillors to become prime minister and party president, and there is an inevitable contradiction in whether a member of the House of Councillors has the right to dissolve the Diet. There is no dissolution of the House of Councillors, and dissolving the House of Representatives means resignation, which means that all members are dismissed and lose their seats, but the Prime Minister remains a member of the Diet. He says he will "ask the people for their trust," but he will not be asked to run for the House of Representatives, so I hope he will switch sides and run for the House of Representatives.
I can't think of anything about Yoshimasa Hayashi or Yoko Kamikawa. I've heard that Hayashi is a pro-China member of parliament, and I have the impression that Kamikawa is a foreign minister who won't budge no matter what China does or says to him. It could be said that Kishida's side is putting up a female candidate as a rival to cut Takaichi's votes.
Takaichi has inherited the policies of the late Abe, and has further developed them. She will not talk about old-fashioned things like denuclearization, but will instead propose pioneering policies such as investment in fusion reactors and industrialization. It is also necessary to increase the inflation target to 2%. Currently, the yen is weaker due to the interest rate differential, but this is not due to the bill increase, it is simply the value of the yen falling. As a result, the inflation rate will be achieved and export competitiveness will increase, but unless the total amount of bills increases, it will be difficult for the face value of wages to increase. The Federal Reserve has already announced at the beginning of the year that it will lower interest rates at the end of the year, and if Trump becomes president, it is unclear whether the current situation will continue. If the interest rate differential decreases and the yen tends to appreciate, I would like to see the original inflation rate of 2% achieved by the bill increase. Regarding security, Takaichi clearly advocates investment in the military industry, and has a vision of imagining and nurturing new industries. She has the most concrete and strategic ideas.
Trump was impressed by former Prime Minister Abe's presentation skills during his visit to Trump Tower - Strong friendship between Japan and the US leaders.
Former Prime Minister Abe visited Trump Tower
South Korea with different objectives as usual
Specific explanation of Japan's contribution
Abe's presentation that impressed Trump
A strong friendship that only businessmen can understand
The impression is that the relationship between former Prime Minister Abe and former President Trump was that of businessmen. It is often thought that businessmen are in a relationship where they take advantage of others based on utilitarianism, but that is not the case in this case. Before Trump won the presidential election and took office as president, former Prime Minister Abe visited Trump Tower.
South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha tried to do the same thing in the next presidential election, but it appeared that South Korea was desperately trying to outdo Japan. Former Prime Minister Abe's objectives are completely different. Abe is said to have personally given the presentation at Trump Tower.
Mr. Trump did not have much knowledge about Japan, viewed the deficit on the U.S. side in Japan-U.S. trade as a problem, and questioned the cost sharing of the Seventh Fleet under the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. Mr. Abe appealed to Mr. Trump about Japan's position on that question. He explained how much Japan contributes to the American economy, and how Japan contributes to the stability of the Asian region, both in terms of location and cost burden for the Seventh Fleet.
Mr. Trump was a businessman, and Mr. Abe considered himself a salesman for Japan. Mr. Trump must have watched countless business meetings and internal presentations, but he was taken aback by Mr. Abe's proposal, calling it "great." This included the QUAD concept. When Trump later visited Japan, Abe locked him in a separate room and gave the presentation himself again.
There are many politicians and national leaders who have nothing to do with business, but Mr. Trump and Mr. Abe appear to have been formed through mutual understanding between businessmen. Business is about carefully calculating the other party's position, the other party's economy, and the development of both parties, making plans, sharing them, and implementing them. It is only natural that we should respect both parties who have sincerely faced this issue and put it into practice.
