What are your expectations for President Yun Seok-yue? Twisted National Assembly is a thorny road - Should Japan approve or wait and see? - South Korea's general election will be held in ２０２４.
2022-05-07
Category:South Korea I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Positive theory of Japan-Korea relations and wait-and-see theory
Looking at Japanese public opinion regarding the prospects for Japan-Korea relations since the inauguration of the Yun Seok-Yeol administration, there are some positive views toward improving relations and a wait-and-see view seen mainly on the right. As always, the affirmative opinion has no concrete content, and since the other party is asking for an improvement in the relationship, things will probably get better. It's just a matter of trying to get along because we're neighboring countries.
It will remain twisted until ２０２４
The wait-and-see theory is based on the points of the Korean unified local elections in June and the national election in ２０２４, and that the Democratic Party (a pro-China, anti-Japanese party) holds the majority of the Korean National Assembly.Twisted state Therefore, unless the ruling party wins the power of the people in the ２０２４ general election, no bill will be passed, so nothing can be done. Until then, Japan should do nothing and wait and see.
The least I can say is that I don't expect Japan-Korea relations to deteriorate any further during the next five years of the next administration. Personally, I think that if things don't get any worse, there's no need for them to get any better. In other words, there is a necessary distance between Japan and South Korea. This may be the best distance relationship.
Will true speech be freed under the new administration
In the long run, it would be most effective if the speech of pro-Japanese groups was liberated, rather than if the anti-Japanese movement subsided on the surface. In addition to those who prefer Japanese culture in South Korea, pro-Japanese speech is another form of speech that has been suppressed regarding the annexation of Japan and South Korea and Japan's support for South Korea after the war. Japan has no choice but to wait for South Korea to change, but there is no sign of that happening at all. The appearance of calm on the surface is only a temporary phenomenon. The root of Japan-Korea relations lies within South Korea, where freedom of speech is not recognized regarding the past history of Japan and South Korea. It is impossible to publicly state the fact that the Korean Peninsula modernized under Japanese rule.
Korean society will be denounced if it affirms Japanese rule
Under Japanese rule, slaves, who accounted for half of the population, were liberated, the class system was abolished, a school education system was established, food self-sufficiency increased, starvation deaths decreased sharply, sanitary conditions improved, and cholera and typhoid fever were reduced. The number of deaths due to such things has decreased dramatically. These are facts that do not exist in Korea .
Another history of being exiled from society
In South Korea's historical perspective, those who affirmed Japanese rule were expelled from academia in order to make the history of being enslaved and violated by Japan into a fact. He was also expelled from politics and government, and media outlets were also blocked. This is an unobjective view of history that only accepts one opinion, and is not academic in the first place. At the root of Japan-Korea relations is this unilaterally created view of history and the education of history based on that view. Unless this changes, we can see that even if the government continues to work together as it has done in the past, it will crumble like a sandcastle. This is exactly what history has proven.
A country where there is no freedom of speech about history
In other words, improving Japan-Korea relations means that South Korea itself will gain academic and speech freedom, that scholars who support Japanese rule will return to academia, that they will return to politics, and that South Korea will become a democratic country where people can have free discussions. . Without this, anti-Japanese education will never disappear. This is an issue that requires the process of South Korea maturing as a democratic country, so it will take a very long time. Therefore, Japan should continue to keep its distance and not approach them easily.
POINT If we look at the past, we are skeptical that politics will improve Japan-Korea relations. This problem is that academic and freedom of speech have not been secured in South Korea in the history of Japan and South Korea.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
South Korea violates international law of the sea by not allowing the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force the right of innocent passage - The Rising Sun flag is a reminder of the past.
The right of innocent passage is a right granted to United Nations member states
South Korea rejects the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force because of the Rising Sun flag
Violation of China's territorial waters does not fall under innocent passage
Because it reminds me of the past...?
International law of the sea provides ships with the right of innocent passage. Even if ships are within the territorial waters of a coastal state, they may pass without obtaining prior permission from the coastal state, provided that the navigation is not considered harmful as stipulated in Article 19-2 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Thing. In this case, you will need to display the flag of your affiliation. It is a national flag or military ensign.
When considering the Rising Sun flag issue in terms of the meaning of this treaty, South Korea does not recognize the right of innocent passage to the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force, even though it has ratified the International Convention on the Law of the Sea. In other words, it is a violation of international law. On the other hand, Japan recognizes the right of innocent passage for Korean ships. The reason is that Japan has ratified the International Convention on the Law of the Sea.
In response to a question in the Diet about the relationship between Chinese ships repeatedly invading territorial waters around the Senkaku Islands and the right of innocent passage, the government decided in June 2021 that this does not constitute innocent passage as recognized under international law. expresses an opinion. The reason for this is that China claims sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands, which are part of Japan's territory, and that violating its territorial waters does not constitute innocent passage, but on the contrary, it is a violation of international law.
Has the South Korean government ever issued an official opinion regarding the Rising Sun flag and the right of innocent passage for Japanese ships, including those of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force? It should be released. Saying that you don't like it because it reminds you of the past is no basis for denying the right of innocent passage. This is because there is no such thing in Article 19-2 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which states that navigation is considered harmful.
Moon Jae In wants pictures. Looking at the four years of Moon Jae In, it seems that they think that meeting heads of state and chatting with each other will make the world peaceful.Although the North-U.S. dialogue broke down due to Moon Jae In talked lies, Moon Jae In was just wanted to be photographed on camera, and after joint liaison office between the two Koreas was bombed.In ASEAN suddenly approached former Prime Minister Abe and took a picture they were sitting with Moon Jea In for a few miutes."At the Tokyo Olympics, Japan, South Korea, China and North Korea proposed a four-way summit, but the contents are unclear.When we meet, the world will be at peace.Now it is invalid because North Korea is not participating, but I don't understand why he want to meet the prime ministers.He still seems to think that he can achieve it just leaders meet.
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.
Candidate Lee Jae - myung said that America was to blame for the division of the Korean peninsula - a victim mentality lacking in historical understanding.
What is this person saying? South Korean presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung told U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff that the Korean peninsula was divided without Japan being divided. It is America's fault that the Korean peninsula was divided into north and south. On top of that, it's a statement that says Japan should have been divided.
Losing a war does not always result in division. The former East and West Germany was divided into East and West by the socialist Soviet Union and liberal countries. Since the Soviet Union was largely responsible for Germany's defeat, the Soviet Union gained control of Eastern Europe, and Germany itself was divided into East and West. In multilateral wars, when the victorious nations were unable to come to terms on their merits and interests, the method of partition was adopted. Germany is a perfect example.
So what about Japan? Although it is still a multilateral war, Japan has won against all Western countries except the United States. Only America lost. The Soviet Union had nothing to do with the Japan-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact. The Soviet Union entered the war on August 9, 1945, just before the end of the war. How could the Soviet Union claim its interests against the United States?
So why did the Soviet Union claim interests in the Korean Peninsula? This is said to have been determined by the Yalta Secret Treaty, which determined the division along the 38th parallel. The question is at what point in time should a return to the status quo be made, based on the principle of restoration to its original state in post-war settlements. At the Yalta Conference, Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin discussed how to deal with the aftermath of World War II.
The fact that the San Francisco Peace Treaty recognized the return of Taiwan dates back to the Sino-Japanese War. On the Korean Peninsula, Gojong, the Emperor of the Korean Empire, negotiated with Russia to sell the interests of the Korean Peninsula. The Soviet Union built the transcontinental railroad and began colonizing East Asia. The theory is that if Japan had not interfered in the Russo-Japanese War, the Korean Peninsula would have belonged to the Soviet Union. In other words, they are claiming rights dating back to before the Russo-Japanese War.
Why is present-day South Korea a democratic country? This is based on the premise that the Korean Peninsula belonged to Japan, and it was the United States that forced Japan into defeat, so the United States claimed its rights. Therefore, Korea came under the control of GHQ. Based on this premise, the 38th parallel was established as a compromise line with the Soviet Union, dividing the country into north and south.
The preamble of the Constitution lies at the root of South Korea's anti - Japanese sentiment.The reason for affirming anti - Japanese sentiment and excluding pro - Japanese sentiments is found in the
The preamble of the Korean Constitution states that 3.1 the legal system of the provisional government of the Republic of Korea will be inherited. Then, what is the March 1 Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea? It is an organization that called itself the Provisional Government and was established in 1919 as an anti-Japanese force. Looking at the contents of the charter, we see that the oath is strongly anti-Japanese: ``We will fight to the last man to indoctrinate Japan from barbarism.''
The preamble of the constitution describes the principles that govern the entire constitution. The structure of this idea is to inherit the legal structure of the March 1 Charter of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea. If we interpret these without contradiction, Article 21 of the latter part of the Korean Constitution states freedom of speech and Article 22 states academic freedom, but if we read it based on the preamble of the Constitution, we can see that 3.1 Legal framework of the provisional government It can also be interpreted as allowing freedom of speech and academics on the premise of inheriting the law. This is actually the case in Korea today.
If you look at the oath of the provisional government quoted in the preamble of the constitution, it clearly states anti-Japanese ideology. In the first place, the constitution should not quote anything or include language that assumes other countries.
In any case, as long as South Korea is under this constitution, anti-Japanese activities are always legitimate, and on the contrary, pro-Japanese activities are criticized as acts that destroy the legal system of the March 1 Provisional Government Charter and the Constitution. If members of the Diet follow the principle of adhering to the Constitution, then anti-Japanese members are conducting legitimate parliamentary activities. This is the main reason why it is said that #anti-Japan is South Korea's national policy.
How can the preamble of the Constitution be consistent with fundamental human rights such as freedom of speech, thought and belief, and academic freedom? There appears to be no case where a legal interpretation has been obtained in the Constitutional Court through a lawsuit or controversy that has raised this point. The Korean government is free to expand its interpretation as much as it wants. This is the case now, as seen in the No Japan movement, where anti-Japanese activities are legitimate activities, and pro-Japanese speech is denounced as ``traitors.'' Is this an exception to basic human rights, with speech affirming the era of Japanese rule being suppressed, or is anti-Japanese a duty of every Korean citizen as written in the Provisional Government's oath?
Provisional Government OathOathTo my 2,000,000 fellow citizens whom I respect and loveMarch 1st year of the Republic of Korea One day, since the Korean nation declared its independence, men and women, young and old, all classes, and all sects, of course, have come together to fight under the inhumane violence of Japan, the Germany of the East. The sympathy of the world is now suddenly focused on our people because they have expressed the character of a nation that is extremely patient with fairness, longs for independence and freedom for its people, and loves truth, justice, and humanity. It was at this time that the government was organized with the mandate of all the people of the country. I hereby swear that this government, together with all the people of this country, will work wholeheartedly to fulfill the great mission of restoring the nation and establishing its identity as a nation, observing the provisions of the provisional constitution and the principles of international society. My fellow countrymen, be inspired. Every drop of blood we shed is the gift of freedom and fortune to our descendants. It is the precious foundation for building God's kingdom. The way of our people will surely edify Japan's wild horses. Our justice truly trumps Japan's violence. My brethren, rise and battleto the last man.
3.1 The provisional government was the result of an anti-Japanese movement that occurred on March 1, 1919 under Japanese rule, and after that, Syngman Rhee established a provisional government in Shanghai, where he was in exile. This provisional government is considered the legitimate root of the Korean government, and Syngman Rhee became the first president of Korea after Japan's defeat. In other words, the Korean government itself is based on anti-Japanese organizations. Therefore, the Constitution will inherit the legal system of the Provisional Government Charter.
It is no wonder why this story has not been reported in Japan, but it seems safe to assume that there are almost no members of the Korean Diet who are not anti-Japanese. On the contrary, he says that it is impossible to become a member of the Diet while advocating pro-Japan policy. Rather than saying, ``Many South Korean parliamentarians are anti-Japanese,'' it seems more accurate to say, ``South Korean parliamentarians exist because they are anti-Japanese.'' South Korea will never become a pro-Japanese country. That future will never come. Will the South Korean government or National Assembly propose a constitutional amendment and delete the text written in the preamble? If that happens, the roots and identity of the Korean government will disappear.
Anti-Japanese activities are legitimate activities that are affirmed by the Korean Constitution. Depending on the interpretation, it can also be considered to be outside the scope of freedom of speech. We need to think about South Korea with this in mind.
