Interpretation of Former Prime Minister Abe's Preamble to the Constitution - It is necessary to revise the preamble at the same time as the revision of Article ９ of the Constitution.
2022-05-10
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
The following is the preamble to the Constitution of Japan. Former Prime Minister Abe, who appeared on TV as acting secretary general of the LDP in ２００５, was talking about the interpretation of the preamble to the Constitution. The preamble to the Constitution is a declaration of peacekeeping on the premise that it has no military power, and it is premised that it will be supported by other countries.
How Japan enjoyed peace during the post-war Cold War, and how to maintain peace in the midst of the rise of China and the runaway of North Korea, should be discussed separately. ..
Preamble to the Constitution of Japan
The Japanese people act through their representatives in a legitimately elected parliament, ensuring the achievements of harmony with the nations and the abundance of freedom throughout our country for our descendants, the government. Decided to prevent the tragedy of war from happening again by the act of, proclaiming that sovereignty exists in the people here, and finalizing this constitution. In the first place, national affairs are based on the solemn trust of the people, whose authority comes from the people, whose power is exercised by the representatives of the people, and whose welfare is enjoyed by the people. This is a universal principle of mankind, and this Constitution is based on this principle. We exclude any constitutions, statutes and imperial rescripts that violate this.
peace-loving nations. We decided to keep our safety and survival. We want to occupy a prestigious position in the international community, which strives to maintain peace and forever remove tyranny and servitude, oppression and narrowness from the earth. We affirm that the people of the world have the right to live in peace, free from fear and deficiency.
[Interpretation of former Prime Minister Abe]
We have decided to maintain our security and survival by trusting the justice and faith of peace-loving nations. → Leave it to other countries and decide to do nothing (Abe interpretation)
We want to occupy a prestigious position in the international community, which strives to maintain peace and forever remove tyranny and servitude, oppression and narrowness from the earth. → Let's get compliments from the international community that we are working on instead of asking for something (Abe interpretation)
It is a frank opinion that seems to be the former Prime Minister Abe. Many Japanese still think that Japan's peace has been protected by Article ９ of the Constitution, but the interpretation that it was protected by the United States rather than by Article ９ of the Constitution is more realistic. prize.
On the flip side, if the United States does not protect Japan, Japan's peace will be completely destroyed.
POINT The debate on the revision of Article ９ of the Constitution is overheating, but it seems necessary to discuss revising the preamble itself on the premise that it does not have force in the first place.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
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.
The two - party system that is possible in Japan would be better if the Liberal Democratic Party was split into two - the opposition party would not become the ruling party.
Democratic government described as a nightmare
How much power should be given to the opposition party
What should a two-party system look like?
Republican policies and Democratic policies
Two-party system with the ability to govern
In the run-up to the House of Councilors election, when considering a two-party system that is possible in Japan, the media immediately talks about the need to develop an opposition party to compete with the Liberal Democratic Party, but based on painful experience under the previous Democratic Party administration, Japanese people are fed up with that story. Former Prime Minister Abe described the Democratic Party of Japan as a "nightmare government."
The Democratic Party of Japan, which gave up power after three years, subsequently fell apart and fell apart, but Japanese voters still had high expectations for the party, even for a certain period of time, when it came to the surprise of a party that split into pieces due to divisions among its ranks. He was appalled and regretted being appointed to the national government. So what is the current political party support rate? The opposition party only has an approval rating of around 5% at best. (Reference: Public opinion poll | Nippon Television)
I even wonder how much time we need to spend in the Diet against such an opposition party in the name of democracy. They were elected in their constituencies, but as a political party they can hardly be considered to represent the people.
Despite this, they do whatever they want under the pretext of monitoring the ruling party, and their activities only end up stalling the Diet by asking questions no different from those of weekly magazine reporters. .
Is it really possible to have a two-party system in Japan? There is an opinion that it is not true democracy if there is no change of government, and that is probably correct. However, the most serious problem is not that there is no other political party in Japan capable of managing the government other than the Liberal Democratic Party. So when will the opposition party grow? This year marks 77 years since the end of the war.
I've been saying for some time that it would be a good idea to split the Liberal Democratic Party into two, but most people give me strange looks. But guess what? The Liberal Democratic Party has a wide range of swings from left to right, which means it is a party with a wide range of defense. That is why it continued to be the ruling party for a long time after the war.
And in the last Liberal Democratic Party presidential election for Reps. Kishida, Takaichi, Kono, and Noda, a section of the public did not miss that this structure was clearly appearing and disappearing, but the media did not report on this structure.
Former Prime Minister Abe developed Abenomics in an effort to ease regulations, lower corporate taxes, improve the competitiveness of companies, raise gross output, increase employment, and induce inflation. Using the United States as an example, the policy will likely be more Republican.
Prime Minister Kishida has said that he would energize the middle class, and has advocated for growth rather than distribution, which is a rather left-wing position, which in American terms could be called a Democratic Party-like position.
In other words, this would be fine. The Liberal Democratic Party could be divided into two major parties, the right and the left, and the people could decide which policy is needed now, taking into account the domestic situation at the time, and then change the government. This is a healthy two-party system. What is currently taking place as a competition between factions within the Liberal Democratic Party will be exposed to the vote of the people by separating it into a political party..
Even though the Liberal Democratic Party already covers a wide range of policies from both the right and the left, opposition parties that stray outside of that range are often talking about policies that are not realistic in the first place. We have experienced this under the Democratic Party administration. What became strange was that they tried to leave the matter to the opposition party under the pretext of a two-party system. The problem is that the opposition parties have a modest number of seats.
The government cannot be entrusted to any party other than those that have the ability to become the governing party. No matter what ideals or ideologies, if they are imperfect planes, they will crash.
It may no longer be true that opposition parties support a healthy democracy. What is needed is a political party with the ability to take charge of the government and be responsible.
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.
Before colonial rule or international law, bilateral commitments must be fulfilled.This is international common sense.
Was colonial rule legal or illegal at that time?History shows that.This is because there was no law or concept to ban colonies.Although not well known, Japan was the first country in the world to submit a bill to abolish racism in 1919.The attempt failed just before it was passed, and the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racism in 1965 had to wait.
There is a saying that the origin of international law is Hugo Grotius' Law of War and Peace, but he is a playwright and poet.It would be impossible to establish international law without international organizations.In a country governed by law, how does international law work now that police power can be controlled?What is the International Court of Justice?It is only after the two countries with disputes appear in court.If the other country does not appear in court, it will not work at all.
There is no police in the United Nations to crack down on the world, and the International Court of Justice will be held with the consent of both countries.
What the United Nations can do now is limited, saying it violates international law.Sanctions cannot be imposed without unanimous agreement among permanent members.The only thing that can be done is economic sanctions.How, then, can the two countries keep their promises?It is written in a treaty between the two countries, and if the treaty is deemed invalid, one country can unilaterally impose sanctions.
The South Korean government is clamoring for Japan's violation of international law and international law, but let's take a look at the Japan-South Korea Basic Treaty.The Japan-South Korea dispute resolution exchange document states, "The dispute between Japan and South Korea will be resolved through mediation in accordance with the procedures agreed upon by the two governments."What is mediation?It will now be the International Court of Justice.Even if the Japanese government invites them to the International Court of Justice, the Korean government will not respond.It remains the same as before and now that bilateral treaties should be observed before international law.
In principle, the commitments between the two countries are fulfilled by the two countries.It is clearly stated that the dispute resolution between Japan and South Korea should be resolved through mediation.
