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.
2022-06-16
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Democratic Democratic Party administration described as a nightmare
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 )
VIDEO
How much power should be given to the opposition parties
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. .
What is the ideal form of a two-party system?
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.
Republican policies and Democratic policies
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.
Two-party system with the ability to take charge of government
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.
POINT 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.
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.
Who is Japan's first female prime minister candidate?A rival candidate who is being dragged out as an attempt to disperse women's votes.
The moment Makiko Tanaka comes up as the next prime minister, Japanese public opinion feels hopeless. He inherited the position of former Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka, and became popular in the media for his oratory skills, and became the Minister of Foreign Affairs under the Koizumi administration, but his actual political beliefs are unclear and he is no longer just making political jokes. People in the audience began to notice that this was the case, and the audience grew tired of his speech, which was filled with repeated slander against Liberal Democratic Party members.
As a result, she lost the election in Niigata's 5th ward, which was her father's seat, and was not elected even after a proportional restoration. This is a loss for a second-generation lawmaker with experience as prime minister. In other words, she was out of favor with both the Liberal Democratic Party and her local constituency. Personally, I think that she will run as a candidate for the Democratic Party if she thinks it is impossible for her to run for the Liberal Democratic Party, and that it is completely unclear where her political beliefs lie.
It is surprising that the media is once again elevating this person. I wonder if it's the media that's lifting it or the audience that's lifting it. It seems like she could be a candidate for the next president if she talks about politics and money issues in a fun way. In the first place, she probably won't even be able to return to the Liberal Democratic Party. How can she become the president of the Liberal Democratic Party without becoming a member of the Liberal Democratic Party?
Another female member of the Diet who has been nominated is Tokyo Governor Koike. She seems to be working hard to talk to Tokyo Governor Koike about whether or not she will run in the general election, but Mr. Koike seems to have clearly denied her candidacy. In the first place, how will she become a member of the Diet if there is no dissolution before the presidential election, and will she become the president of the Liberal Democratic Party?
Looking at it this way, it appears that what some media outlets are trying to do is divide the vote for a female president. Perhaps it would be better if she were well-known and a woman, but her purpose was to suppress candidate Takaichi. In the ranking of women's politicians who they would like to see become Japan's first female prime minister, Yuriko Koike came first, Makiko Tanaka came second, and Sanae Takaichi came third. The first and second place candidates are not even Liberal Democratic Party members.
What are the purposes and practical benefits of the annexation of Japan and Korea? Japanese security perspective at the time
There are two main reasons why Japan annexed the Korean Peninsula. The reason that South Korea claims that it is for exploitation is completely untrue because the management of the Korean Peninsula was in the red. In other words, the amount of Japanese tax money that was spent on the Korean Peninsula was probably greater. Would you call this exploitation? Japan annexed the Korean Peninsula primarily for the purpose of defending Russia and building infrastructure from Manchuria to Busan.
It is clear that Russia's purpose is to use the Trans-Siberian Railway to colonize the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria, and in reality Russia is acquiring interests in northeastern Asia one after another. The reason why Japan carried out the Triple Intervention on the Liaodong Peninsula, which it acquired after the Sino-Japanese War, was because it did not want to hand over its Manchurian interests and because it did not want Japan to control the ports and shipping routes on the Liaodong Peninsula. The Baltic Fleet is not needed at all to colonize the continent or the Korean peninsula. The places you go by boat are places that can only be reached by boat. It's Japan, and there's another one. It's Taiwan. In other words, Russia was targeting the Japanese archipelago, the Korean Peninsula, and the Manchuria region, including Taiwan, which Japan had acquired in the Sino-Japanese War.
In 1891, Tsar Alexander III of Russia issued a royal order to build a railway that would penetrate all of Russia, and it became clear that it was not just a railway construction, but that the Trans-Siberian Railway could be constructed from both the start and end points. It was also clear that Vladivostok, which was just a stone's throw away from the Korean peninsula, would be connected to the Russian capital. The Baltic Fleet is coming there. Japan succeeded in destroying the Baltic Fleet off the coast of Tsushima, the narrowest sea area, but what would happen if it were to pass through? If Russia acquires the Korean Peninsula one after another and builds a military port in Busan, the Japanese archipelago will be just a stone's throw away. In this form, the Korean Peninsula would have surrounded the Japanese archipelago in a circular shape, and Japan would have had no chance against Russia, which had great national power.
With the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, the Romanov dynasty lost power, and Lenin took advantage of this to launch the Russian Revolution during World War I. This was in 1917, 12 years after the Russo-Japanese War. Still, Japan will have to be wary of the possibility that Russia will rebuild its system and send a fleet. If the Korean Peninsula becomes Japan due to the annexation of Japan and South Korea, the Russian fleet passing through the Sea of Japan will be caught in a pincer attack all the way to Vladivostok, and the situation in the Sea of Japan will be completely advantageous to Japan. Masu. In other words, Japan surrounded the Sea of Japan.
As a result of the Russo-Japanese War, Japan acquired the railway between Harbin and Port Arthur, which later became the South Manchurian Railway, under the Treaty of Portsmouth. And Russia's interests in Manchuria were largely rejected.
After Korea became an independent nation after the Sino-Japanese War, Japan obtained the right to build a railway on the Korean Peninsula, and built a railway across the peninsula to Busan. After the Russo-Japanese War, the Harbin-Lushun railway obtained in Manchuria was expanded and connected to the railway on the Korean Peninsula. In other words, Japan built a huge infrastructure that connects the Manchurian region to Busan, which is just a stone's throw from Japan. This will ensure infrastructure by sea and land from Dalian and by rail. In other words, victory in the Russo-Japanese War meant that the Sea of Japan was surrounded in both name and reality, making it an exclusive maritime area, and connecting it with southern Manchuria by railway. will be sold to Manchukuo. In other words, Japan obtained the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria, which Russia had been trying to obtain.
This was a result of Japan's large expansion from the perspective of Japan's security against Russia, and in the past there was a critical situation in which Tsushima might become the line of defense, but now the line of defense is now more than 1000 km away. This means that it has also moved northward.
At that time, the Korean peninsula was in constant political instability and conflict, and the country's finances were in a state of collapse as it had failed to issue its own currency. Diplomatically, Japan has sold various interests to Russia due to financial issues, and the fact that the Korean Peninsula is in doubt from the perspective of Japan's security.
Japan's security was also in doubt. This was due to the size of Russia's national power at the time, and if the Russian fleet were to succeed in moving north through the Sea of Japan, Japan would be in a hopeless situation.
Conversely, by placing Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula under control, Japan's security became rock solid. For this reason, Russia was geopolitically inferior to Japan, and even when World War II broke out, the Soviet Union signed a Japan-Soviet Nonaggression Pact. If Japan were to invade the Far East while fighting the Nazis in Europe, Russia would be left alone. In this sense, one of the reasons why the management of the Korean Peninsula was in the red is that it required various investments such as building railways and developing infrastructure from Manchuria to Japan. The administration of the Korean Peninsula was financially in the red, but what if we considered it in conjunction with Manchuria?
Let's compare it with the longitudinal railway under Taiwan's rule. Even if you look at it this way, the railways on the Korean Peninsula cover more areas. This may be due to the difference in population of the Korean peninsula, which had a population of 13.13 million compared to 2.6 million at the beginning of Taiwan's rule, and the fact that the central part of Taiwan is mountainous. While the railway was completed, it seems that the Korean peninsula had a very different role as a railway that ran from Manchuria to Japan. To this day, Korean railways still use the Korean Government-General's Office railway line that was built at this time. Regarding Taiwan, it is also based on the Taiwan Governor-General Railway.
North Korea actually still uses this line, and since the South Manchurian Railway was converted to China, it naturally connects to China. When Kim Jong-un visits China, he travels by train, but he is actually using the benefits of the Korean Government-General's Office Railway.
In today's world, it is completely understandable to think that the annexation of Japan and Korea was a failure. Perhaps this is because South Korea is a country that has experienced many frustrating things for Japan, such as the occupation of Takeshima and the subsequent anti-Japanese movements. If you look at history, there is no doubt that this was caused by the annexation of Japan and Korea. On the other hand, the Manchurian region was rich in resources such as coal, oil, iron, and aluminum, and was used to produce agricultural fertilizers and machine tools. If Russia were to cut off the land route to transport this to Japan, Japan would end up there.
Speaking of what Japan failed at, it was actually in the post-war period. The restoration of diplomatic relations in 1965 was based on the conclus
maritime defense Taiwan's defense is the defense of the Senkaku Islands and is synonymous with Japan's.If China maintains its maritime routes from Japan to Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam, it will not be able to enter the Pacific Ocean and will only be able to develop strategies from the west.
Moon Jae In Korea is pro-China.Even if Korea joins forces with China, China will not actually be able to enter the Pacific Ocean.In this sense, Korea and Taiwan have different strategic meanings on Quad.
With this in mind, Moon Jae In is not flying around like a bat, but is moving in a way that you don't really understand if you don't say you're going to be left behind unless you don't actively participate in Quad.
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.
