Prime Minister Kishida sends off his visit to Yasukuni Shrine - a place beyond Japan's sovereignty.
2022-08-17
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
I will not visit Yasukuni again this year
Prime Minister Kishida refrained from visiting Yasukuni Shrine and paid the tamagushi fee with his own funds. Some people in other countries even think that Yasukuni Shrine is located outside of Japan. This is because the leaders of a country cannot imagine that there are public places within their country that they cannot set foot in.
[Current Prime Minister who visited Yasukuni Shrine after the war]
The ４３rd King Higashikuninomiya Toshihiko
The ４４th Kijuro Shidehara
４５th, ４８th-５１st Shigeru Yoshida
５６th-５７th Nobusuke Kishi
５８th-６０th Hayato Ikeda
６１st-６３rd Eisaku Sato
６４th-６５th Kakuei Tanaka
６６th Takeo Miki
The ６７th Takeo Fukuda
６８th-６９th Masayoshi Ohira
７０th Yoshiyuki Suzuki
７１st-７３rd Yasuhiro Nakasone
８２nd-８３rd Ryutaro Hashimoto
８７th-８９th Junichiro Koizumi
９０th and ９６th Shinzo Abe
A place where the current national leader cannot step foot?
Will President Xi Jinping be able to visit Taiwan? I wonder if it can't be done? People from outside would normally think that if it can't be done in the first place, then it's not China. A sitting president cannot set foot in certain parts of the United States. Everyone would think that this is an area beyond the reach of American sovereignty.
Yasukuni Shrine is not a border issue
In areas and islands with territorial disputes near borders, there are places where national leaders cannot set foot. In Japan, these include Takeshima, the Senkaku Islands, and the Northern Territories. However, former South Korean President Lee Myung-bak has landed on Takeshima, and former Russian Prime Minister Medvedev has visited Etorofu Island. Their only purpose is to assert national sovereignty.
Let's say that the reason the Japanese prime minister does not visit these areas is to avoid border disputes. But Yasukuni Shrine is located in Tokyo, the capital of Japan .
Read it together
Hideki Tojo's grave is located in Migane, Aichi Prefecture - China and South Korea's opposition to visiting Yasukuni Shrine is cultural interference born of ignorance.
Hideki Tojo rests in Migane, Aichi Prefecture
What are China and South Korea demanding
All graves are in separate locations
Shrines are not graves
I think Yasukuni Shrine is a graveyard
South Korea, a country that digs up graves
Yasukuni Shrine throughout Japan
The photo I posted is of the Mausoleum of the Seven Martyrs of Japan, located on Mt. Mt. Mt. Mt. in Nishio City, Aichi Prefecture. It enshrines seven soldiers and politicians who were executed by the Tokyo Tribunal.
Those enshrined are Hideki Tojo, Kenji Doihara, Seishiro Itagaki, Hyotaro Kimura, Iwane Matsui, Akira Muto, and Hiroki Hirota. The remains of these seven people are said to be buried under this mausoleum. In other words, the graves of Hideki Tojo and others are located here.
So what exactly are China and South Korea saying? They say that the Prime Minister should not go to Yasukuni Shrine because war criminals are enshrined there. The German Chancellor is loudly shouting that he will visit Hitler's grave.
As mentioned above, the grave is in a different location. A shrine is a shrine. It is said that there are over 2,466,000 heroic spirits enshrined at Yasukuni Shrine, and each of their graves was probably erected by their local community or family members.
I wonder if the Japanese Prime Minister went to visit the Mausoleum of the Seven Martyrs of Japan in Aichi Prefecture.
A shrine only has a divine seat, which is said to be the place where the god appears and sits. A shrine is not a grave. It is essentially impossible to separate the divine throne. If there is a division, it is a branch shrine.
China and South Korea demand that the Yasukuni Shrine be separated for war criminals, but this is probably also the idea of graves. The remains of the heroes are not buried anywhere in Yasukuni Shrine. They mistakenly think it's some sort of mass grave.
In South Korea, the grave of a Korean War hero buried in South Korea's national cemetery was recently dug up because he had served in the former Japanese army. From Japan's perspective, it is a country with a culture that is extremely abnormal. In the first place, shrines are not graves, and that is also the extent of our understanding of graves.
In conclusion, if Yasukuni Shrine is enshrined in two parts, there will be two Yasukuni Shrines, and if it is enshrined in ten parts, there will only be ten Yasukuni Shrines. It might be a good idea to have Yasukuni Shrines all over Japan. It may be a talisman to keep people who flirt with you away from Japan.
Violation of national sovereignty, not a historical issue
Before discussing what the Yasukuni issue is, the problem is that it obscures the fact that it is under the sovereignty of the Japanese state. In other words, other countries are restricting Japan's sovereignty by giving orders to the current leader, the prime minister, to visit public facilities in the capital of Japan. Yasukuni Shrine is originally a Japanese religious facility within Japan, and anyone is welcome to visit it.
Historical issues cannot be resolved without sovereignty
Whether or not it is a problem because it enshrines a class A war criminal is not for other countries to decide in the first place. This can also be said to be Japan's decision under its sovereignty as a nation. It would be different if Yasukuni Shrine was located in China or South Korea.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Which country did Japan invade? - Japan invaded European - controlled areas - Asian liberation and colonial policy.
When considering the aspects of Japan's war of aggression, first of all, the Korean Peninsula was made an independent state by the Treaty of Shimonoseki and was annexed by the Treaty of Annexation, so it is not included in the invasion. Taiwan was also formally ceded under the Treaty of Shimonoseki, so it was not included in the invasion. Southeast Asian countries are already Western colonies and do not have administrative powers. To be honest, Japan invaded Britain, the Netherlands, France, Portugal, and the United States. Would you call this an invasion of Asia? Viewed in this way, if China had dared to invade, it would have been China that was barely maintaining its administrative power.
Now, regarding what Japan's purpose was, if we say that Japan is no different from Western colonies in terms of increasing its national power through colonial rule, the reality is different. Japan did not adopt racist policies and developed laws, and eventually Southeast Asian countries grew to the point where they were able to fight against whites and protect their own countries on their own. War operations are meaningless unless they are linked to national interests. So these things are always related to Japan's national interests.
Historically speaking, Japan was isolated from the rest of the world until the Meiji Restoration. It took only 27 years from the establishment of the new government to its victory over the Qing Dynasty, which was said to be a world power. It would be 37 years until Japan again defeated Russia, which was said to be a world power. Next, it was in 1919 that Japan won World War I and became a permanent member of the League of Nations, so Japan isolated itself from developing countries that had never seen a steam engine, and only 51 In 2019, I will be sitting on a chair at the table at the center of the world. Japan proposed the ''Racism Discrimination Elimination Bill.''
There is probably no one who has not seen the vast area called Asia on a map. On top of that, over a long period of 400 years, the white maritime nation colonized Asian countries one after another. Japan is an island nation floating on the farthest east coast. Japan's opening to the world was related to this movement of white people. The colonization of the vast area of Asia was already approaching Japan.
Japan's Restoration and opening of the country, as well as the energy of the industrial revolution and modernization, were explosively generated during these global movements. If one country or one ethnic group in such a vast region of Asia, where so many ethnic groups live, were to unite and confront the white countries, the white people would never come to such a farthest island nation. It would be a good thing if there was even one country that could stop the invasion of white people, but unfortunately there was not a single country in Asia like that.
The main focus of Japan's colonial policy in Asia is to build a collective security system for people of color in Asia and to spread the results of Japan's Restoration to Asia. This is clearly stated in the Greater East Asia Joint Declaration, which is signed by the participating leaders from each country. If we look at history from a myopic perspective, we will not be able to understand this era.This may seem obvious, but no matter how many times you hear about former comfort women or visit coal mine sites, you will never understand this era.
Quad's strategy is geopolitically rational; simply dispersing the Chinese military will give it an advantage.
China causing border problems in all directions
Military expenditure is just the total amount
Regional dispersion reduces military strength by half
Chinese encirclement should be strengthened
China has long borders and its strategy should be to engage in peaceful diplomacy with neighboring countries, but for some reason the opposite is true for that country. In that respect, the United States is smart and has formed a North American alliance with Canada and Mexico, and among the countries with which they share borders, I think Russia is the only hostile element.
China is so selfish that it is happy to make enemies in all directions, but Quad is outwitting them. Comparing military expenditures by country is helpful, but it is on a different level from practical ability.
In large countries, military power is dispersed. Will Yunnan's soldiers and tanks be able to participate in the fighting in Fujian? Even if it is counted as military expenditure, it is not a real military force.
If Japan, the United States, and Taiwan cooperate in the event of a Taiwanese emergency, many Chinese forces will head there, but what will happen if the Indian army invades the Kashmir region during that time?Australia, Vietnam, and the Philippines will suppress the Spratly Islands. be able to.
South Korea's geographical advantage in the Quad lies in its operations in the Northeast, but Moon Jae-in seems unable to understand this at all. In the event of a Taiwanese emergency, it would be a good idea for countries with border issues with China to close their borders one after another.
Rui Matsukawa announces her candidacy for the House of Councilors election | Japan should increase the number of orthodox right - wing female members.
Supporting right-wing female legislators in the House of Councilors election
Women's political participation tends to the left
Japanese politics with few female politicians
Creating a constant will solve the problem
It's not a constant, it's a matter of awareness of participation
We need right-wing female MPs
It was decided that July 10th would be the day for voting in the House of Councilors, and Liberal Democratic Party lawmaker Rui Matsukawa announced her candidacy on Twitter. This is the last day of the Diet session, and she said she will aim to pass a law establishing the Family Agency. She specializes in foreign affairs and is also knowledgeable about national defense, having served as Parliamentary Vice-Minister of Defense. I am not of the opinion that we should increase the number of female councilors, but rather that we should increase the number of orthodox right-wing female councilors like her and Councilor Takaichi.
Recently, when it comes to national defense in particular, there tends to be criticism that men are out of control when it comes to the military, but a female lawmaker's statement that Japan's national defense should be strengthened is a sign that women's public opinion is It also serves as a strong backing.
Good morning! It's finally the last day of the Diet session. We aim to enact the Children and Families Agency Establishment Act. The House of Councilors election is finally here. Thank you very much to everyone for the past 6 years. I would like to continue working with you. I will do my best. pic.twitter.com/Dm9xLsklWi? Rui Matsukawa =Liberal Democratic Party= (@Matsukawa_Rui) June 15, 2022
Up until now, female members of parliament have tended to be left-wing. To be honest, I'm tired of hearing things like ``opposing the amendment of Article 9'', ``getting along with neighboring countries'', and ``helping the weak'', and these statements will never make Japan stronger. In other words, there were many members with strong socialist and communist thinking. Regarding their historical views, they also said the same thing as China and the Korean Peninsula, calling for Japan to apologize to its neighboring countries.
She cried out that women's voices should be heard and spoke in the Diet as a representative of women, but her comments were left-wing, had strong socialist tendencies, and had a self-deprecating view of history. So, What has become of Japan today as a result of her listening to that voice?.
Some people say that there are few women members of the Japanese Diet, but what about the number of candidates? If there are fewer women candidates, it is natural that there will be fewer women elected. It has been pointed out that the percentage of women elected to the House of Representatives in 2021 is 9.7%. Not running for office in the first place means that you have no desire to become a member of the Diet, but calling for more women to become members of Congress is putting the cart before the horse.
Female members of the opposition parties often argue that the number of female members should be set at one-third, etc., but right-wing female members of the Liberal Democratic Party oppose this. Have opposition members ever wondered what would happen to the National Assembly if one-third of the members were incompetent? Of course, there are some excellent female politicians. This is also due to the fact that he himself ran for office and was elected.
In the first place, are there any gender differences in Japanese politics? I feel like this is based on the fact that in the past, women have not taken an interest in politics and have not participated in it.
This is because both men and women have equal rights to run for office and vote, and if we compare the population, there are more women than men. In other words, if all female voters vote for a female candidate, that female candidate will definitely win.
What is needed is a right-wing female lawmaker who can think about Japan's future, including national defense. Up until now, there was an illusion that Japan, protected by the US military, did not need to think about national defense, and on this premise, myths of friendship and equality with neighboring countries had flourished. Left-wing female parliamentarians were born from this soil. What they have done is no more than simply slandering the government and the ruling party.
The environment surrounding Japan is not always beautiful. We need to increase the number of right-wing female members of Congress who face these issues head-on and seriously consider how to deal with them.
Three years of Japanese and Russian people living together in the Northern Territories - Return of the territory and current residents
Japan's territorial issues include Takeshima, the Senkaku Islands, and the Northern Territories. These three regions are completely different geopolitically, historically, in the relationship between the two countries, and in the process by which problems arise. To put the issue of the Northern Territories simply, Japan announced its surrender on August 15th, but it was officially announced on September 2nd that the Soviet Union later ratified the Potsdam Declaration, but it was not accepted internationally outside of the United States, Britain, China, and the Soviet Union. April 28, 1952, the day the San Francisco Peace Treaty went into effect. During that time, the former Soviet Union invaded and annexed the Northern Territories.
It was in 1948 that the Soviet Union ordered deportation to the Japanese islanders, so there was a period of about three years from 1945 when Soviet soldiers, Soviet immigrants, and Japanese people lived together. It is very interesting to hear the testimonies of Japanese islanders from that era.
``Russians were big and scary.'' ``Soldiers came to my house with shoes on and guns, and they said, ``Watch, watch!'' So I thought it was something, so I handed him the watch, and he said, ``Harasho, harasho,'' and was happy. So I went home.
Russian children were cute and cute and looked like angels. Her eyes were so white and big, and her green eyes were cute like a cat's. Japanese and Russian children played together, going back and forth to each other's homes. This is the testimony of former islanders and Japanese people.
I believe that former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was the first prime minister to ask the Japanese people, who are demanding the return of the Northern Territories, where about 17,000 people currently live, whether they should expel the Russians currently living there. The Japanese people living in the Northern Territories at the time continued to demand the return of their territory, but the Russians living there never asked them to leave or take away their homes.
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.
