The Taiwanese emergency is a Japanese emergency, and it is not clear what the basis is - a basis that assumes various things is necessary.
2022-09-19
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Taiwan emergency is Japan emergency
The Chinese government reacted sensitively to former Prime Minister Abe's online participation from Japan at a symposium held in Taiwan, where he said, ``Taiwan's emergency is Japan's emergency.'' Thinking about this matter, Japan and Taiwan do not have a military alliance to defend Taiwan, so it would be difficult to realize it in that sense. The U.S. law regarding Taiwan relations is extremely ambiguous regarding the participation of the U.S. military in the war.
Japan confirms application of security to Senkaku Islands
Former Prime Minister Abe was particular about whether the Senkaku Islands were within the scope of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, and received assurances from Mr. Trump, and later in a telephone conversation with President Biden, former Prime Minister Suga confirmed that the Senkaku Islands were covered by the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.
The Taiwanese emergency is a Japanese emergency that seems to have no basis in many legal and treaty terms, but if you think about it, the Senkaku Islands themselves seem to be the key to it.
Taiwan first claims sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands
In the first place, Taiwan was the first country to claim sovereignty over Japan's Senkaku Islands. Three months later, China claimed the claim. Since China calls Taiwan its own territory, what belongs to Taiwan belongs to China. It seems like he made his point in a hurry.
If China were to invade Taiwan, it would logically be considered an invasion of the Senkaku Islands, which are claimed by China and Taiwan. In other words, the conditions for Japan-U.S. security and the activation of the right of collective self-defense are in place. I cannot believe that former Prime Minister Abe would pay baseless lip service.
Read it together
China's territorial waters violations started in 2012, and what is the cause? - The Senkaku Islands issue became apparent after nationalization. Where did the Senkaku Islands issue begin and where did it emerge? 1971 and 2012.In June 1971, Taiwan's Foreign Ministry claimed sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands.In response, the People's Republic of China claimed sovereignty in September 1971.The assumption began in 1969 when the U.N. ECAFE announced the possibility of oil reserves.At that time, Chiang Kai-shek claimed ownership of mainland China, and China claimed ownership of Taiwan, so it took only three months to declare ownership.
It is said that in 1972 Japan-China normalization of diplomatic relations, there was communication between the two sides that the Senkaku Islands issue would not be a problem if we did not make it a problem.It means the shelved agreement. The graph shows the number of Chinese ships invading territorial waters.It is clear that there will be no trouble for 40 years until September 2012.
In 2010, a Chinese fishing boat collided with a Japanese Coast Guard ship and arrested the captain of a Chinese ship.The captain of the Chinese ship claimed that the Japanese had been hitting his ship, and it turned into a confrontation between Japan and China.The Kan administration of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) released the captain for no reason and it has been criticized by public opinion. Meanwhile, four Japanese have been arrested and detained on suspicion of espionage in China.Tanigaki, then president of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), who was the opposition party in questioning the Diet at the time, was needless arresting is incorrect. He pointed out that deportation was sufficient on the spot.
Due to opposition from China and criticism from Japan, the next Noda administration nationalized the Senkaku Islands in September 2012.As a result, the problem spreads and large-scale anti-Japanese riots erupt in China.Then Chinese ships began to invade their territorial waters.In other words, the two countries have claimed sovereignty from the beginning, and if Japan declares nationalization, it will mean abolishing the theory of shelving, and China will claim sovereignty head-on.
As a result, it can be said that the nationalization of the Senkaku Islands was correct in the current Xi Jinping administration.The declaration of nationalization will also lead to Japan-U.S. security.Tanigaki would have been more correct in dealing with a simple case of fishing boat clashes. In any case, the problem originated in Taiwan, but Senkaku Islands connected Japan and Taiwan, making it an important island for Japan-U.S. Taiwan cooperation.
Sea defense is extensive
Another theory is that defense in battle at sea will cover a wide area, and that Japan's remote islands near Taiwan will also be involved in the battle. In this case as well, the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty applies, and if Japan enters the war, the U.S. military may also participate.
The Taiwan Strait is a sea lane in East Asia
The Taiwan Strait is an important sea route for transporting oil and natural materials to Japan. If China were to take possession of this area, Japan would be in a situation where it would have a stranglehold on the sea route through which it supplies resources. Some are claiming that this is an emergency in Japan.
In any case, China has declared in advance that the Chinese military will not turn the waters off northeastern Taiwan, including the Senkaku Islands and other remote islands of Japan, into a combat zone, and that the Taiwan Strait will be maintained as before after the invasion of Taiwan. The question is, what will happen if this happens? Still, there needs to be a basis for invoking the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Prime Minister Kishida sends off his visit to Yasukuni Shrine - a place beyond Japan's sovereignty.
I will not visit Yasukuni again this year
Current Prime Minister visited Yasukuni Shrine after the war
Where no incumbent national leader can step foot?
Yasukuni Shrine is not a border issue
Violation of national sovereignty, not historical issues
Historical issues cannot be resolved without sovereignty
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just because there is a labor shortage doesn't mean it's okay to collect labor from anywhere - let alone anti - Japanese countries.
Even if we overcome deflation and restore international competitiveness through the fiscal stimulus advocated by the late Mr. Abe and Mr. Takaichi, and even if the total amount of money increases and wages rise, if the economy becomes rich, this means that domestic production will rise. , it is said that even with the current production volume, it will no longer be possible to make things as the population declines, so if the production volume increases, there will be an even greater shortage of personnel.
The current dual wage structure for dispatched workers is simply a measure to compensate for the domestic unemployment rate by relocating production bases to emerging countries due to the strong yen. On the other hand, if the yen depreciates, it will become possible to move production bases back to Japan, and some companies have actually returned to Japan amid the current depreciation of the yen. If production bases return, GDP and tax revenue will increase.
In other words, this is the economic growth that the people want, but what is crucially lacking is human resources. It is difficult to believe that Japan's industrial structure, which is dominated by manufacturing, will be easily replaced by AI. While Japan's competitiveness will increase if Abenomics and Mr. Takaichi's economic policies are implemented, I imagine that it will also lead to a shortage of labor in Japan.
Although there was a shortage of soldiers during the Greater East Asia War, it is said that only about 1.6% of recruited soldiers from the peninsula were able to join the Japanese army. If they don't understand the Japanese language, Japanese culture, or the purpose of war, the entire unit will suffer. Even Japanese women were able to work under the Women's Volunteer Corps Ordinance after passing various hurdles, and those who passed were given the approval of the local governor at the time.
There are people in Europe and America who think it would be a good idea to make immigrants and illegal immigrants work, but do they want to make the same mistakes and go down the path of creating social unrest? If human resources are absolutely necessary, the host countries should be limited by considering cultural background, historical and diplomatic compatibility, and Japan should even be involved in the education of Japanese language and culture. It would be better to abandon ideas such as procuring labor from countries that provide anti-Japanese education now.
Speech at the banquet of Emperor Showa, who addressed the post - war food crisis and conveyed his gratitude for the food aid, on his visit to the United States.
Emperor Showa who gave his life
Request food aid in exchange for imperial treasures
Food aid realized
Emperor invited to the White House
Emperor Showa who gave his life
When Emperor Showa visited MacArthur's office, he asked MacArthur to help the Japanese people in exchange for his own life. MacArthur later wrote, ``I was convinced that the man in front of me was the best gentleman in Japan.''
In the winter of 1945, Japan experienced a serious food crisis after the war, and Emperor Showa told Kenzo Matsumura, the Minister of Education, ``It is said that there are quite a few items belonging to the Imperial Household that have international value.'' Therefore, I ordered the director of the Imperial Museum to investigate and create a catalog.I would like to give this to America as compensation and use it as food to stave off starvation for the people for just one day. "Take the sea urchins with you," he ordered.
Matsumura was perplexed, but at the strong will of Emperor Showa, he delivered the inventory to MacArthur, who was surprised and said, ``I would not even honor it by taking away the treasures of the imperial family and offering them food in return.'' '' and said that after returning the inventory, they would take steps to provide food aid from the United States.
In 1975, Emperor Showa was invited to the White House by former President Ford as a state guest. American public opinion had little interest in the Japanese Emperor's visit to the United States, and it was never reported, but everyone could have imagined that the Showa Emperor would naturally hold a grudge against the United States. At his White House dinner, His Majesty the Emperor gave the following address:
``I have long desired to visit your country for many years, and if my wish were to come true, I would like to convey the following to your people. I would like to personally express my gratitude to your people for the warm kindness and assistance you extended to us in rebuilding our country immediately after that unfortunate war, which we deeply regret. I expressed my gratitude.
Furthermore, ``The number of people in both countries who are unaware of the recent war is about to exceed the majority.However, even if times change in the future, I believe that the generosity and goodwill of your people will be handed down among the Japanese people for a long time.'' '', the venue erupted with loud applause.
After that, the story quickly spread throughout the United States, and for six days in a row, the front pages of newspapers reported on the visit of the Japanese Emperor to the United States. This event took place 30 years after the end of the war.
