Former Prime Minister Aso plans to visit South Korea and meet with President Yoon - A person who has been monitoring Japan - Korea issues from within the Cabinet
2022-11-03
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Mr. Aso visits Korea
Former Prime Minister Aso is visiting South Korea, but the Japanese government has said that it is part of parliamentary diplomacy and not as Prime Minister Kishida's special envoy. What did Mr. Aso come to Korea for?
Mr. Aso has been observing Japan-Korea relations for a long time from within the Cabinet
Mr. Aso was the prime minister who concluded the Japan-Korea currency swap during the ２００８ Korean currency crisis, which occurred during the Lehman shock in the United States. After rebuilding the economy, the Lee Myung-bak administration said that Japan's aid was unnecessary. Mr. Aso subsequently served as deputy prime minister from the second Abe administration to the Suga administration. During that time, he was involved in various Japan-Korea issues, including Lee Myung-bak's landing on Takeshima, the comfort women agreement, the suspension of the Japan-Korea currency swap, the radar irradiation incident, the forced labor judgment, the comfort women judgment, and the white country issue, in his capacity as vice prime minister. Become the person you were. Like former Prime Minister Abe, he will probably be the only person who has looked at a series of issues as a cabinet member.
The handover on the Korean side is in disarray
Meanwhile, in South Korea, the government changed from Lee Myung-bak to Park Geun-hye, and after impeachment, came the Moon Jae-in government, which removed all people who were said to be pro-Japanese from diplomatic relations. After that, he launched a series of anti-Japanese movements, leading to the current Yun Seok-Yue administration. In other words, on the South Korean side, there is no continuity in Japan-Korea relations, the handover is probably fragmentary, and it is highly likely that they do not understand anything other than symbolic concerns.
What will Mr. Aso present to the South Korean government
It would not be surprising if Japan-Korea relations contain a variety of other problems in addition to those that have been made public. If the problems that have come to light are just the tip of the iceberg, Mr. Aso is probably the person who knows the various problems and background behind them. In other words, it is highly likely that the meaning and content of the comprehensive solution that South Korea calls and the comprehensive solution that Japan thinks of are different.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
It is a complete lie that Japan destroyed the Korean royal family. Japan respectfully protected the royal family.
Korean people claim that Japan destroyed the Korean royal family, but is that true? The annexation of Japan and South Korea was made possible by a treaty signed by both countries. Japan treated Joseon's royal family, the Yi royal family, with respect, created the royal family system, and protected the Korean royal family even after the annexation.
Sunjong, the last emperor, lived in Changdeokgung Palace in Gyeongseong Prefecture and led a comfortable life. Susumune enjoyed playing billiards on weekdays and listening to the gramophone at night. It is said that he liked the French cuisine of Kaneyoshi Yoshikawa and his son, who served as the first head chef of the Imperial Hotel, and ate it almost every day.
Li Fangzi was born in 1901 and is a former member of the Japanese imperial family. She was born as the first daughter of the Nashimotomiya family. Queen Bangja was married to Yi Eun, the seventh prince of Gojong of the former Korean Empire. In the lead-up to the marriage of Queen Fangzi and Li Yan, the question of how to handle the status of the Japanese imperial family and the royal family arose, but in the end, the Imperial House Law was amended and supplemented, and marriages between women of the imperial family and royal nobles were corrected. Accepted.
The wedding was scheduled for January 25, 1919, but just before that, Lee's father, Gojong, passed away due to a cerebral hemorrhage. At this time, false rumors that he had been poisoned by a Japanese conspiracy were spread, leading to a large-scale riot known as the March 1st Independence Movement.
The premise of the March 1st Independence Movement is an incomprehensible false rumor that the Japanese side poisoned the father of a person married to a member of the Japanese Imperial Family. This led to the establishment of the provisional government of the Republic of Korea in Shanghai. A symbolic event of the current anti-Japanese movement is still held on March 1st. With a royal marriage coming up, what is the benefit of Japan killing the father of the marriage partner?
In this sense, we can understand what the March 1st independence movement that South Korea celebrates was like. Regarding the period of mourning, Emperor Taisho requested early marriage, and decided to mourn for one year, just like the members of the imperial family.
In 1920, when the mourning period ended, Fangzi married Li Yuan. Gojong's 7th child, Li Yan, is Sunjong's half-brother. After the last emperor, Sunjong, ascends to the throne, he is elected crown prince. At Hirofumi Ito's suggestion, Li decided to study in Japan and entered Gakushuin University. Even after Japan and Korea were annexed, he remained the heir to the royal family.
After marrying Queen Fangzi of the Japanese imperial family, a son, Li Ku, was born. In other words, he is the successor of the Lee royal family. Later, due to Japan's defeat in the war, Japan and the Korean peninsula became separate countries, and the royal court system that had protected the Korean royal family was abolished, and Yi Yan and Bangko lost their status.
Li and Fangzi, who had lost their status, also lost their Japanese nationality under the San Francisco Peace Treaty. This is because they will be treated as Korean Peninsula residents and as renouncers of Japanese nationality as defined in the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
The Republic of Korea, which was established after the end of the war, did not establish a royal family, let alone grant Korean nationality to the Lee couple. After the war, Lee went to study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the United States, but he was not able to officially receive a passport from the Republic of Korea. It was only later, in 1962, that he received notice that he would be allowed to become a Korean citizen.
Eight years later, in 1970, Li passed away at the age of 72. His son Li Ku passed away in 2005 at the age of 73. What this means is that the Republic of Korea had no intention of restoring the honor of the Yi royal family.
Nowadays, there seems to be a person named Li Yuan as a descendant of the Yi royal family, and he seems to be the grandson of Sunjong's brother Li Seo. However, it is only the former royal family, and Lee Won currently seems to be living in an apartment in Goyang City, Gyeonggi Province. In other words, Japan carefully protected the royal family and the royal palace. After Japan's defeat in the war, by restoring the honor of the royal family, Korea was able to create a country with a royal family, like Britain and other European countries, and Thailand in Asia.
In other words, Korea did not do that. It seems that Japan is saying that the Korean royal family was destroyed, but Japan is the one that protected the Yi royal family.
It was the Republic of Korea that destroyed the Yi royal family.
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.
Study abroad boom in Japan at the end of the Qing Dynasty - The Korean peninsula missed the chance to modernize, and China failed to inherit the revolutionary spirit and plunged into civil war.
Japan study abroad boom in China
Studying in Japan begins with 13 students
Korea became an independent nation in the Sino-Japanese War
The Korean Peninsula missed the chance to modernize
Even after the Qing Dynasty fell, the revolutionary spirit was not inherited
Wang Zhaoming government established after the Sino-Japanese War
In China, a boom in studying abroad in Japan arose after the Sino-Japanese War. The purpose of studying abroad was to learn about Japan's modernization and policy of enriching the country and strengthening its military. Emperor Guangxu, Kang Youwei, and other Chinese intellectuals carried out the Restoration movement of ``transformation and self-strength,'' but it was thwarted by the pressure of conservative forces. Subsequently, educational reforms at the time were modeled on Japan, including the abolition of the imperial examination system (1905), the establishment of the modern school system (1904), the promulgation of the "Educational Philosophy" (1906), and the trial of compulsory education (1907). This is what we sought.
In 1896, for the first time, 13 young people were sent by the Qing Dynasty government to study in Japan, where they studied Japanese, chemistry, physics, mathematics, and other subjects for three years at the Tokyo National Higher Normal School's cram school. It is said that approximately 20,000 international students had come to Japan by the time of the Xinhai Revolution in 1911.
Political figures include Zhou Enlai, Li Dabei, Chen Duxiu, Wei Bei, Dong Yiwu, Chiang Kai-shek, Man Zhongshi, and Wang Zhaomei. Sun Yat-sen came to Japan as an exile in 1895. Cultural figures included Lu Xun, Guo Muruo, Tian Han, and He Xianggong.
While Joseon Dynasty was aiming for Chinese-style modernization, the Sino-Japanese War broke out in the wake of the Gongbo Peasants' War, and with Japan's victory, the Korean Peninsula became an independent nation. Kim Ok-gyun, who called for Japanese-style modernization, was assassinated about four months before the Sino-Japanese War began.
The movement of modernization on the Korean Peninsula was actually faster than in China. However, it did not become a big sensation and was crushed by the Joseon Dynasty, which had an old political system. Ironically, this was also due to pro-China policies. On the other hand, immediately after losing the Sino-Japanese War, China changed its policy toward Japanese-style modernization. Koten Miyazaki describes Kim Ok-gyun, who was exiled to Japan and was assassinated in Shanghai, as a person who should have become the Sun Yat-sen of the Korean Peninsula. Miyazaki, along with Takeshi Inukai and others, supported Sun Yat-sen's Xinhai Revolution. The Korean Peninsula has failed to modernize on its own.
As a result, in 1911, Sun Yat-sen succeeded in the Xinhai Revolution and founded the Republic of China, but as a condition of Emperor Xuantong's abdication, he made an exchange deal in which Yuan Shikai, a Beiyang warlord, became president, and the Qing dynasty ended. became increasingly authoritarian. A second revolution will begin to overthrow this. Even after the Northern Expedition was completed and Chiang Kai-shek became the president of the Nationalist Party, the division of China in the West continued. The spirit of Sun Yat-sen's revolution was to learn from Japan's Restoration and to stand together with the West and maintain our independence.
As the partition of China progressed, the Sino-Japanese War broke out, and the spirit of revolution was inherited by Wang Zhaoming's Nanjing Provisional Government. He was a close aide to Sun Yat-sen, had the experience of studying abroad in Japan, and participated in the Greater East Asia Conference. Over a long period of time, China failed in its revolution. On the contrary, the civil war between the People's Republic of China continued, and the People's Republic of China with a completely different ideology was born, not to mention Sun Yat-sen's revolution. The Japanese Restoration that Sun Yat-sen aimed for was not only about modernization, but also about achieving a rich nation and strong military in Asia, and protecting its independence from becoming a Western colony.
Japan is the only country with people of color that has succeeded in modernizing itself. It was only natural for Asian countries to learn from Japan in order to modernize.
Constitutional Democratic Party member Konishi continued to complain at ABEMA TV that there was no legal basis for former Prime Minister Abe's state funeral.
Opposition party member developing original theory
It is clear that the Cabinet decides on national ceremonies
Clearly answered in parliamentary questions
Opposition parties' opinions should be as good as their approval ratings
The media mass-produces inequality of speech
Congressman Konishi of the Constitutional Democratic Party continued to complain on ABEMA Prime that there is no legal basis for former Prime Minister Abe's state funeral. He developed his own theory that the ceremonies performed by the state in the Cabinet Establishment Act referred to the ceremonies performed by the imperial family.
Looking at the Cabinet Establishment Act, Article 4, Paragraph 3, Item 33 states, ``Matters related to national ceremonies and affairs related to ceremonies and events conducted by the Cabinet (excluding matters that fall under the jurisdiction of other ministries).'' It is written. The Imperial Household Ceremonies set out in the Imperial House Law are interpreted to be included in this, and Article 7 of the Constitution states, ``The Emperor, with the advice and approval of the Cabinet, shall perform the following acts in matters of state for the people.'' It becomes.
This is done with the advice and approval of the Cabinet under the Cabinet Establishment Act. In other words, nowhere does it say that the national ceremonies specified in the Cabinet Establishment Act refer only to ceremonies of the imperial family.
He asked a question in the Diet about the legal basis of the cabinet decision for state funerals, and Prime Minister Kishida clearly stated, ``Holding a state funeral, which is a national ceremony, based on a cabinet decision, means that the cabinet has decided to conduct a national ceremony.'' This is included in the function of administrative power, and Article 4, Paragraph 3, Item 33 of the Cabinet Office Establishment Act clearly states that the Cabinet Office is responsible for affairs related to national ceremonies. I think it is possible, as it is clear in the law that the performance of national ceremonies that include national ceremonies is included in the functions of administrative power.''.
I wonder what the media means by equality of reporting. It is said that reporting the voices of opposition parties equally means not reporting only the opinions of a particular political party, but is reporting the opinions of opposition parties in the same manner really equal reporting equality? . According to opinion polls, even though the largest opposition party is the Nippon Ishin no Kai, it only has about 6% of the vote, while the Constitutional Democratic Party has about 5%. It is hard to believe that these opinions are represented by the number of seats that stand against the ruling party, and it is far from possible that they represent the voices of the people. In other words, reporting should be around 5% to 6% of the total, which would also be consistent with the meaning of equality.
On the contrary, Japan's current media outlets report on the claims of these opposition parties more than they do on the claims of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. Recently, the opposition parties have become weak and are making a fuss by simply making counterarguments and making a fuss as if it were a flaming tactic, and the media, whose audience ratings continue to decline, are taking advantage of this to make numbers, which seems to be creating this inequality. appear. The media should mainly report the opinion that the Cabinet decision to hold a state funeral based on the Cabinet Establishment Act is legal.
The Japan - U.S. summit meeting will focus on the Ukraine issue, the Taiwan Strait, China, and IPEF. Japan significantly expands defense spending.
Japan's defense spending to expand significantly
Is the U.S. military “involved” or “intervened” in the Taiwanese emergency?
Official White House press conference record
What is Japanese leadership
Ukraine issue is Taiwan issue
What is Asian-based security?
There wasn't much that was announced at the joint press conference following the summit following President Biden's visit to Japan, but it can be summarized as: unity among allies on the Ukraine issue, commitment to the China issue, the Taiwan Strait issue, and the establishment of IPEF. Examples include cooperation in economic initiatives aimed at the future.
If I had to say, the noteworthy points are that the United States supports Japan's bid to become a permanent member of the United Nations, the United States' understanding of Japan's significant expansion of its defense budget, and the fact that the G7 meeting will be held in Hiroshima, and that there will be no rule-based changes to the status quo. The G7 should be a place where both Europe and Asia can come together and reach an agreement that this will not be tolerated.
In response to a reporter's question about whether the United States would intervene militarily in the event of an emergency in Taiwan, President Biden clarified that it would. He said there was no change to the "one China policy" and that this did not mean China had the right to use military force to seize Taiwan. However, there are cases where "get involved to" used here is translated as "involvement" and cases where "get involved to" is translated as "intervention."
In the official White House press conference transcript, Q : You didn't want to get involved in the Ukraine conflict militarily for obvious reasons. Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan, if it comes to that?PRESIDENT BIDEN: Yes.
(See link at the bottom of the article). Did Mr. Biden answer in the sense of involvement or intervention? Incidentally, TBS translates it as involvement, while Nippon Television translates it as intervention. Normally translated, it would mean involvement...
In recent years, the United States has begun to say about Japan that it has high expectations for Japan's leadership. Regarding Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the United States has focused on providing weapons and imposing economic sanctions, and has largely remained silent, giving the impression that it is a European problem that should be dealt with by Britain, Germany, and other European countries.
The Japanese government has considered the Ukraine issue as a Taiwan issue from the beginning and has continued to commit to supporting Ukraine, but President Biden's recent remarks may have been made out of the blue at a joint press conference, and the Japanese government may continue to provide weapons as usual. Does this mean involvement by, etc.?
President Biden has also stated that there will be no changes to the Taiwan issue, so it is difficult to interpret this. If the Taiwan Relations Act remains unchanged as before, there is a high possibility that the world will respond in the same way in the event of a Taiwan emergency. In other words, Taiwan will only fight by providing weapons .
The fact that the United States welcomes Japan's significant increase in defense spending also seems to be a message that Japan should take leadership in Asia's problems. Does this mean that if Japan wants to protect the Taiwan Strait, it should do so?
What was clearly evident at this joint press conference was that Prime Minister Kishida himself stated that the Japan-U.S. Alliance is Japan's only alliance, and that Japan is protected by the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. In other words, the United States is currently protecting Japan.
This means that Japan will have to significantly expand its defense spending, build up the ability to defend itself, and think about the Taiwanese crisis on its own terms. Otherwise, he cannot become the leader of Asia. If the United States is only indirectly involved, who will protect democracy in Asia? That only exists in Japan.
