The South Korean government is responsible for the Korean government's refusal to allow its nationals to repatriate - Japan protected them out of human rights considerations.
2022-11-28
Category:South Korea I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Recruitment through conscription has increased seven times
The issue of forced labor and the issue of residents in Japan are related. Conscription on the Korean Peninsula took place from August １９４４ until the end of the war the following year. Until then, Koreans on the Korean peninsula were not subject to conscription or conscription. Employment at Japanese companies is highly sought after, and despite being conscripted, Mitsubishi Mining received seven times as many applications as recruitment.
Status of residents in Japan recognized for human rights considerations
Normally, those living in Japan would be forced to leave because they are foreigners, but the reason why this is not the case is because of the １９６５ Japan-Korea Status of Forces Agreement. The South Korean government at the time received a huge amount of aid, but refused to allow its citizens to return home. Since all Koreans in Japan were believed to be slave laborers who had been forcibly taken away from Japan, it would have been inconvenient for a large number of people who had experienced a different reality to return home. Japan restored diplomatic relations out of human rights considerations and guaranteed the Koreans' status in Japan.
Human rights issues are with the Korean government
As was made clear in the Gunkanjima issue, the recruitment at that time was legal recruitment under ILO standards. In terms of human rights issues, it lies with the South Korean government, which has refused to allow large numbers of its own citizens to return and has discarded them. That is a human rights issue. And what is being made a fuss about all this is the issue of conscripted labor.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Some countries are saddened by the sad news about former Prime Minister Abe, while others are happy - as expected, South Korea was the only democratic country to be happy.
Condolences received from various countries
South Korea welcomes people while twisting logic
Results opposite to Korea's expectations
Is your country's character different from that country?
Improving relations seems far off
In response to the sad news about former Prime Minister Abe, condolences have been pouring in from heads of state around the world, with many comments from democratic countries in particular saying that the world has lost a great leader. Mr. Trump, who was a close friend of Mr. Trump, immediately sent an extraordinary message of regret. However, there are countries that are completely different even if they are democracies. As you can imagine, it's South Korea.
Some South Korean articles say that with the death of former Prime Minister Abe, Japan's right-wing forces have lost their unifying force, and that members of parliament seeking to improve Japan-Korea relations have gained relative strength, leading to Prime Minister Kishida becoming a This means that they will be able to exercise their options. What on earth does this mean? It seems like they want to say that this is a good sign for improving relations with Japan.
There is no doubt that Mr. Abe was the spiritual pillar of Japan's right-wing movement. But the problem comes after that. After receiving the sad news about Abe, the members of the Diet who have close ties to him have regained their composure and strengthened their resolve to carry on Abe's will. This is clear from the statements made by these legislators and on Twitter. Rep. Rui Matsukawa and others have clearly expressed their feelings and made strong statements even at press conferences after securing victory.
In other words, with the death of former Prime Minister Abe, Mr. Abe's resolve has become firmer in his long-awaited efforts to revise the constitution and break away from the post-war regime in order to restore Japan's prestige. In other words, the current situation is completely opposite to that country's irritating predictions.
Japanese people don't have the emotions that most people in Korea usually expect. Even if people and towns are swept away by the tsunami, reconstruction begins the next day. Korea must have been very happy at this time as well. In response to this sad news about Mr. Abe, there is a completely distorted and eerie feeling that is visible as if people are welcoming Mr. Abe's death while calling for improved relations with Japan.
As long as we keep saying things like that, there will be no improvement in relations between Japan and South Korea. When will they be able to see events in a normal way? Will such a day ever come? The future is beyond imagination.
the next presidential candidate Yoon Seok-yeol: The relationship between Korea and Japan has deteriorated to the worst level since the normalization of diplomatic relations.Diplomacy should be based on pragmatism and realism, but it has come to this point because of its ideological bias of "bamboo spear songs."The Moon administration is trying to sort things out at the end of the administration, but it seems to have failed.
Li Nak-yeon: I can't believe his recognition when I hear he said about bamboo spears.It was shocking that he made such absurd remark that is shallow historical understanding at Yoon Bong-gil Memorial Hall .
Lee Jae-myung: Japan, an aggressor, should have been divided, but Korea, a victim of Japan's invasion, was divided.
The next presidential election will also be a match between Japan and South Korea.For Japan, Yoon Seok-yeol is better for Japan to pursue diplomacy, but I personally think if the other two would be President Japan should recognize as a hostile country beyond anti-Japanese and historical issues.
In the first place, Japan has nothing to do with the Korean presidential election.Korea should Focus on internal affairs.Either way, Japan will only respond accordingly.Because it's a foreign country.
Catch - all regulation and its contents Even though South Korea was a white country, I could not understand its meaning.
The Wassenaar Arrangement is an international agreement regarding the export control of conventional weapons, with which 42 countries, including Japan and South Korea, have concluded an agreement. Based on this premise, Japan will introduce catch-all regulations, and will notify the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry and receive permission when exporting cargo or providing technology that may be used for the development of weapons of mass destruction or conventional weapons. I made it mandatory.
Group A: 26 countries (white countries) Group B: 6 countries (including South Korea) Group C: countries that do not fall under A, B, or D Group D: countries under the UN arms embargo ・Countries of concern designated by regions and exporting countries
The above framework is determined at the discretion of the exporting country from the standpoint of national security. For this reason, Japan is constantly calling for a "review of export control operations." South Korea claims that Japan imposed export controls this time, but Japan has simply reviewed its operations, and as long as the prescribed procedures are followed, exports will continue as before. It's been two years and I still don't understand this. On the other hand, if we were a white country without understanding this basic thing, it would be even more frightening. Do they think they were put in Group D? Group D is currently subject to export restrictions from Japan.
Group D consists of 11 countries, including Afghanistan, Central Africa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Iran, a country of concern.
The preamble of the Constitution lies at the root of South Korea's anti - Japanese sentiment.The reason for affirming anti - Japanese sentiment and excluding pro - Japanese sentiments is found in the
The preamble of the Korean Constitution states that 3.1 the legal system of the provisional government of the Republic of Korea will be inherited. Then, what is the March 1 Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea? It is an organization that called itself the Provisional Government and was established in 1919 as an anti-Japanese force. Looking at the contents of the charter, we see that the oath is strongly anti-Japanese: ``We will fight to the last man to indoctrinate Japan from barbarism.''
The preamble of the constitution describes the principles that govern the entire constitution. The structure of this idea is to inherit the legal structure of the March 1 Charter of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea. If we interpret these without contradiction, Article 21 of the latter part of the Korean Constitution states freedom of speech and Article 22 states academic freedom, but if we read it based on the preamble of the Constitution, we can see that 3.1 Legal framework of the provisional government It can also be interpreted as allowing freedom of speech and academics on the premise of inheriting the law. This is actually the case in Korea today.
If you look at the oath of the provisional government quoted in the preamble of the constitution, it clearly states anti-Japanese ideology. In the first place, the constitution should not quote anything or include language that assumes other countries.
In any case, as long as South Korea is under this constitution, anti-Japanese activities are always legitimate, and on the contrary, pro-Japanese activities are criticized as acts that destroy the legal system of the March 1 Provisional Government Charter and the Constitution. If members of the Diet follow the principle of adhering to the Constitution, then anti-Japanese members are conducting legitimate parliamentary activities. This is the main reason why it is said that #anti-Japan is South Korea's national policy.
How can the preamble of the Constitution be consistent with fundamental human rights such as freedom of speech, thought and belief, and academic freedom? There appears to be no case where a legal interpretation has been obtained in the Constitutional Court through a lawsuit or controversy that has raised this point. The Korean government is free to expand its interpretation as much as it wants. This is the case now, as seen in the No Japan movement, where anti-Japanese activities are legitimate activities, and pro-Japanese speech is denounced as ``traitors.'' Is this an exception to basic human rights, with speech affirming the era of Japanese rule being suppressed, or is anti-Japanese a duty of every Korean citizen as written in the Provisional Government's oath?
Provisional Government OathOathTo my 2,000,000 fellow citizens whom I respect and loveMarch 1st year of the Republic of Korea One day, since the Korean nation declared its independence, men and women, young and old, all classes, and all sects, of course, have come together to fight under the inhumane violence of Japan, the Germany of the East. The sympathy of the world is now suddenly focused on our people because they have expressed the character of a nation that is extremely patient with fairness, longs for independence and freedom for its people, and loves truth, justice, and humanity. It was at this time that the government was organized with the mandate of all the people of the country. I hereby swear that this government, together with all the people of this country, will work wholeheartedly to fulfill the great mission of restoring the nation and establishing its identity as a nation, observing the provisions of the provisional constitution and the principles of international society. My fellow countrymen, be inspired. Every drop of blood we shed is the gift of freedom and fortune to our descendants. It is the precious foundation for building God's kingdom. The way of our people will surely edify Japan's wild horses. Our justice truly trumps Japan's violence. My brethren, rise and battleto the last man.
3.1 The provisional government was the result of an anti-Japanese movement that occurred on March 1, 1919 under Japanese rule, and after that, Syngman Rhee established a provisional government in Shanghai, where he was in exile. This provisional government is considered the legitimate root of the Korean government, and Syngman Rhee became the first president of Korea after Japan's defeat. In other words, the Korean government itself is based on anti-Japanese organizations. Therefore, the Constitution will inherit the legal system of the Provisional Government Charter.
It is no wonder why this story has not been reported in Japan, but it seems safe to assume that there are almost no members of the Korean Diet who are not anti-Japanese. On the contrary, he says that it is impossible to become a member of the Diet while advocating pro-Japan policy. Rather than saying, ``Many South Korean parliamentarians are anti-Japanese,'' it seems more accurate to say, ``South Korean parliamentarians exist because they are anti-Japanese.'' South Korea will never become a pro-Japanese country. That future will never come. Will the South Korean government or National Assembly propose a constitutional amendment and delete the text written in the preamble? If that happens, the roots and identity of the Korean government will disappear.
Anti-Japanese activities are legitimate activities that are affirmed by the Korean Constitution. Depending on the interpretation, it can also be considered to be outside the scope of freedom of speech. We need to think about South Korea with this in mind.
severance of diplomatic relations betwee There are many people in both Japan and South Korea calling for a break in diplomatic relations, but I thought that a break in diplomatic relations between Japan and South Korea should be expected from the beginning after the recruitment ruling and the exclusion of White countries.Former Prime Minister Abe already expressed his opinion on July 3, 2019, that the exclusion of White Country was not retaliation for the recruitment ruling, but a failure to keep his promise between countries.The 1965 Agreement is an agreement on claims in the treaty in which Japan and South Korea restored diplomatic relations.Abolition of this agreement is a loss of the premise of diplomatic relations, and it is obvious that diplomatic relations will break off.
Now, considering the specific problems of breaking off diplomatic relations at the private level, the video link I posted is a couple of Japanese and Taiwanese Youtuber.If private marriage is allowed, private economic activities are allowed.Strategic materials and military-related products that must be negotiated between governments will be regulated.It would be a substantial break in diplomatic relations if we could not communicate with each other at the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics.
On the other hand, countries without diplomatic relations have no further interests and do not lead to war.It is not the break of diplomatic relations that is in danger, but the travel ban order.Japan has a special relationship called Taiwan.The lack of intergovernmental exchanges has never been a problem at the private level.
