It's okay to win even if you commit a foul. Don't expect anything from a country with a different concept of sports.
2023-09-30
Category:South Korea I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Japanese sports train the mind and body
In Japan, there is no question that sports are played to train the mind and body, and this is sought after in all walks of life. On top of that, the champions of each sport are also expected to have good personalities, so Japanese people are very careful when interviewing the winners.
First of all, physical education and sports have different meanings.
Physical education is distinguished from sports in that it incorporates physical exercise as a part of education and aims not only to train the body but also to improve the mind and personality. Sports are said to be purely about enjoying the competition and the wins and losses. In order to have fun, you can only enjoy victory and defeat within the fairness that comes from following the rules. It is also expressed as sportsmanship.
Countries with illegal circumstances, etc.
If you think about whether Korea does physical education or sports, unfortunately it seems like they are failing at both. Even though it is said that political statements should not be brought into sports, athletes who can't stand it anymore and make a big fuss over the Rising Sun flag or claim territory on the field are seen as heroes. He doesn't mind taking fouls in order to win. Do they think that the rules are something that is followed when the referee is watching? There is no concept of sportsmanship here.
Countries where representatives become violent
I'm sure some people will argue that this is something that some players do, but the relative number of fouls committed by Korean players is too high. And that is what athletes who participate in international competitions do. As I wrote at the beginning, in Japan, sports are viewed as physical education from elementary school onwards, and the higher a player becomes, the more they continue to train, and as a representative of the country, they are expected to act without shame. It can be said that there are almost no players who commit such foul acts when they reach the level of participating in international tournaments.
The purpose of sports is fundamentally different.
It is said that all sports are supervised by an organization called the Korea Athletic Association, but it seems that they are more passionate about anti-Japan activities than athletics, and that way of thinking is quite different even internationally.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Meeting with South Korean parliamentarians and Foreign Minister Hayashi. Is it meaningful to deal with mere performance diplomacy? An unprecedented response between members of the Diet and government ministers
Foreign Minister Hayashi met at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the morning of the 25th with the "policy consultation delegation" sent by South Korean President-elect Yoon Seok-you to Japan. There have been criticisms within the Liberal Democratic Party of having a meeting between a mere parliamentary group that has not yet been established as a government and Japanese government ministers. Since it is unknown whether they are really delegations, will the Foreign Minister visit all of them when a foreign member visits Japan? And since I had an interview with the members of the Diet, there is no reason why Yoon Seok-you would not have an interview after taking office as president.
Interview in a state of violation of international law
Currently, the Japanese government is in a position not to negotiate unless the Korean government corrects the state of violation of international law, and the state of violation of international law has not changed yet. After that, They had a meeting with former Minister of Finance Fukushiro Nukaga of the Liberal Democratic Party and former Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Nakagawa of the Constitutional Democratic Party, who are the chairman of the Japan-Korea Parliamentary Union, at a hotel in Tokyo for about an hour and a half. One of the points that should be evaluated is that the Korean parliamentarians should return to the Japan-Korea relations at the time of the 1998 Japan-Korea Joint Declaration. In 1998, it became a joint declaration that embodied the ideal way of exchange between Japan and South Korea from the 1965 Japan-Korea Basic Treaty, such as the opening of Japanese culture in South Korea and the resolution of the problem of fishing rights in Takeshima. Even if it is simply said to improve Japan-South Korea relations, it is commendable that they have discussed them many times and have shown specific target points because the Korean side has destroyed everything for their own convenience. However, even if it returned to the time of the Japan-Korea Joint Declaration, this declaration was virtually invalidated by the National Assembly of South Korea in less than two years. How can we prevent it from being invalidated again even if it returns in 1998? That point is missing.
Do you make another promise with a country that does not keep your promise?
I think that the problem that South Korea does not keep its promise is that the country itself does not have a structure to keep its promise. Even if the president of that era considers the times and makes a promise with Japan through diplomatic immunity, Korean parliamentarians who have an anti-Japanese structure and an anti-Japanese constitution will invalidate them with the power of the legislature. Is the Kishida administration rushing for easy diplomatic achievements as it has no diplomatic achievements so far? Foreign Minister Hayashi is in a good mood playing the piano in the United Kingdom. Will he repeat the Japan-Korea relations that he has repeated over and over again?
The ''North-South division issue'' and the future aimed at by Kim Gu - Lee Jae-myung's assertion is an unrealizable hypothesis.
South Korean Democratic Party members Moon Jae-in and Lee Jae-myung cite Kim Gu as the politician they most respect. Kim Gu was a person who served as the president of the provisional government of the Republic of Korea. He rejected the postwar state of US-Soviet trust between North and South Korea and proposed a plan to unify the peninsula among the Korean people, but this idea was rejected by Kim Il-sung of North Korea. It was an unrealizable idea that would be denied by the United States as well. After a political dispute, Syngman Rhee, who was recommended by the United States, became president, and Kim Gu was subsequently assassinated.
Lee Jae-myung recently told a US senator that the North and South were divided because of the US. I guess he is trying to say that if he had done what Kim Gu said at that time, there would have been no Korean War or division between North and South. However, there is absolutely no basis for this "if". At that time, there were no people in Japan or abroad who supported this idea.
Kim Gu's ideas did not produce any results in the environment of the time. Based on this premise, there are no objective facts in history; all that exists is the existence of South Korea and North Korea since the founding of the nation more than 70 years ago. North Korea established the current state of North Korea without paying any attention to Kim Gu's claims.
In other words, it is logically impossible to trace back to Kim Gu's assertion what the basis for the unification of North and South is advocated by the No. 1 and No. 2 members of the Democratic Party of Japan. They are the most pro-North Korean and pro-China faction in the South Korean National Assembly. Even now, that claim is not appreciated at all by North Korea, the United States, or even China.
Representative Yuko Obuchi appeared at the Japan - Korea summit meeting *A wedge telling South Korea not to forget what she said. A meeting and dinner was held between Prime Minister Kishida and President Yun Seok-Yeol, and a press conference was held without a joint statement.
What has been decided is the resumption of shuttle diplomacy and the lifting of restrictions on three strategic items. In reality, the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, but the actual content is that the leaders met together to confirm the matter.
Regarding the lifting of restrictions on strategic substances, in reality there will be no major changes in distribution from Japan, and the 2019 restrictions will not reduce or stop exports, so nothing will actually change.
In particular, President Yun Seok-Yeol raised the issue of North Korea and showed South Korea's cooperative attitude toward Japan, but this has only confirmed that this is back on track. This is natural since the North Korea issue is being dealt with through the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and the U.S.-South Korea Security Treaty.
At the very least, future shuttle diplomacy should ask what South Korea can do for Japan, rather than the diplomatic relations that have been the case in the past, where Japan did something unilaterally.
That's what makes for healthy diplomatic relations. I can't think of anything specific that South Korea has done for Japan. No one is looking for diplomatic relations that involve chatting at the table and asking for wads of money under the table.
The next day, the Japanese media focused on the meeting between Suga, president-elect of the Japan-Korea Parliamentary Federation, and President Yun Seok-yeoul, but what I wanted to draw attention to was the woman in the very edge of the photo.
She is Yuko Obuchi, a lawmaker, and the daughter of former Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi. The reason I wondered why she was in this seat was because I remember her not holding any government-related positions.
What really struck me was the 1998 Japan-Korea Joint Declaration. President Yun Seok-Yeol insists that Japan-Korea relations should return to the Japan-Korea Joint Declaration, but the question is how to return. And Japan complies with all of the Japan-Korea Joint Declaration. Returning would be a problem only for the Korean side.
The points of the 1998 Japan-Korea Joint Declaration are as follows.
Japan-Korea Joint DeclarationHolding of the 2002 FIFA World Cup
Promoting Japan-Korea economic cooperation
Opening of Japanese culture in Korea
Fisheries agreement around Takeshima in accordance with the new United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
Response to North Korea issue
The holding of the Japan-Korea World Cup and the influx of Korean Wave content all stemmed from this joint declaration.
The Japan-Korea Joint Declaration was signed by President Kim Dae-jung, but the Japan-Korea World Cup was said to be the worst tournament in FIFA history, and it became unclear whether it was an anti-Japan movement or a soccer tournament.
Less than two years later, the South Korean National Assembly passed a resolution to invalidate this joint declaration. Japanese people must not forget that the area around Takeshima was subsequently filled with Korean fishing boats again, resulting in the current state of Takeshima.
The Japanese representative who concluded this agreement was former Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi. South Korea has completely torn up not only the 1965 Agreement, but also the 1988 Agreement.
Was Representative Yuko Obuchi invited to this meeting as a symbolic icon? In other words, this seems to have driven a wedge that returning to the Japan-South Korea Joint Declaration is the goal of the talks. It's about not forgetting what I said. Does the Korean side actually understand the meaning of this? I don't think they understand.
In conclusion, returning to the Japan-Korea Joint Declaration would be a very high hurdle. This joint declaration was scrapped because of the Takeshima issue. Perhaps the Korean side only understands this declaration as a resumption of cultural exchange.
Looking at Mr. Yoon Suk Yeol's argument, the content of the liberal camp, which is the opposite of the pro - China and pro - North Moon Jae In administration
- Regarding diplomacy: Diplomacy is not visible in the Moon Jae-in government. His philosophy and values are also unclear. A clear value system should make our future predictable, but this is lacking.
These include the rule of law, liberal democracy, the value of human rights, and a codified international legal order. We must maintain and develop relationships between countries that share this same understanding.
[Yin Seok-yue's claim]
Regarding historical issues: We must always clearly define past history based on truth, and point out what needs to be pointed out. In matters of reality and the future, the interests of the people and the nation must be considered. After all, it's for future generations.
About Kim Jong-un: Kim Jong-un is judged to be a dictator in the light of modern civilized nations and liberal democratic systems. At the same time, he is a very decisive figure for the denuclearization of North Korea, for the Korean peninsula and for sustainable world peace, so he is a partner who must keep an outlet for dialogue open.
Security and defense: The right direction is for the United States to strengthen the expansionary restraint it provides to friendly countries through intercontinental ballistic missiles.
About the United States: The Biden administration of the United States is determined to overwhelm China with cutting-edge technology and to bring its standards to China. Global business will be difficult to establish if companies turn their backs on the United States, so the government must lead companies with ``strategic clarity.''
THAAD: Regarding the deployment of the THAAD system, it is ``clearly our sovereign territory,'' but it is a ``horizontal relationship with China.''
Regarding China: In order to insist on withdrawal of THAAD deployment, China must first withdraw long-range radars deployed near its own borders. Fulfill the agreement to normalize relations between South Korea and China unless additional THAAD deployments are made.
Contents are normal. The impression is that it follows the trend of the latter half of the Park Geun-hye administration. Since it is difficult to win with the current point difference, the focus will be on how concrete this content can be and whether it can create a message that can gather floating votes.
According to a Korean public opinion poll, the support rates for political parties are 42.4% for both opposition parties, and 39.6% for People's Power.The general election will be held this year.
According to a Korean Realmeter opinion poll conducted in the fourth and fifth weeks of March 2020, the party support rate was 44.6% for the Democratic Party of Korea, and 30.0% for the United Future Party, the predecessor of People's Power. The Realmeter survey results announced on the 15th of this month show that the Democratic Party is 42.4%, and the People's Power is 39.6%.Although the gap has narrowed, the Democratic Party's approval rating has fallen by only 2.2 points. do not have.
In the 2020 survey, 55.7% approved of Moon Jae-in, and in the current survey, 36.3% approved of President Yoon Seok-Yeol. Interpreting these figures literally, expectations for the power of the people in the legislature have increased, but the support rate for the Democratic Party has remained almost unchanged. Both parties are members of the Democratic Party, whose party is led by Lee Jae-myung, who miraculously survived the assassination that everyone thought was a farce and was discharged from the hospital after a long hospitalization. Lee Jae-myung is currently being indicted by prosecutors.
These Democratic Party supporters can be seen as a rock-solid support group that will continue to support any party leader no matter what. Are these people who make a living through trade with China, and whose livelihoods are directly connected to their support for China? South Korea's trade dependence is 81.9% of GDP. The pro-Japanese and pro-American and pro-China and pro-North Korean compositions were one of the themes brought to light by Moon Jae-in, who stirred up the No Japan movement, but the essential issue is the economy. How far has the withdrawal from China's economy progressed?
In the Facebook group of the author who co-authored ``Anti-Japanese Tribalism,'' it is clear that the number of posters and viewers has decreased dramatically since Yun Seok-yeo became president. Is it because the No Japan movement has subsided? In that case, would those people have been better off if the No Japan movement had disappeared? I wonder how many people out there just wish they could drink Japanese beer. In other words, were the pro-Japanese simply rebelling against the intense anti-Japanese movements that were taking place? At least what we can say is that the power of pro-China, pro-North Korean forces does not seem to be weakening.
If we go into the 2024 general election in this state, there is a high possibility that the Democratic Party will once again control the largest number of seats. If this is the case, the Yun Seok-Yue administration will be run in a twisted manner throughout his term. Anti-Japanese issues are also legal issues. South Korea is a country with no anti-Japanese convictions. Since the Democratic Party is the most powerful party in both countries, it is difficult to bring about social change through legislation, and there is a high possibility that an anti-Japanese leftist president will be elected again in the next presidential election.
