Internationally important elections will be held in ２０２４ - Japanese politics will be greatly influenced by these.
2023-12-26
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
2024 is an election year
２０２４ is X-year. The US presidential election will be followed by the Taiwanese presidential election, Russian presidential election, and South Korean general election. The Russian presidential election is likely to be a close call, but everything else will have a big impact on Japan.
The Nationalist Party follows the ruling Democratic Progressive Party
In Taiwan's presidential election, the ruling Democratic Progressive Party has a slight lead, with the Kuomintang and People's Party trailing behind. The third party, the People's Party, has many points in common with the Democratic Progressive Party, but it is a strange party in that it receives political donations from China. There is no movement yet, but if the Kuomintang and the People's Party join together at the last minute, the Democratic Progressive Party will be completely defeated.
Kuomintang is a pro-China party
The Nationalist Party has made it clear that it will maintain the ９２ common sense, which means that it will maintain the "one China principle." If pro-China forces win, the result will likely be the same as in Hong Kong.
Read it together
Under the United Nations resolution on Albania, China's representative government becomes the People's Republic of China - national representation as a permanent member of the United Nations Security
National representation rights claimed by both sides
Taiwan withdraws from the United Nations as a result of this resolution
Japan and the US tried to prevent Taiwan's expulsion from the UN
Taiwan is just a common name
US supports Taiwan's membership in international organizations
China expands interpretation of Albania resolution
The issue of one China began when the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the People's Republic of China fought over the right to represent China as a permanent member of the United Nations at the United Nations following a civil war. At that time, the Republic of China was a member of the United Nations as a permanent member of the United Nations.
As a result of the 1971 Albania Resolution recognizing the People's Republic of China as the representative member state of the United Nations, the Republic of China withdrew from the United Nations. In advance, Japan and the United States tried to persuade Taiwan to voluntarily decline the right to represent China, but Chiang Kai-shek was not convinced.
One China claimed not only China but also Taiwan. Taiwan was the first to claim the Senkaku Islands before China.
In response to the Albania resolution, the United States proposed a dual representation resolution and Japan proposed an important issue resolution against expulsion to the United Nations. As a result, the Albania Resolution was passed, and the People's Republic of China was to take over the power of representation, eliminating Taiwan's seat.
The problem might have been different if Taiwan had withdrawn its representation rights and applied for recognition as a separate country at the same time.
What we now call Taiwan is not the official name of the country; its official name is the Republic of China. Taiwan is a common name that means the name of the region. At the Olympic Games, it was called Chinese Taipei, and Japan's NHK called it Tiwan, which became a hot topic, but the country's name itself is internationally connected to the United Nations issue.
Based on the above circumstances, the United Nations has simply recognized the People's Republic of China as the representative government of China, and since the Republic of China has withdrawn from the United Nations, this does not mean that the United Nations does not recognize the country.
The United States has said it will support Taiwan's participation in international organizations. U.S. Republican Rep. Jim Risch said that China is expanding the interpretation of the Albania resolution.
Conversely, the basis for China's insistence on excluding Taiwan from the international community is the 1971 Albania resolution.
The United States has criticized China for abusing the Albania resolution by expanding its interpretation. China is pressuring other countries to prevent Taiwan from participating in international organizations.
Leftists are dominant in South Korea
South Korea's president is said to be a right-wing national force, but the majority of the National Assembly is left-wing and both Democrats. The majority of the National Assembly will be the pro-China, pro-North Korea, anti-American, anti-Japanese parties we witnessed during the Moon Jae-in era. If this party wins the general election, an anti-Japanese leftist president will be elected again in the next presidential election.
Will Trump be re-elected?
The big event in ２０２４ will be the US presidential election. If Biden, the Democratic Party of the United States, were to win here, the environment surrounding Japan would shift to the left, and Japan's cabinet would also become left-handed. China's One Belt, One Road initiative may end in failure, but the Free and Open Indo-Pacific concept advocated by former Prime Minister Abe will also become a mere shell.
#img2#
If the world turns right-handed
On the other hand, if the Democratic Progressive Party wins in Taiwan, the power of the people wins in South Korea, and Trump becomes President of the United States, will Japanese politics become right-wing? At that time, the Indo-Pacific concept will progress and a prime minister will be needed to take over the initiative. Is today's Japan simply being swept away without being able to exert its influence even in Asia?
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
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.
Know the difference between the Rising Sun Flag and Hakenkreuz - What is the Korean historical perspective that equates them?
In the history of the world, I have never heard of a country changing its flag because it won or lost a war. Britain and France have been at war many times, but did Britain, which won the Anglo-French War, demand that the French flag be changed? On the contrary, there is no idea that such a thing would become a point of contention in post-war processing. South Korea persistently demands that Japan abolish the Rising Sun flag, just as Germany abolished the Hakenkreuz flag.
A national flag symbolizes the country. The disappearance of a national flag means the disappearance of that nation. The Rising Sun Flag is the internationally registered flag of Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Force. Calling for the abolition of that flag is the same as calling for the abolition of the Maritime Self-Defense Force. Is South Korea claiming that it wants to go to war with Japan? If this is not the meaning, then the perception of what a ``flag'' is is too different internationally.
South Korea always equates the Rising Sun flag with the Hakenkreuz, and claims that since the Hakenkreuz, the symbol of Nazi Germany, has been abolished, the Rising Sun flag should also be abolished. Hakenkreuz is the party flag of the Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers' Party), and there is a history of it being used as the national flag. There is no Nazi party now, so there is no Hakenkreuz. That's simply the story.
Unless Japan disappears, the Japanese flag will not disappear, and unless the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force disappears, the Rising Sun flag will not disappear. In the first place, the Rising Sun Flag is a flag that has been passed down culturally, so it will not disappear even if it has nothing to do with the Self-Defense Forces. No country will abolish its flag at the request of another country.
There is only one country in the world calling for the abolition of the Rising Sun Flag. That country is not at war with Japan.
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.
Upstream business strategically conducted by Japan.A form of processing trade in which Asian countries, including Korea, assemble and export them.
upstream business used to be a common practice.At that time, supply was scarce in the balance between supply and demand and supply were in short supply.The raw material is the most upstream and the final product is the downstream.Considering distribution, retailers sell to final consumers are the most downstream.If water doesn't flow, you can't do business, but in the age of oversupply, the story will change.The downstream retail stores are more powerful than the upstream manufacturing industry.Japan's 7-Eleven is a symbolic example of this, and OEMs want large companies to build private brands, and manufacturers want 7-Eleven to sell their products.
Japan has developed its upstream business.The strategy is to start with basic research, develop industrial machinery, and manufacture things require Japanese basic technology.Regarding the revision of export conditions for three strategic substances, including hydrogen fluoride, the South Korean government's insistence on supply chain integration means downstream integration, which is intended to put pressure on upstream manufacturing.
Lawmaker Matsukawa of the Liberal Democratic Party affirmed to the world that the global supply chain will not be in trouble.As they say, The world's supply chain never collapsed .
Almost all manufacturing industries in Korea are operated by Japanese industrial machinery and chemicals and parts manufactured in Japan.Currently, They are manufacturing by the basic parts imported from Japan.
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.
