I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
South Korea has always opposed registration as a World Heritage Site. The meaning of culture is different from the rest of the world. People from all over the world come to Japan for a variety of reasons, including culture, history, anime and manga, cat cafes, maid cafes, traditional Japanese food, and other gourmet food. These are evaluated within the framework of culture. If we look at the definition of culture, we find that `culture is a system of ideas and value standards shared within a society, and a unique style possessed by a group.'
Cultural heritage must be something that has survived for a certain period of time, and can be thought of as something that has had a major impact on subsequent eras, and can be considered to be the "culture" of each country. It can be said that it exists within the range of value standards and definitions. Furthermore, Japan has registered 20 World Cultural Heritage Sites.
In this sense, South Korea is the only country to raise questions about Japan's registration as a World Cultural Heritage Site. This is not a historical issue, but simply a difference in the definition and framework of culture. Can they explain why Auschwitz in Germany and the Colosseum in Italy are world heritage sites? The Colosseum is an arena for killing each other.
If the common concept of ``culture'' in each country is the premise of world cultural heritage, then no Japanese person would object to the fact that Auschwitz and the Colosseum are cultural heritage sites. This is the Japanese way of thinking. In other words, it is different from Korea.
People visiting Japan come to see that there is almost no garbage left on the roads all over the country, and to see that the natural environment is still kept clean in one of the world's most developed countries, which is unique in the world. Although it can be said that this is Japanese culture that cannot be seen, there is no framework or precedent for considering such a culture that spreads throughout the nation as a cultural heritage.
Even if such a cultural framework were to match the world's definition, only South Korea would be opposed to it.
Masatoshi Muto, a former diplomat, says that making concessions to South Korea is a mistake and that South Korea needs a firm response.
Masatoshi Muto on his dealings with South Korea during his time as a diplomat. He says that he made a mistake by listening to everything and requesting as much as possible.
When asked about the anti-Japanese movement taking place in South Korea, Taro Aso, during his time as Prime Minister, asked, ``Does that have something to do with it?'' Japanese people don't care. As a result, the term ``virtual enemy country'' became popular. The view was that South Korea was conducting an anti-Japanese movement due to domestic circumstances.
There is no doubt that South Korea's current enemy is primarily North Korea. The Korean War is not over yet, and there is currently a ceasefire. When we see public opinion in South Korea calling Japan an enemy country while facing each other across the 38th parallel, we can't help but wonder to what extent South Korea is escaping reality.
When considered within the same framework, China is on the side of South Korea's enemy in the Korean War frame. Until now, the South Korean government has not been able to resolve security issues, and has abandoned its military and continued to focus on Japan, which has not fought back, because if it expressed hostility toward North Korea, China, or the United States, it would immediately take retaliatory measures. It's here. This is to gain the public's attention by saying something powerful. In doing so, it is easy to use stories from the past annexation era. Japan understands this environment and has tacitly tolerated South Korea's anti-Japanese movements.
What we need to clarify is that all of these environments are always real problems for South Korea. It seems that as long as Koreans remain anti-Japanese, they can temporarily feel as if their problems are gone. Even now, when the anti-Japan flag goes up, I forget everything due to a spinal reflex.
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.
The police investigated the chairman of the Independence Society.Scholarships for descendants of those who contributed to the anti - Japanese movement, and embezzlement of them?
The Chosun Ilbo reported that Kim Won-woong, chairman of the Independence Committee of Korea, embezzled tens of millions of won from social cafes to provide scholarships to children of independence fighters, and asked the police to investigate.The Ministry of Veterans and Veterans Affairs said, "The Independence Society raised 61 million won by raising false orders or over-calculating costs."
Independence Society is an organization established by activists and descendants who participated in the anti-Japanese independence movement during the annexation of Korea and Japan.Japan's anniversary of the end of World War II is called Independence Day in Korea, where President Moon Jae In congratulated and the chairman of the Independence Society also greeted.Even if it is a greeting, it is a speech of resentment and hostility toward Japan.
The Independence Society is closely related to left-wing forces and has been at the center of the anti-Japanese movement under the Democratic Party.Yoon Mi-hyang, the predecessor of the Justice and Memory Alliance, was indicted on charges of embezzlement, and this time she was accused of embezzlement by the chairman of the Independence Society.In the first place, the Japanese Military Sexual Slavery problem is that Lee Yong-soo, the symbol of Japanese Military Sexual Slavery, was taken away by the Japanese army, and is said to be a swindler.Yoon Mi-hyang embezzled donations through Wednesday's rally using Lee Yong-soo as an advertising tower, and the Independence Society established a "meaningless system" to provide scholarships to descendants of independence fighters.
As you can see, the anti-Japanese movement is likely to be a fraudulent organization originally caused by lies and incitement.And the head of the fraudulent group is a group that embezzles the money.
It has become clear that the anti-Japanese movement is based on fraud.I'm paying attention to how far it will be revealed.
South Korean delegation insists on 'efforts from both countries' - Japan is fulfilling all its promises - South Korea is the one who is not making enough efforts
South Korea says efforts from both Japan and South Korea are necessary
Intentions of both countries passing each other
What is the destination that Korea envisions?
If we misunderstand the Korean issue, the government will tilt
Japan has already apologized many times
Japan fulfills all commitments
What does the effort of both countries mean?
While the recent South Korean delegation's visit to Japan has been reported as if the two countries have once again returned to the direction of improving Japan-Korea relations, the response of the Japanese government, including the prime minister, has been criticized. The South Korean side is keen to improve Japan-Korea relations, and as a result, interviews with the current prime minister, former prime minister, and other ministers were held. The most important point is that a gap that cannot be filled has been identified.
The rift is that while Japan is demanding that South Korea "fulfill its commitments," South Korea has consistently stated that "efforts from both sides are needed." This means that South Korea will not make unilateral concessions. More specifically, before the presidential election, President-elect Yoon Seok-Yeol met with Lee Yong-soo, a self-proclaimed representative of former comfort women, and said, ``We must demand an apology from Japan.'' has promised that he will receive it. That's probably what he's saying.
What kind of efforts does South Korea want from Japan? For example, is the Japanese Prime Minister going to South Korea, meeting with former comfort women, apologizing, and reporting the moving scene as an attempt to settle the matter? However, if South Korea's next government does not understand that this is an unlikely future, improving relations seems a long way off.
If Prime Minister Kishida were to do something like that, the Kishida administration would surely collapse, and even in this meeting with the parliamentary group, there are voices calling for Kishida to be removed from the position of prime minister. There are even voices saying that they will not vote for the Liberal Democratic Party in the next House of Councilors election. Reasons for this include the forced labor judgment and the abrogation of the Japan-Korea comfort women agreement.
Regarding the South Korean delegation's visit to Japan, since it was a group of parliamentarians before the inauguration of the new South Korean government, there were many opinions that Japan should also conduct the visit within the framework of parliamentary exchanges and that the government should not deal with it.
The comfort women agreement states, ``This is an issue that has deeply damaged the honor and dignity of many women, and from this perspective, the Japanese government is acutely aware of its responsibility.'' I would like to express my heartfelt apologies and remorse to the people of... Yun Seok-Yeol seems to think that since he has expressed his apology, it would be okay to apologize face-to-face. However, the agreement states, ``As the Japanese government declares the above and steadily implements the measures in (2) above (establishment of a foundation), this announcement will ensure that this issue will be finalized and irreversible.'' to make sure it is resolved."
The 1965 Claims Agreement, including the issue of forced labor, was already resolved. Japan is simply asking South Korea to faithfully implement these agreements. Japan has fulfilled all of its responsibilities, so all that remains is for South Korea to fulfill its own responsibilities. In other words, it is no longer an issue for both countries to make efforts.
Jeong Jin-seok, head of the South Korean delegation, claps his hands together and says that only by joining hands like this can relations be improved. Hearing these words, I can't help but think that South Korea's next new government may not even understand what the current situation is. This is because the efforts of these two countries resulted in the Claims Agreement in 1965, the Japan-South Korea Joint Declaration in 1998, and the Comfort Women Agreement in 2015, which is exactly the kind of hand-to-hand situation that Chung described. It is South Korea that unilaterally abolished these . Japan must not take a step back from this line.
If we look at Japan-South Korea relations after the restoration of diplomatic relations, South Korea has completely torn up all previous agreements. Is the next agreement really necessary?
