The Korean National Police Agency’s landing on Takeshima is a strategy of disruption aimed at the Japan - U.S. - Korea trilateral foreign ministerial talks.
2021-11-24
Category:Japanese comfort woman problem I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Japan declines Japan-U.S.-Korea joint press conference
A joint press conference scheduled for November １７th in Washington, D.C., after the trilateral Foreign Ministers' Meeting between Japan, the United States, and South Korea, was canceled at short notice. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman held a solo press conference on behalf of the three countries. Deputy Secretary of State Sherman said, ``There are bilateral differences between Japan and South Korea that need to be resolved. To that end, we have changed the format of the press conference.''
South Korea continues to criticize Japan
It is reported that the reason why the Japanese side refused to hold a joint press conference was that Korean National Police Agency Commissioner Kim Chang-ryong landed on Takeshima the day before the talks. Reports in South Korea said things like ``Japan destroyed America's face,'' ``Japan refused the interview without permission,'' and ``Deputy Secretary of State Sherman's solo press conference was a strange sight.''
In the first place, there seems to be no recognition that it was the South Korean side that took the outrageous step of landing on the Takeshima issue, which is a sensitive issue between Japan and South Korea, the day before the Japan-U.S.-Korea meeting. Moreover, the Commissioner of the National Police Agency is the head of the administrative agency.
MEMO The South Korean side is at fault in most of the Japan-Korea issues, but the reports published within South Korea only justify themselves.
Landing on Takeshima is a disturbance strategy aimed at timing
In the first place, Takeshima is an inherent territory of Japan both historically and under international law. What South Korea should do is not for the Commissioner of the National Police Agency to land on Takeshima, but to go to the International Court of Justice and seek a decision based on international law. It is clear that the landing on Takeshima was carried out to coincide with the trilateral foreign ministerial talks between Japan, the United States, and South Korea.
Strategic objectives are China and North Korea
This is related to the South Korean presidential election to be held in ２０２２, and is aimed at improving the current government's approval ratings, but the people most likely to be happy about this are China and North Korea. China is wary of Japan, the US, and South Korea getting closer.
That's why they started this commotion with the aim of holding talks between the vice ministers of foreign affairs between Japan, the US and South Korea. If you think about it this way, the objectives are completely consistent with what the Moon Jae-in administration has done thus far. And in this case, it can be said that that purpose was clearly demonstrated.
#img2#
Intensification of anti-Japanese activities
Since the Moon Jae-in administration came into power, the Takeshima issue has become more radical, and issues such as the Rising Sun flag, forced labor, and comfort women have all crossed the line. They are engaging in brinkmanship diplomacy that is on the verge of destroying Japan-South Korea relations.
These can be seen as an appeal to North Korea and China, and also seem to be a love call to be included in the Chinese economic bloc. The South Korean people are enthusiastic about these movements and support Moon Jae-in's popularity.
POINT South Korea wants to join China and North Korea. This has been Moon Jae-in's wish from the beginning. If you look at it that way, everything you've said and done so far makes sense.
South Korea approaches a rogue nation
North Korea and China are authoritarian countries. Japan and the United States are democratic countries, and South Korea is also supposed to be a democratic country, but I wonder if the social system doesn't matter.The one country that the Moon Jae-in administration wants to get along with after saying goodbye to Japan and the United States is the UN sanctions resolution. One country that continues to suffer is North Korea, and one country that has been criticized by Europe, the United States, and Japan is China, which has been criticized for the Hong Kong issue, the Taiwan Strait issue, and the Uighur issue.
I feel like the future direction of Korea is becoming clearer.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Korea's continued Jewish cosplay.All Japan - South Korea relations come to this.
Japanese Military Sexual Slavery The problem and recruitment problem are individualized, but what Korea has been talking about since the end of World War II is JewishCosplay .The Asahi flag issue is also related.South Korea tells Japan to imitate Germany because Germany compensates for the war and Japan does not.Japan invaded countries that were considered Western colonies and paid reparations to those countries.China has waived compensation.Korea was not an enemy country and there was no war damage , so the concept of compensation itself does not exist.
When it comes to Jewish cosplay, we are in the same situation as Jews.Why are Jews rescued and we have no help?Germany says it is compensating, but Germany only compensates each country comprehensive except for compensation for Jews.The logic of reparation can be seen from these things as if it had been done to Jews.The oath of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea clearly says, "Japan's inhumane assault " and the current preamble of the Korean Constitution says it will inherit the provisional government's legal code.So far, Nazi = Japanese equation.Therefore, it becomes the Harkencroits = Asahi flag.
What is certain to be known as a historical fact is that the Holocaust is an operation to slaughter and annihilate Jews in the vast area of Europe.Japan claims to have carried out genocide on the Korean Peninsula, but the population growth is remarkable.The U.S. says there was no Japan's war crimes under GHQ rule.MacArthur's postwar policy is to promptly convene an international military court to punish war criminals, justify the American war, and quickly bring Japan back to the international community.America was looking for war criminals.It is concluded that it was not on the Korean Peninsula.
To be clear, Japan and the Nazis, Koreans and Jews are completely different.World War II also has a completely different history.No country in the world thinks Koreans and Jews are the same.It is clear that the provisional government wants to replace Korea with Jews and pretend to be a war victim and become a victorious group.
South Korea has requested attendance at the San Francisco Peace Conference and has been rejected by the United States.At this time, I was trying to get the international community to recognize Jukdo sovereignty.
Professor Ramseyer's negative statement [There is no evidence of forced abduction of comfort women] is a complete lie. [Translated excerpt of Yonhap News article]
On January 5th, Mark Ramseyer, a professor at Harvard Law School in the United States, who defined South Korean comfort women as "prostitutes" and received international backlash, has now proven that "comfort women were forced to be recruited." It is expected that there will be a stir by asserting that there are no contemporary documents that do so.
Professor Ramseyer made this clear on the 5th in his article ``Sexual Contracts in the Pacific War: Responses to Criticism'' posted on the Harvard Law School website.
In this paper, which is a rebuttal of previous criticisms directed at her, Professor Ramseyer argues that ``Korean women were drawn into [comfort women] by the Japanese military who fought against their will, regardless of their will.'' I will respond to the allegation,'' and declared, ``This allegation is false.''
At the same time, he asserted, `` Korean women were not forced to serve as comfort stations due to planned coercion by the Japanese military.''
He specifically argued that the 1983 book ``My War Crimes'' by Japanese author and activist Seiji Yoshida was the de facto basis for the forced recruitment of comfort women.
For 35 years after the end of the war, there was no evidence (proving forced conscription). It was only in the late 1980s that some Korean women began to advocate this."
He added, ``The comfort women debate started with Yoshida's 'fraud'''' and ``Most of the experts who criticized me were from Japan and South Korea, but even though they knew about this book, no one He also didn't mention this book."
Regarding the paper in question, Professor Ramseyer said, ``The core of the paper was about the contract, such as why the comfort women received advance payment and what conditions under the contract determined the women's working hours.'' ``However, none of the criticisms leveled at me were aimed at this kind of economic analysis.''
In a paper published that day, Professor Ramseyer cited a study last year by Lee Yuken, a co-author of ``Anti-Japanese Tribalism'' and a research committee member at the University of Economics Research Institute, which received support from far-right groups in Japan.
Professor Ramseyer also claimed that comfort women victims, who remained silent for a considerable period after the war, changed their words after they began demanding reparations from Japan.
In a situation where there is no document proving forced recruitment, the only evidence, the testimonies of victims, lacks credibility..
In particular, he referred to comfort woman victim Lee Yong-soo as ``the most notorious (of all the people who changed their words)''.
[Excerpt above]
Professor Ramseyer says that no evidence of her forced abduction or her contract has been found anywhere. Similarly, the Japanese government has made a cabinet decision under the Abe administration that there is no evidence of forced recruitment.
Legality of Japanese Annexation of Korea The Supreme Court's decision on recruitment is based on the unilateral recognition of torts under Japanese rule. There are two main points in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Korea. One is the issue of the Japan-Korea Claims Agreement. The second is the recognition of torts under Japanese rule, which was the premise of the decision.
The waiver of claims in post-war processing was under the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Japan has abandoned its diplomatic protection rights related to claims. Countries that do not ratify the peace treaty will individually conclude a treaty. Diplomatic protection means that the country does not diplomatically protect the exercise of claims against other countries. A-bomb survivors in Hiroshima have attempted to claim damages against the United States for indiscriminate attacks on civilians as a tort. At this time, the view of the Government of Japan is that the Government of Japan has abandoned its diplomatic protection rights and the government is not involved. However, he replied that the individual's claim was not extinguished. "Yanagi answer". It is the answer of the Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs and the administrative view.
In fact, South Korea has been activating the movement for individual claims by quoting this Yanai answer. Until then, South Korea, on the contrary, interpreted that the individual's claim itself had disappeared (described in the Korean side manual of the 1965 Agreement), and after hearing this Yanai's answer, he knew for the first time that the individual's claim would not be extinguished. It was. Aside from the administrative view of Japan, the legal view was that in 2007 the Supreme Court of Japan stated that it was not subject to protection, including individual jurisdiction. At the same time, the individual's claim right will not be extinguished.
In other words, the problem is that a treaty is a promise between countries, not a contract between individual citizens. Individuals do not lose their claims as individual rights, but the state does not act for them. The Supreme Court of Korea interpreted that the jurisdiction would not be extinguished. The first point is whether or not jurisdiction is included.
Regarding the second tort recognition, when Japan signed the 1965 Agreement, Japan is approaching the conclusion with a consistent view that the annexation of Korea is not an illegal act under international law. The eight articles presented by the South Korean side in the agreement are about claims for the property of natural persons (individuals), but it is written and agreed in the agreement to abandon them. And it is not the concept of compensation, but economic cooperation.
The Japanese annexation of Korea is not illegal because there is no fact that Japan occupied it by force and forcibly concluded it, and it was signed and stamped when the two countries signed the agreement. The letter of the emperor Sunjong's name is written on the power of attorney to delegate full authority to Prime Minister Ye Wanyong, and there is no debate about whether this is a signature, and Sunjong itself is not recognized as an emperor. There is a claim that there is no signature of Gojong, but the universal public law of international law at that time stipulates that the signature of the head of state is not always necessary for concluding a treaty.
The reason why tort recognition is the point is that the Korean side ignored the views and interpretations under international law and unilaterally recognized it as tort. Korean civil law stipulates that personal property rights and claims will be extinguished if not exercised for 20 years. In other words, normally, both the recruiter and the comfort woman have passed the extinction prescription of the claim. Looking at the cases of claims related to the claim right at the time of the annexation of Japan and South Korea in South Korea, there are a number of judgments that were dismissed because of the extinction prescription. What happens if the Japanese annexation of Korea becomes an illegal act? The claim right at point 1 does not expire. Since it is a principle of international law that the right to claim under tort has no statute of limitations, the Daiho-in Temple has unfoundedly recognized the annexation of Korea as a tort.
As mentioned above, an individual's claim will not be extinguished only on the premise of tort. The treaty exists as another matter, it is a promise between countries, and the Korean government has a strict obligation to keep the treaty.
Japanese Military comfort woman A major flaw in the scrapping of the agreement is President Moon Jae In's dissolution of the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation.
The comfort women agreement is an official agreement
South Korea does not understand the agreement
2015 Comfort Women Agreement
The claim date is from 1965. Comfort women agreement establishes foundation
With the dissolution of the foundation, former comfort women cannot negotiate with Japan
In 2021, Moon Jae-in recognized the comfort women agreement as an official agreement between the governments. I wonder if these words were uttered out of a feeling that further deterioration of Japan-Korea relations would be a problem because it would affect the economy, regarding the lawsuit filed by former comfort women against the Japanese government. The problem is that the South Korean side doesn't fully understand the contents of the 2015 agreement.
Reading the comfort women agreement, it is clear that the main purpose of the agreement is for the South Korean government to establish a ``foundation'' to support former comfort women. Based on this assumption, the comfort women issue between the two countries will be finally and irreversibly resolved. In addition, we will refrain from blaming or criticizing each other regarding this issue in the international community. The Korean government will strive to resolve the issue of the girl statue in front of the Japanese Embassy in South Korea appropriately through consultations with related organizations. The order is as follows.
2015 comfort women agreement
Japanese side:
(2) The Japanese government has been sincerely addressing this issue, and based on its experience, it has recently decided to use the Japanese government's budget to heal the emotional wounds of all former comfort women. Take measures to ease the situation. Specifically, the South Korean government established a foundation for the purpose of supporting former comfort women, provided a lump sum of funds from the Japanese government's budget, and the Japanese and South Korean governments cooperated to provide support for all former comfort women. We will carry out projects to restore the honor and dignity of comfort women and heal their emotional wounds.
2. South Korean side:
(1) The Korean government evaluates the Japanese government's statements and efforts leading up to this announcement, and the Japanese government has confirmed the above 1. On the premise that the measures stated in (2) are steadily implemented, through this announcement we confirm that, together with the Japanese government, this issue will be finally and irreversibly resolved. The Government of the Republic of Korea will cooperate with the measures taken by the Government of Japan.
The comfort women agreement states that the South Korean government will establish a foundation and work through its activities to resolve issues with former comfort women.
In other words, the entire premise of this comfort women agreement was the establishment of a foundation, and as expected, Moon Jae-in dissolved this foundation. If this is recognized as an official agreement, there is an obligation to rebuild the ``Foundation for Reconciliation and Healing.'' Since this has not been done, even if South Korea says something, it will simply be bringing up a topic unrelated to the comfort women agreement. The issue of claims was resolved in 1965.
The purpose of establishing the foundation is to carry out projects to restore the honor and dignity of former comfort women and to heal their emotional wounds. Nowhere does it say that Japan should simply distribute the 1 billion yen it contributed. In other words, South Korea has abandoned its efforts to establish a foundation and restore the honor and dignity of former comfort women.
Looking at this from a different angle, with this agreement, the comfort women issue is no longer an issue between the governments of the two countries, but an issue between the foundation and the individual former comfort women. The former comfort women are demanding that Japan's prime minister meet in person and apologize, which is an unlikely request, but let's assume it happened. That can only be the result of negotiations conducted through the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation. Without the Foundation, no one can negotiate with Japan. This is not an issue of claims or human rights, but rather an issue of default by the South Korean government, which has abandoned its efforts to establish a foundation and resolve the issue.
If you confuse the claim rights issue with the comfort women agreement, you will lose sight of the essence. The major flaw in the cancellation of this agreement is that it dissolves the Foundation.
Japanese Military comfort woman recruited through a newspaper contest. There are many questions about forced arrests from a necessity point of view.
The most questionable point is whether forced arrest of Japanese Military comfort woman was necessary.Lee Yong-soo, who is said to be a former Japanese Military comfort woman, said that the sex industry exists in modern countries and Japan, and that the balance between supply and demand seems to be balanced.In other words, the percentage of men who seek this and women who provide services as a profession.How about in Korea?It is not a situation where people should be forcibly taken away even if they omit ethical issues related to sexual morals.By the way, Japan's unemployment rate stood at 2.8 percent in September.
At that time, many people on the Korean Peninsula were too poor to find jobs, but the unemployment rate dropped dramatically due to Japanese investment, and Joseon itself was surprisingly modernized and developed.Japan was never rich during the war, but men would have to hire them first to get a job.Are there more women who need jobs financially than now?The proportion of men and women after birth or in nature is about 1:1 .It's a simple arithmetic problem.
Japanese Military comfort woman is open to the public through newspaper advertisements, as left as data from that time.And prostitution itself was legal under the laws of the time.In addition, they are paid several times as much as college-graduated men.That seems to have gathered enough people.There are many questions as to why 300,000 people were forcibly taken away.
At that time, Japanese Military comfort woman was paid a lot of money, and when I returned to Korea, I got enough money to buy a house in just about two years.
