Know the difference between the Rising Sun Flag and Hakenkreuz - What is the Korean historical perspective that equates them?
2022-02-12
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
National flag of the defeated country
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.
The Rising Sun flag is a naval flag recognized under international law
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.
Nazis always quoted
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.
POINT 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.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Untimely protests against state funerals - Media incitement that is getting worse - The media is not representative of the people.
The size of the opposition that makes you laugh
What is the argument that divided the nation into two?
What is the content of the poll?
I don't understand the difference from sports newspapers
Mass media turning into sports newspaper due to slump in sales
The process of dividing national opinion into two
The media does not represent the people
Report only the facts, not opinions
On the day of the demonstration by opponents of former Prime Minister Abe's state funeral, it is said that there were around 100 to 200 people, based on a partial count. Police said there were 500 people. It is said that 4,183 people attended the state funeral, and approximately 23,000 people donated flowers (as announced on the 27th).
What exactly was the debate that reportedly divided the nation into two? Kudanshita, where the state funeral was held, is close to Meiji University's Surugadai campus. The university has traditionally had a strong left-wing student movement. Of course, ordinary students have nothing to do with it, but even if left-wing activists in Tokyo gathered together, it gives the impression that there were too few of them.
What is the content of public opinion polls conducted by the media? The problem is the questions. Depending on how the question is asked, it is possible to lead the data to the result intended by the questioner. I would like all public opinion poll data to be disclosed.
It seems like all mass media are now doing what sports newspapers and other media were doing before the decline of major mass media due to the spread of SNS.
In order to sell articles with headlines, sports newspapers publish speculative information in the headlines that have not been fact-checked, and sell them at station kiosks even though they say that the information is unconfirmed by adding a question mark at the end. It will be done. The "?" part is hidden from view due to the way it is displayed.
Many people were surprised and tolerated it, saying, ``It can't be helped because it's a sports newspaper,'' but no one believed it and it was just a form of entertainment. That's what all the media are doing now.
The underlying issue is sales. Sports newspapers used to take desperate measures to increase circulation, but I wonder if many media outlets now think of this as the right way to go. What is more troubling than sports newspapers is that the major media barely have the power to stir up public opinion.
Using the current issue of state funerals as an example, when the opposition party first objects to a state funeral, the media immediately jumps in and reports on it. At this stage, the ruling party and the opposition party are in conflict, so in that sense they are theoretically divided into two parties. However, this does not mean that national opinion is divided into two.
Then, the media outlets loudly convey the opinions of the opposition parties, and the process of dividing national opinion into two begins. It is incitement. First of all, there is a process in which the media themselves agitate and increase the number of opposition parties, and then they cultivate them as if it were a big problem divided into two.
They increase sales by raising the grade of articles based on irrelevant opinions and information by several levels. The more confrontational the structure, the more sensational it is. This is a common method that the media has used in the past on various issues.
The media sometimes uses expressions such as ``representing the people,'' but it feels very strange and even unpleasant. They are just office workers, not representatives of the people. When did they receive the mandate of the people? When did he run for election and when was he elected to the Diet?
If you're an average office worker, you might go to a yakitori restaurant for a drink with your colleagues on the way home from work and talk about politics. The media are just office workers, so that should be fine. You should not express your opinion to the people as if you were a representative of the people. We need to stop privatizing public airwaves and simply collect and report the facts.
The political reform outline of 1989 has become a mere shell - What is Prime Minister Kishida's formulation of
One faction after another announced that they would be disbanded, and Prime Minister Kishida also mentioned the dissolution of the Kochi-kai. Looking at the Political Reform Outline drawn up in 1989, we can see that it does little to address the current party ticket issue. This is an outline adopted by the Liberal Democratic Party in the wake of the Recruit Incident. Prime Minister Kishida has said that he will formulate "new rules," but what is the position of the political reform outline that his own party has drawn up in the past? You can read the full text of the outline by clicking on the link, but here we will describe the table of contents and main points.
Excerpt of the Political Reform Outline
Revising and strengthening the Code of Conduct and the Political Ethics Review Board
Enactment of law to disclose assets of members of the Diet to establish political ethics
Strengthening the ban on donations to ceremonial occasions, etc.
Regulations on business card advertisements, New Year's cards, etc.
Strengthening regulations on posters, etc.
Reducing personnel and office costs
Stock trading regulations
Restraint of parties and new regulations
Concentration of donations to political parties and support for member activities
Expansion of public aid to members of the Diet and examination of political party laws focusing on state subsidies
Fundamental reform of the electoral system
Reduction of total constants
Correcting disparities
Fundamental reform of the electoral district system
Exercising the uniqueness of the House of Councilors
Reform of the current proportional representation system
Reducing the total number of constants and correcting the imbalance in the allocation of constants
Enhancing deliberations and easy-to-understand parliamentary management
Respect for majority rule
Achieving efficient parliamentary management
Determination to remove and eliminate the harmful effects of factions
Transition to a modern national party
Reflections of tribal members
Improving the number of winnings system and ensuring that rewards and punishments are mandatory
New rules for determining candidates
Establishment of decentralizationMay 23, 1989 Political Reform Outline
Has anything been achieved in this? Looking at the recent party ticket issue, it appears that it has largely faded away, but Prime Minister Kishida recently announced that he is considering disbanding the Kochi-kai. Mr. Nikai's Shijo-kai has announced that it will be disbanded, and the Seiwa-kai, which started it, will also be disbanded. Was it because of the faction itself? In short, it was probably a matter of not reporting political funds. Looking at public opinion to date, it appears that the majority opinion was that the existence of factions themselves was not a problem as a forum for policy discussion, and the prosecutor's investigation also focused on undocumented issues.
Prime Minister Kishida has said that he will create new party rules while dissolving factions, but first he will create check items from this political reform outline and evaluate each item in stages to see what has been achieved and to what extent. Why not consider it? Instead, they will consider "new rules."
The negative reason for the creation of factions is related to the structure of the parliamentary cabinet system. Personnel decisions within the party are all about internal party theory, and almost everything is shaped by interpersonal relationships. Your treatment will change depending on which trend you go with. Since the prime minister is the leader of the largest ruling party, the choice of leader is based on internal party theory and is determined by votes from party members based on their factions. On the other hand, if we adopt a dual representation system, no matter how many theories we create within the party, the top positions are decided by the people, so there is little point. It is said that in the United States, which has a presidential system, there are almost no cliques like there are in Japan.
It is said that one of the reasons why Japan has adopted a parliamentary cabinet system is to limit the authority of the top government. The reason is that they do not have much authority in the sense of reflecting on past wars after defeat. For this reason, Japanese politics takes a very long time to make decisions. In that sense, it can be said that the system is very vulnerable to emergencies. In a dual representation system, the people choose the top person, so the quality of their votes is different from that of other members of the Diet. Furthermore, the number of votes that would be obtained based on the assumption that all citizens would participate in the vote would be vastly different. Members of the Diet are simply elected in the regions in which they run for office. For this reason, the president is given greater authority than the prime minister, who is elected by members of the parliament. This authority also exerts great power in emergencies.
Constitutional Democratic Party member Konishi continued to complain at ABEMA TV that there was no legal basis for former Prime Minister Abe's state funeral.
Opposition party member developing original theory
It is clear that the Cabinet decides on national ceremonies
Clearly answered in parliamentary questions
Opposition parties' opinions should be as good as their approval ratings
The media mass-produces inequality of speech
Congressman Konishi of the Constitutional Democratic Party continued to complain on ABEMA Prime that there is no legal basis for former Prime Minister Abe's state funeral. He developed his own theory that the ceremonies performed by the state in the Cabinet Establishment Act referred to the ceremonies performed by the imperial family.
Looking at the Cabinet Establishment Act, Article 4, Paragraph 3, Item 33 states, ``Matters related to national ceremonies and affairs related to ceremonies and events conducted by the Cabinet (excluding matters that fall under the jurisdiction of other ministries).'' It is written. The Imperial Household Ceremonies set out in the Imperial House Law are interpreted to be included in this, and Article 7 of the Constitution states, ``The Emperor, with the advice and approval of the Cabinet, shall perform the following acts in matters of state for the people.'' It becomes.
This is done with the advice and approval of the Cabinet under the Cabinet Establishment Act. In other words, nowhere does it say that the national ceremonies specified in the Cabinet Establishment Act refer only to ceremonies of the imperial family.
He asked a question in the Diet about the legal basis of the cabinet decision for state funerals, and Prime Minister Kishida clearly stated, ``Holding a state funeral, which is a national ceremony, based on a cabinet decision, means that the cabinet has decided to conduct a national ceremony.'' This is included in the function of administrative power, and Article 4, Paragraph 3, Item 33 of the Cabinet Office Establishment Act clearly states that the Cabinet Office is responsible for affairs related to national ceremonies. I think it is possible, as it is clear in the law that the performance of national ceremonies that include national ceremonies is included in the functions of administrative power.''.
I wonder what the media means by equality of reporting. It is said that reporting the voices of opposition parties equally means not reporting only the opinions of a particular political party, but is reporting the opinions of opposition parties in the same manner really equal reporting equality? . According to opinion polls, even though the largest opposition party is the Nippon Ishin no Kai, it only has about 6% of the vote, while the Constitutional Democratic Party has about 5%. It is hard to believe that these opinions are represented by the number of seats that stand against the ruling party, and it is far from possible that they represent the voices of the people. In other words, reporting should be around 5% to 6% of the total, which would also be consistent with the meaning of equality.
On the contrary, Japan's current media outlets report on the claims of these opposition parties more than they do on the claims of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. Recently, the opposition parties have become weak and are making a fuss by simply making counterarguments and making a fuss as if it were a flaming tactic, and the media, whose audience ratings continue to decline, are taking advantage of this to make numbers, which seems to be creating this inequality. appear. The media should mainly report the opinion that the Cabinet decision to hold a state funeral based on the Cabinet Establishment Act is legal.
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.
After the tragic death of former Prime Minister Abe, Japan will carry out Abe's will and amend its constitution - calling for the unity of the Liberal Democratic Party.
Election activities, security issues
One SP for each former prime minister?
Other former prime ministers who have not been seen since leaving office
Mr. Abe continued his activities with light security
Restrict Korean sovereignty
What Abe wanted to achieve
Former Prime Minister Abe was killed by a bullet, and it has been difficult for him to sort out his feelings, but it seems that public opinion is starting to sort itself out somehow. The current situation is targeting the Nara Prefectural Police in the area where former Prime Minister Abe gave a speech. Naturally, if the police had questioned the perpetrator beforehand, or there was a gap of several seconds before the second shot was fired, I myself wonder why the SP could not have arrested him during that time. I also thought about it.
However, when we piece together information that has been reported, it appears that in Japan, after the prime minister retires, there will be one SP. It is speculated that the Nara Prefectural Police, who were in charge of the election speech that day, were providing security for normal campaign activities. And if you look at the video, you can see it in a 360-degree open state. It would be difficult to provide security in a 360-degree open space. If it is at least 180 degrees, it is limited to the front, left and right, but even then it seems impossible to completely defend with one SP and regular prefectural police.
In other words, does this mean that former Prime Minister Abe went to support candidates in the House of Councilors election in an environment where he could not defend himself even if someone killed him if he had that intention? Therein lies the essence of the problem. Normally in Japan, after a prime minister resigns, he is rarely seen, and his political activities are rarely reported in the media. I don't know if the reason is that security is getting thinner at each level, but that's what happened to successive prime ministers. Considering the danger to myself, that might be the normal thing to do. But Abe was different.
Former Prime Minister Abe's reason for resigning as Prime Minister was due to worsening of his chronic ulcerative colitis, but after getting better with medication, he began energetically supporting Liberal Democratic Party members for the future of Japan. He even created a YouTube channel and will be cheering for Liberal Democratic Party candidates in the House of Councilors election. This is despite the fact that they are only given the security mentioned above. Considering this, it can be said that Mr. Abe continued to enthusiastically engage in political activities even though his life was in danger.
I don't know where public opinion will conclude this issue, but my honest feeling is that this is a direct attack on Japan's democracy and an incident that has destroyed the spiritual pillars of the Japanese right. We cannot retreat even one millimeter against this attack. Former Prime Minister Abe is a politician. His earnest wish was to amend the Constitution. If we are to mourn his death, he must accomplish this.
