The Taiwanese emergency is a Japanese emergency, and it is not clear what the basis is - a basis that assumes various things is necessary.
2022-09-19
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Taiwan emergency is Japan emergency
The Chinese government reacted sensitively to former Prime Minister Abe's online participation from Japan at a symposium held in Taiwan, where he said, ``Taiwan's emergency is Japan's emergency.'' Thinking about this matter, Japan and Taiwan do not have a military alliance to defend Taiwan, so it would be difficult to realize it in that sense. The U.S. law regarding Taiwan relations is extremely ambiguous regarding the participation of the U.S. military in the war.
Japan confirms application of security to Senkaku Islands
Former Prime Minister Abe was particular about whether the Senkaku Islands were within the scope of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, and received assurances from Mr. Trump, and later in a telephone conversation with President Biden, former Prime Minister Suga confirmed that the Senkaku Islands were covered by the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.
The Taiwanese emergency is a Japanese emergency that seems to have no basis in many legal and treaty terms, but if you think about it, the Senkaku Islands themselves seem to be the key to it.
Taiwan first claims sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands
In the first place, Taiwan was the first country to claim sovereignty over Japan's Senkaku Islands. Three months later, China claimed the claim. Since China calls Taiwan its own territory, what belongs to Taiwan belongs to China. It seems like he made his point in a hurry.
If China were to invade Taiwan, it would logically be considered an invasion of the Senkaku Islands, which are claimed by China and Taiwan. In other words, the conditions for Japan-U.S. security and the activation of the right of collective self-defense are in place. I cannot believe that former Prime Minister Abe would pay baseless lip service.
Read it together
China's territorial waters violations started in 2012, and what is the cause? - The Senkaku Islands issue became apparent after nationalization. Where did the Senkaku Islands issue begin and where did it emerge? 1971 and 2012.In June 1971, Taiwan's Foreign Ministry claimed sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands.In response, the People's Republic of China claimed sovereignty in September 1971.The assumption began in 1969 when the U.N. ECAFE announced the possibility of oil reserves.At that time, Chiang Kai-shek claimed ownership of mainland China, and China claimed ownership of Taiwan, so it took only three months to declare ownership.
It is said that in 1972 Japan-China normalization of diplomatic relations, there was communication between the two sides that the Senkaku Islands issue would not be a problem if we did not make it a problem.It means the shelved agreement. The graph shows the number of Chinese ships invading territorial waters.It is clear that there will be no trouble for 40 years until September 2012.
In 2010, a Chinese fishing boat collided with a Japanese Coast Guard ship and arrested the captain of a Chinese ship.The captain of the Chinese ship claimed that the Japanese had been hitting his ship, and it turned into a confrontation between Japan and China.The Kan administration of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) released the captain for no reason and it has been criticized by public opinion. Meanwhile, four Japanese have been arrested and detained on suspicion of espionage in China.Tanigaki, then president of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), who was the opposition party in questioning the Diet at the time, was needless arresting is incorrect. He pointed out that deportation was sufficient on the spot.
Due to opposition from China and criticism from Japan, the next Noda administration nationalized the Senkaku Islands in September 2012.As a result, the problem spreads and large-scale anti-Japanese riots erupt in China.Then Chinese ships began to invade their territorial waters.In other words, the two countries have claimed sovereignty from the beginning, and if Japan declares nationalization, it will mean abolishing the theory of shelving, and China will claim sovereignty head-on.
As a result, it can be said that the nationalization of the Senkaku Islands was correct in the current Xi Jinping administration.The declaration of nationalization will also lead to Japan-U.S. security.Tanigaki would have been more correct in dealing with a simple case of fishing boat clashes. In any case, the problem originated in Taiwan, but Senkaku Islands connected Japan and Taiwan, making it an important island for Japan-U.S. Taiwan cooperation.
Sea defense is extensive
Another theory is that defense in battle at sea will cover a wide area, and that Japan's remote islands near Taiwan will also be involved in the battle. In this case as well, the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty applies, and if Japan enters the war, the U.S. military may also participate.
The Taiwan Strait is a sea lane in East Asia
The Taiwan Strait is an important sea route for transporting oil and natural materials to Japan. If China were to take possession of this area, Japan would be in a situation where it would have a stranglehold on the sea route through which it supplies resources. Some are claiming that this is an emergency in Japan.
In any case, China has declared in advance that the Chinese military will not turn the waters off northeastern Taiwan, including the Senkaku Islands and other remote islands of Japan, into a combat zone, and that the Taiwan Strait will be maintained as before after the invasion of Taiwan. The question is, what will happen if this happens? Still, there needs to be a basis for invoking the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.
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.
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.
The Japan - U.S. summit meeting will focus on the Ukraine issue, the Taiwan Strait, China, and IPEF. Japan significantly expands defense spending.
Japan's defense spending to expand significantly
Is the U.S. military “involved” or “intervened” in the Taiwanese emergency?
Official White House press conference record
What is Japanese leadership
Ukraine issue is Taiwan issue
What is Asian-based security?
There wasn't much that was announced at the joint press conference following the summit following President Biden's visit to Japan, but it can be summarized as: unity among allies on the Ukraine issue, commitment to the China issue, the Taiwan Strait issue, and the establishment of IPEF. Examples include cooperation in economic initiatives aimed at the future.
If I had to say, the noteworthy points are that the United States supports Japan's bid to become a permanent member of the United Nations, the United States' understanding of Japan's significant expansion of its defense budget, and the fact that the G7 meeting will be held in Hiroshima, and that there will be no rule-based changes to the status quo. The G7 should be a place where both Europe and Asia can come together and reach an agreement that this will not be tolerated.
In response to a reporter's question about whether the United States would intervene militarily in the event of an emergency in Taiwan, President Biden clarified that it would. He said there was no change to the "one China policy" and that this did not mean China had the right to use military force to seize Taiwan. However, there are cases where "get involved to" used here is translated as "involvement" and cases where "get involved to" is translated as "intervention."
In the official White House press conference transcript, Q : You didn't want to get involved in the Ukraine conflict militarily for obvious reasons. Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan, if it comes to that?PRESIDENT BIDEN: Yes.
(See link at the bottom of the article). Did Mr. Biden answer in the sense of involvement or intervention? Incidentally, TBS translates it as involvement, while Nippon Television translates it as intervention. Normally translated, it would mean involvement...
In recent years, the United States has begun to say about Japan that it has high expectations for Japan's leadership. Regarding Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the United States has focused on providing weapons and imposing economic sanctions, and has largely remained silent, giving the impression that it is a European problem that should be dealt with by Britain, Germany, and other European countries.
The Japanese government has considered the Ukraine issue as a Taiwan issue from the beginning and has continued to commit to supporting Ukraine, but President Biden's recent remarks may have been made out of the blue at a joint press conference, and the Japanese government may continue to provide weapons as usual. Does this mean involvement by, etc.?
President Biden has also stated that there will be no changes to the Taiwan issue, so it is difficult to interpret this. If the Taiwan Relations Act remains unchanged as before, there is a high possibility that the world will respond in the same way in the event of a Taiwan emergency. In other words, Taiwan will only fight by providing weapons .
The fact that the United States welcomes Japan's significant increase in defense spending also seems to be a message that Japan should take leadership in Asia's problems. Does this mean that if Japan wants to protect the Taiwan Strait, it should do so?
What was clearly evident at this joint press conference was that Prime Minister Kishida himself stated that the Japan-U.S. Alliance is Japan's only alliance, and that Japan is protected by the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. In other words, the United States is currently protecting Japan.
This means that Japan will have to significantly expand its defense spending, build up the ability to defend itself, and think about the Taiwanese crisis on its own terms. Otherwise, he cannot become the leader of Asia. If the United States is only indirectly involved, who will protect democracy in Asia? That only exists in Japan.
Study abroad boom in Japan at the end of the Qing Dynasty - The Korean peninsula missed the chance to modernize, and China failed to inherit the revolutionary spirit and plunged into civil war.
Japan study abroad boom in China
Studying in Japan begins with 13 students
Korea became an independent nation in the Sino-Japanese War
The Korean Peninsula missed the chance to modernize
Even after the Qing Dynasty fell, the revolutionary spirit was not inherited
Wang Zhaoming government established after the Sino-Japanese War
In China, a boom in studying abroad in Japan arose after the Sino-Japanese War. The purpose of studying abroad was to learn about Japan's modernization and policy of enriching the country and strengthening its military. Emperor Guangxu, Kang Youwei, and other Chinese intellectuals carried out the Restoration movement of ``transformation and self-strength,'' but it was thwarted by the pressure of conservative forces. Subsequently, educational reforms at the time were modeled on Japan, including the abolition of the imperial examination system (1905), the establishment of the modern school system (1904), the promulgation of the "Educational Philosophy" (1906), and the trial of compulsory education (1907). This is what we sought.
In 1896, for the first time, 13 young people were sent by the Qing Dynasty government to study in Japan, where they studied Japanese, chemistry, physics, mathematics, and other subjects for three years at the Tokyo National Higher Normal School's cram school. It is said that approximately 20,000 international students had come to Japan by the time of the Xinhai Revolution in 1911.
Political figures include Zhou Enlai, Li Dabei, Chen Duxiu, Wei Bei, Dong Yiwu, Chiang Kai-shek, Man Zhongshi, and Wang Zhaomei. Sun Yat-sen came to Japan as an exile in 1895. Cultural figures included Lu Xun, Guo Muruo, Tian Han, and He Xianggong.
While Joseon Dynasty was aiming for Chinese-style modernization, the Sino-Japanese War broke out in the wake of the Gongbo Peasants' War, and with Japan's victory, the Korean Peninsula became an independent nation. Kim Ok-gyun, who called for Japanese-style modernization, was assassinated about four months before the Sino-Japanese War began.
The movement of modernization on the Korean Peninsula was actually faster than in China. However, it did not become a big sensation and was crushed by the Joseon Dynasty, which had an old political system. Ironically, this was also due to pro-China policies. On the other hand, immediately after losing the Sino-Japanese War, China changed its policy toward Japanese-style modernization. Koten Miyazaki describes Kim Ok-gyun, who was exiled to Japan and was assassinated in Shanghai, as a person who should have become the Sun Yat-sen of the Korean Peninsula. Miyazaki, along with Takeshi Inukai and others, supported Sun Yat-sen's Xinhai Revolution. The Korean Peninsula has failed to modernize on its own.
As a result, in 1911, Sun Yat-sen succeeded in the Xinhai Revolution and founded the Republic of China, but as a condition of Emperor Xuantong's abdication, he made an exchange deal in which Yuan Shikai, a Beiyang warlord, became president, and the Qing dynasty ended. became increasingly authoritarian. A second revolution will begin to overthrow this. Even after the Northern Expedition was completed and Chiang Kai-shek became the president of the Nationalist Party, the division of China in the West continued. The spirit of Sun Yat-sen's revolution was to learn from Japan's Restoration and to stand together with the West and maintain our independence.
As the partition of China progressed, the Sino-Japanese War broke out, and the spirit of revolution was inherited by Wang Zhaoming's Nanjing Provisional Government. He was a close aide to Sun Yat-sen, had the experience of studying abroad in Japan, and participated in the Greater East Asia Conference. Over a long period of time, China failed in its revolution. On the contrary, the civil war between the People's Republic of China continued, and the People's Republic of China with a completely different ideology was born, not to mention Sun Yat-sen's revolution. The Japanese Restoration that Sun Yat-sen aimed for was not only about modernization, but also about achieving a rich nation and strong military in Asia, and protecting its independence from becoming a Western colony.
Japan is the only country with people of color that has succeeded in modernizing itself. It was only natural for Asian countries to learn from Japan in order to modernize.
Abe's state funeral reminded him of the greatness of the deceased - the breakaway from the post - war regime has truly begun.
People who have remained at the center of conversation
This is the end of the anti-Abe faction
Escape from the post-war regime
Former Prime Minister Abe's state funeral was held on the 27th. Looking back on this issue now, I was convinced today that this was also former Prime Minister Abe. At the same time, I felt sad, wondering if I was really saying goodbye to former Prime Minister Abe.
After Mr. Abe was shot, there was an uproar over whether or not to hold a state funeral, but the tone of the crazy people who opposed a state funeral was exactly the same as the one that was being waged during Mr. Abe's time as prime minister. Ta. Ironically, it may be thanks to the ridiculous anti-Abe people that even after Mr. Abe's murder, we still had the opportunity to support former Prime Minister Abe until today. However, what were their achievements?
Personally, if I think about former Prime Minister Abe's most important accomplishment, it is that he brought all of the Japanese people to the entrance or exit of the task of breaking away from the post-war regime.
He was probably the first Japanese prime minister to firmly declare that the Japan-Korea issue is over. What was the meaning of the joint visits to Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima with Mr. Obama? What prompted the reorganization and proposed the Quad framework for the purpose of the U.S. Seventh Fleet's existence is already a shift to a new Asia-Pacific regime. What does UN reform mean? The United Nations is the postwar regime itself. He even took on the challenge of making that change.
What the Japanese people have regained is their pride as Japanese people rather than the economy. That's thanks to Shinzo Abe.
