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.
The letter he wrote to his fiancée before the suicide attack contained nothing but compassion for the people left behind. This is a letter that Captain Toshio Anazawa sent to his fiancée before the suicide attack (partial excerpt). Chieko received the letter four days after Captain Anazawa passed away. The true state of mind of a man who goes into battle is not filled with any grudge against the enemy, but only consideration for those left behind.
-----
~I have nothing but to wish for your happiness.
Don't get hung up on the small principles of the past. you don't live in the past
Have the courage to forget the past and find new opportunities in the future
You live in the reality of the coming moments. Anazawa no longer exists in the real world.
It may have been extremely abstract, but I hope that it will be useful in various concrete situations that will occur in the future, and that it is not a selfish or one-sided statement. I am speaking from a purely objective standpoint. The cherry blossoms in this area have already fallen. I'm sure my favorite maiden will be visiting here soon. I'm not sure what to say at this point, but I'd like to express my feelings a little.
●Easy to read book
``Manyo'', ``haiku collection'', ``dōjō'', ``one-point bell'', ``hometown''
●Pictures I want to see
Raphael “Virgin and Child” Hogai “Sad Mother Kannon”
●Chieko: We meet often, talk often, and have no sex.
The future will be bright and cheerful. Not giving up on herself, she cheerfully smiles and marches on.
Toshio
Chieko-sama
Will increased defense spending enable Japan to create innovations never seen before? - Amendment to Article 9 of the Constitution, revival of the military industry, and technological development.
Aims after constitutional amendment
Japan becomes a military power
The history of weapon development is a history of technological innovation
A world of innovation that cannot be imagined in everyday life
Japan should revise Article 9 of its constitution and revive its military industry. As I recall, Congressman Takaichi was the first member of the Diet to speak clearly about this issue. Amendments to Article 9 of the Constitution will expand Japan's military power and increase its defense capabilities, which will greatly reduce the risk of war. My personal opinion from the beginning has been that simply reducing the risk is a failure, and that technological innovation will be born by developing various military technologies in the name of military budgets.
If that happens, there will be countries and people who ridicule Japan's efforts to become a military power and try to get in the way, but it would be better to say clearly, ``Japan will become a military power.'' No engineer is aiming for second or third place in the technological development competition. When it comes to Japanese technology, it is normal to aim for the top in the world. Too many people think that if they developed a weapon, they would be murderers.
What exactly are the bronze tools used for thousands of years BC? It is a weapon and a vessel. What is iron? This is also used as a weapon, agricultural tool, and various decorations. These processing techniques were developed to defeat the enemy in war. Countries that acquired these processing techniques gained supremacy over their regions and acquired cultures such as bronzeware and iron-related crafts.
What exactly is an aircraft? Don't stop thinking just because the Wright Brothers achieved their dream of flying. The development of airplanes progressed with the investment of national funds for use in the war, making them faster, safer, lighter, and larger, and they were put into practical use during World War I. What exactly are passenger planes commonly used today? Grumman and Boeing are in the military industry.
Hitler was passionate about automobile development and invested a large amount of state funds. At that time, automobiles were the pinnacle of industrial technology, and were connected to the drive and performance of military vehicles and tanks. Winning in automobile races increased national prestige. Why are BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Volks still so strong?During this era, Germany won the technological competition.
What are nuclear weapons? A bomb that uses the enormous energy released during nuclear fission. So what is a nuclear power plant? The electricity for the PC I am currently using is also generated by nuclear power.
Is the country that developed the coronavirus vaccine a medical technology powerhouse? Completely different. These are countries that conduct military research into bacterial and viral weapons.
The technology to defeat the enemy in war is a technological innovation for survival that assumes the extraordinary, and has no taboos. Human history has proven that this is a field where innovations and paradigm shifts that cannot occur in everyday life can occur in the sense of achieving a goal using various methods. In other words, Japan should seriously aim to become a military power. This is because, at the same time, unimaginable technological innovations that can be used for peaceful purposes will be born.
World's First Anti-Racism Bill - Proposed by Japan, a Permanent Member of the League of Nations.
I wonder if Japan appears in world history around the time of the Sino-Japanese War. The world took note of the great accomplishments of the eastern island nation, and the West, which had considered China a great power, came to call China the ``sleeping lion.''
The next great achievement was the Russo-Japanese War. Heihachiro Togo, who won the Battle of the Sea of Japan, was featured on the front page of newspapers around the world, and is said to be the first Japanese person to be featured on the front page of a newspaper around the world. After that, Japan rose to the forefront of the world and became a permanent member of the League of Nations in 1919.
In 1919, Japan became the first country in the world to propose a bill to eliminate racial discrimination at the United Nations. Already during this period, Japan objected to the West's domination of Asia. Former Foreign Minister Nobuaki Makino criticized the racial discrimination caused by Western countries' colonies in various parts of Asia. (Nobuaki Makino: second from the left in the front row of the photo)
This is the world's first international organization to introduce a bill on the elimination of racial discrimination, with two representatives from France and two from Italy in favor, 11 from Greece, the Republic of China, Portugal, Czechoslovakia, the Kingdom of Serbs, the Kingdom of Croatia, Slovenes and Japan, and the United Kingdom against it. ・There were 5 people from the United States, Poland, Brazil, and Romania, so there was a majority in favor.
Many Japanese people think that the elimination of racial discrimination is a concept developed from the West, but in fact, it was Japan that first called for the elimination of racial discrimination.
At the time, Britain was abducting black people from Africa and trading them as slaves to the Americas. America used black slaves to grow cheap agricultural products and export them to countries around the world. The American representative argued that this was a no-go because it was not unanimous. Is there such a thing as a principle of unanimity among the 16 members?
Makino once objected, saying that the bill could be passed by majority vote, but the bill was rejected in accordance with the principle of unanimity in the United States, which was already a superpower at the time. This was nine years after the annexation of Japan and Korea and 22 years before the start of the Greater East Asia War.
South Korea continues to say that it was discriminated against and deprived of by Japan, but Japan was fighting in international organizations on a completely different scale. The annexation of Japan and South Korea and the annexation of Taiwan are assimilation policies that are completely different from Western-style colonies. Assimilation policy means that the Japanese, Koreans, and Taiwanese living there have equal rights and are subject to the rule of law.
The Greater East Asia War was a war between Japan and the white countries that ruled Asia, based on the idea that all Asian countries should maintain their independence and co-prosperity. The Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere concept was not something that suddenly appeared on a whim.
Korea claims that it suffered racial discrimination during the annexation of Japan and Korea, but it seems that they do not really understand what racial discrimination at that time meant.
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.
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.
