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.
2022-09-23
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Opposition party members developing their own theories
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.
It is clear that the Cabinet decides on national ceremonies
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.
Clearly answered questions in the Diet
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.''.
Opposition parties' opinions should be at the level of approval rating
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.
The media mass-produces inequality in speech
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.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
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.
Which country did Japan invade? - Japan invaded European - controlled areas - Asian liberation and colonial policy.
When considering the aspects of Japan's war of aggression, first of all, the Korean Peninsula was made an independent state by the Treaty of Shimonoseki and was annexed by the Treaty of Annexation, so it is not included in the invasion. Taiwan was also formally ceded under the Treaty of Shimonoseki, so it was not included in the invasion. Southeast Asian countries are already Western colonies and do not have administrative powers. To be honest, Japan invaded Britain, the Netherlands, France, Portugal, and the United States. Would you call this an invasion of Asia? Viewed in this way, if China had dared to invade, it would have been China that was barely maintaining its administrative power.
Now, regarding what Japan's purpose was, if we say that Japan is no different from Western colonies in terms of increasing its national power through colonial rule, the reality is different. Japan did not adopt racist policies and developed laws, and eventually Southeast Asian countries grew to the point where they were able to fight against whites and protect their own countries on their own. War operations are meaningless unless they are linked to national interests. So these things are always related to Japan's national interests.
Historically speaking, Japan was isolated from the rest of the world until the Meiji Restoration. It took only 27 years from the establishment of the new government to its victory over the Qing Dynasty, which was said to be a world power. It would be 37 years until Japan again defeated Russia, which was said to be a world power. Next, it was in 1919 that Japan won World War I and became a permanent member of the League of Nations, so Japan isolated itself from developing countries that had never seen a steam engine, and only 51 In 2019, I will be sitting on a chair at the table at the center of the world. Japan proposed the ''Racism Discrimination Elimination Bill.''
There is probably no one who has not seen the vast area called Asia on a map. On top of that, over a long period of 400 years, the white maritime nation colonized Asian countries one after another. Japan is an island nation floating on the farthest east coast. Japan's opening to the world was related to this movement of white people. The colonization of the vast area of Asia was already approaching Japan.
Japan's Restoration and opening of the country, as well as the energy of the industrial revolution and modernization, were explosively generated during these global movements. If one country or one ethnic group in such a vast region of Asia, where so many ethnic groups live, were to unite and confront the white countries, the white people would never come to such a farthest island nation. It would be a good thing if there was even one country that could stop the invasion of white people, but unfortunately there was not a single country in Asia like that.
The main focus of Japan's colonial policy in Asia is to build a collective security system for people of color in Asia and to spread the results of Japan's Restoration to Asia. This is clearly stated in the Greater East Asia Joint Declaration, which is signed by the participating leaders from each country. If we look at history from a myopic perspective, we will not be able to understand this era.This may seem obvious, but no matter how many times you hear about former comfort women or visit coal mine sites, you will never understand this era.
Know the difference between the Rising Sun Flag and Hakenkreuz - What is the Korean historical perspective that equates them?
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.
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.
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.
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.
What are the purposes and practical benefits of the annexation of Japan and Korea? Japanese security perspective at the time
There are two main reasons why Japan annexed the Korean Peninsula. The reason that South Korea claims that it is for exploitation is completely untrue because the management of the Korean Peninsula was in the red. In other words, the amount of Japanese tax money that was spent on the Korean Peninsula was probably greater. Would you call this exploitation? Japan annexed the Korean Peninsula primarily for the purpose of defending Russia and building infrastructure from Manchuria to Busan.
It is clear that Russia's purpose is to use the Trans-Siberian Railway to colonize the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria, and in reality Russia is acquiring interests in northeastern Asia one after another. The reason why Japan carried out the Triple Intervention on the Liaodong Peninsula, which it acquired after the Sino-Japanese War, was because it did not want to hand over its Manchurian interests and because it did not want Japan to control the ports and shipping routes on the Liaodong Peninsula. The Baltic Fleet is not needed at all to colonize the continent or the Korean peninsula. The places you go by boat are places that can only be reached by boat. It's Japan, and there's another one. It's Taiwan. In other words, Russia was targeting the Japanese archipelago, the Korean Peninsula, and the Manchuria region, including Taiwan, which Japan had acquired in the Sino-Japanese War.
In 1891, Tsar Alexander III of Russia issued a royal order to build a railway that would penetrate all of Russia, and it became clear that it was not just a railway construction, but that the Trans-Siberian Railway could be constructed from both the start and end points. It was also clear that Vladivostok, which was just a stone's throw away from the Korean peninsula, would be connected to the Russian capital. The Baltic Fleet is coming there. Japan succeeded in destroying the Baltic Fleet off the coast of Tsushima, the narrowest sea area, but what would happen if it were to pass through? If Russia acquires the Korean Peninsula one after another and builds a military port in Busan, the Japanese archipelago will be just a stone's throw away. In this form, the Korean Peninsula would have surrounded the Japanese archipelago in a circular shape, and Japan would have had no chance against Russia, which had great national power.
With the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, the Romanov dynasty lost power, and Lenin took advantage of this to launch the Russian Revolution during World War I. This was in 1917, 12 years after the Russo-Japanese War. Still, Japan will have to be wary of the possibility that Russia will rebuild its system and send a fleet. If the Korean Peninsula becomes Japan due to the annexation of Japan and South Korea, the Russian fleet passing through the Sea of Japan will be caught in a pincer attack all the way to Vladivostok, and the situation in the Sea of Japan will be completely advantageous to Japan. Masu. In other words, Japan surrounded the Sea of Japan.
As a result of the Russo-Japanese War, Japan acquired the railway between Harbin and Port Arthur, which later became the South Manchurian Railway, under the Treaty of Portsmouth. And Russia's interests in Manchuria were largely rejected.
After Korea became an independent nation after the Sino-Japanese War, Japan obtained the right to build a railway on the Korean Peninsula, and built a railway across the peninsula to Busan. After the Russo-Japanese War, the Harbin-Lushun railway obtained in Manchuria was expanded and connected to the railway on the Korean Peninsula. In other words, Japan built a huge infrastructure that connects the Manchurian region to Busan, which is just a stone's throw from Japan. This will ensure infrastructure by sea and land from Dalian and by rail. In other words, victory in the Russo-Japanese War meant that the Sea of Japan was surrounded in both name and reality, making it an exclusive maritime area, and connecting it with southern Manchuria by railway. will be sold to Manchukuo. In other words, Japan obtained the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria, which Russia had been trying to obtain.
This was a result of Japan's large expansion from the perspective of Japan's security against Russia, and in the past there was a critical situation in which Tsushima might become the line of defense, but now the line of defense is now more than 1000 km away. This means that it has also moved northward.
At that time, the Korean peninsula was in constant political instability and conflict, and the country's finances were in a state of collapse as it had failed to issue its own currency. Diplomatically, Japan has sold various interests to Russia due to financial issues, and the fact that the Korean Peninsula is in doubt from the perspective of Japan's security.
Japan's security was also in doubt. This was due to the size of Russia's national power at the time, and if the Russian fleet were to succeed in moving north through the Sea of Japan, Japan would be in a hopeless situation.
Conversely, by placing Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula under control, Japan's security became rock solid. For this reason, Russia was geopolitically inferior to Japan, and even when World War II broke out, the Soviet Union signed a Japan-Soviet Nonaggression Pact. If Japan were to invade the Far East while fighting the Nazis in Europe, Russia would be left alone. In this sense, one of the reasons why the management of the Korean Peninsula was in the red is that it required various investments such as building railways and developing infrastructure from Manchuria to Japan. The administration of the Korean Peninsula was financially in the red, but what if we considered it in conjunction with Manchuria?
Let's compare it with the longitudinal railway under Taiwan's rule. Even if you look at it this way, the railways on the Korean Peninsula cover more areas. This may be due to the difference in population of the Korean peninsula, which had a population of 13.13 million compared to 2.6 million at the beginning of Taiwan's rule, and the fact that the central part of Taiwan is mountainous. While the railway was completed, it seems that the Korean peninsula had a very different role as a railway that ran from Manchuria to Japan. To this day, Korean railways still use the Korean Government-General's Office railway line that was built at this time. Regarding Taiwan, it is also based on the Taiwan Governor-General Railway.
North Korea actually still uses this line, and since the South Manchurian Railway was converted to China, it naturally connects to China. When Kim Jong-un visits China, he travels by train, but he is actually using the benefits of the Korean Government-General's Office Railway.
In today's world, it is completely understandable to think that the annexation of Japan and Korea was a failure. Perhaps this is because South Korea is a country that has experienced many frustrating things for Japan, such as the occupation of Takeshima and the subsequent anti-Japanese movements. If you look at history, there is no doubt that this was caused by the annexation of Japan and Korea. On the other hand, the Manchurian region was rich in resources such as coal, oil, iron, and aluminum, and was used to produce agricultural fertilizers and machine tools. If Russia were to cut off the land route to transport this to Japan, Japan would end up there.
Speaking of what Japan failed at, it was actually in the post-war period. The restoration of diplomatic relations in 1965 was based on the conclus
The United Nations that has stopped functioning due to old - fashioned values - Japan remains an enemy country - Where is the country to be monitored?
Enemy State Clauses in the Charter of the United Nations are set forth in Articles 53, 77 and 107. The enemy country is a country that was an enemy at the time of World War II, and it is permitted to impose military sanctions against re-invasion by the enemy country without passing a resolution of the Security Council. The United Nations is a coalition of victorious nations, one of which is to monitor and control defeated nations. Needless to say, one of the enemy countries is Japan. Among such organizations, Russia, which is currently at war, and China, which aims to expand its power to Asia, exist as permanent members. China and South Korea are the countries that try to lower Japan's international status by taking advantage of the nature of the United Nations as a victorious coalition.
The contribution to the United Nations is determined based on GDP. As for the contribution, Japan, which is stipulated as an enemy country, is in 3rd place, and Germany is in 4th place. In recent years, China has been ranked second due to the growth of GDP, but Japan is still second in terms of cumulative contributions.
In the postwar US-Soviet Cold War era, NATO and the Warsaw Pact face each other. Nevertheless, this victorious alliance will continue to maintain the enemy state clause of World War II. And now, even when witnessing Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the United Nations is monitoring Japan and Germany with Russia and China as permanent members. The countries that the world must monitor will be clearly different.
