Former Prime Minister Noda's memorial speech, which maintained his dignity - How did the opposition party members who continued to spit on the deceased listen to it?
2022-10-26
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Speech by opposition party adviser who attended state funeral
Listening to former Prime Minister Noda's memorial speech, I felt that he had put a little too much into it, but I got the impression that there was no lie in his words. He also said, ``Not attending a state funeral goes against my outlook on life.'' Mr. Noda may have to leave the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan. Other party members are engaging in political activities that are truly vile and the complete opposite of a mourning contest, blaspheming and spitting on the victims who have been left speechless due to their selfish crimes.
High praise for maintaining dignity
Former Prime Minister Noda seemed to be trying to stop this kind of outrageous behavior by party members, but I would like to hear the opinions of Renho and Tsujimoto, who are trying to climb to the lowest level of vulgarity, regarding the speech by the top advisor of the Constitutional Democratic Party. I wanted to see it. In his speech, Mr. Noda stated that his political orientation was different from Mr. Abe, but he praised the character and achievements of the deceased to the fullest and fulfilled the role of a memorial speech.
How do future generations view it?
Japanese children must have been deeply shocked by the unreasonable murder of their country's most important person. On top of that, it is easy to imagine that the members of the Diet who are riding high on the victims and claiming victory will be shocked. As a former prime minister, Mr. Noda deserves praise for at least trying to convey that this is not the case in Japan.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Is the Unification Church issue a problem of separation of church and state? - Abnormal public opinion that condemns people just by saying hello.
The problem started with the murder of the former prime minister
There is no law that says no to politicians getting involved in religion
What are the benefits of specific religions from the country
Incoherent media tone
The issue of the Unification Church has become somewhat incomprehensible in Japan. It is said that the mother of the person responsible for the incident in which former Prime Minister Abe was shot and killed was a member of the Unification Church, and that her past misfortunes related to this were the motive behind the incident. Former Prime Minister Abe reportedly gave a speech at the Unification Church. However, this is still just a statement before the trial. I don't even know if that's the real motive.
Politicians are often asked to attend and give speeches at meetings of various organizations. It can also be said that this is part of political activity. Some people refer to the constitutional principle of separation of church and state, but when interpreted as a law that prohibits the state from providing benefits to specific religious groups, it can be interpreted as a law that prohibits individual politicians from drinking alcohol, regardless of which religious group they greet at. It's not something I already know.
Facilitation by the state refers to the provision of advantageous systems and benefits to specific religious groups by law. Even if they say hello at the Unification Church, they will probably also visit Yasukuni Shrine, and if the Dalai Lama of Tibetan Buddhism visits Japan, will the Japanese Prime Minister meet him? He will probably meet the Pope when he visits Japan. Does this violate the principle of separation of church and state? We just met.
The problem with the Unification Church is simply a question of how to regulate large donations to religious organizations that violate public order and morals, as well as forced requests, and is far from an issue of the separation of church and state.
Japan received a warm welcome at the Bandung Conference. Gratitude from each country for colonial liberation.
Shunichi Kase, Counselor for Foreign Affairs, attended the first Asian-African Conference in 1955, which was attended by 29 countries, and described the reactions of each country at the time as follows:
People from both Africa and Asia welcomed the event with comments such as ``Thank you for coming'' and ``Thanks to Japan.'' The Greater East Asia Joint Declaration, which established Japan's brave fight for the peoples of Asia and its significance, shines in history. If Japan had not issued the Greater East Asia Declaration and made the liberation of the Asian peoples the purpose of the war, or if Japan had not sacrificed and fought for Asia, we would still be under British control. It remained a colony, a Dutch colony, a French colony. Today's Asia exists because Japan made great sacrifices and fought bravely for the Asian people. That's what it meant.
People from both Africa and Asia welcomed the event with comments such as "Thank you for coming" and "Thanks to Japan." If Japan had not fought with such sacrifices, we would still be a colony of England, France, and the Netherlands. The Greater East Asia Joint Declaration, which established Japan's brave fight for the peoples of Asia and its significance, shines in history.
The Asian-African Conference was held as a place for the Asian and African countries that gained independence one after another after the war to unite in mutual recognition of national self-determination.
Ten principles for peace adopted at the first conferenceFundamental human rights and the United Nations Respecting the purpose and principles of the Charter
Respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries
Recognize the equality of all human beings and the equality of all nations, large and small.
Do not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries
Respect the right to individual or collective self-defense under the United Nations Charter
Do not use collective defense for the special interests of great powers. Also, do not put pressure on other countries.
Do not jeopardize the territorial integrity or political independence of other countries through invasion, threat of invasion, or use of force.
International disputes are resolved by peaceful means
Promote mutual benefits and cooperation
Respecting justice and international obligations
Korea always says they represent Asia, but they don't represent .
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.
National debt is not the people's debt - The country is not a company - Breakdown of government bond holdings that still do not penetrate public opinion.
The image at the beginning shows the breakdown of Japanese government bond holdings. I sometimes see people say that national debt is the nation's debt or that it is the same as corporate debt, but national debt is the government's debt, not the people's debt. Even if a country is compared to a company, companies do not borrow money from their employees. Debt comes from outside the company, and in this case, it involves purchasing Japanese government bonds from overseas. If most of the debt is overseas, it is natural that the company will default if it cannot be repaid. Purchases of Japanese government bonds from overseas account for 7.3%.
If you really want to say that it is the same as a company, would you say that purchases in Japan are borrowed and borrowed within the company or within the group company? Yoichi Takahashi considers the Bank of Japan to be the same as a subsidiary of the government, and explains that it is the same in terms of consolidation, regardless of whether interest is charged. The Bank of Japan holds 53.2% of Japanese government bonds. He is well known for introducing BS to show that the country holds government assets equivalent to the government's debts (excluding the holdings of the Bank of Japan). The total amount of government assets ranks first in the world, exceeding both the United States and China. Below is the balance sheet (BS) of Japan.
Furthermore, Japanese government bonds are mainly traded in yen, which means that there is no change in value based on foreign currencies. In the case of foreign currency transactions, if the value of your home currency plummets, the face value of your debt will rise accordingly. Suppose your country's currency drops to half its value. Alternatively, if the foreign currency used when trading government bonds doubles, the debt will also double, but since the transaction is in Japanese yen, there will be no effect at all. In an extreme case, former Prime Minister Aso said that repayment would be possible by increasing the number of yen bids. In this case, there will be inflation and the value of the yen will fall, but the theory is that the debt can be repaid because it is the face value of the yen. This was actually said by Taro Aso, a former Prime Minister and former Minister of Finance.
Secondly, the Japanese government is also the world's No. 1 creditor country. In other words, they have foreign bonds and foreign assets. The fact that we are currently talking about national debt as a problem is actually making a fuss about only the debt part, and in fact, Japan has the most foreign assets in the world. This assumes that the government bonds are denominated in yen as mentioned earlier, and if more yen is printed, the value of the yen will fall and the yen will become weaker. If you do this, overseas assets purchased in dollars or euros will increase in value when converted to yen, so the difference will be a large income. Even with the current depreciation of the yen, a large profit margin was generated due to the increase in the valuation of overseas assets.
Representative Sanae Takaichi has advocated the ``Japanese Economic Resilience Plan,'' which calls for a temporary freeze on primary balance (PB) regulations and calls for industrial investment through the issuance of government bonds. She says that even if inflation were caused by printing more yen, it would not have a big impact if the inflation rate was less than 2%. Currently, the yen is depreciating due to the difference in interest rates due to the Fed's interest rate hikes, but the original goal is to induce a depreciation of the yen through the issuance of government bonds and increase the number of bonds, strengthen international competitiveness, and increase wages and tax revenues through rising prices. If the manufacturing industry returns to Japan due to the weak yen, GDP and tax revenue will increase, and government debt can be reduced. For now, this is just the effect of a weaker yen due to interest rate differences, but we are already seeing significant results.
In other words, those who claim that government debt is bad have the completely opposite idea. What ruined Japan after the bursting of the bubble was rather the primary balance discipline, the inability to focus on single-year income and expenditures and to make long-term investments. Japan tightened its finances in the most critical economic situation. If it is the same as a company, when the company is in crisis, the company's safe is closed like a shell, and for the past 30 years, the company has been operating in a state of poverty and not being able to make long-term investments. This is the so-called curse of PB by the Ministry of Finance.
Quad's strategy is geopolitically rational; simply dispersing the Chinese military will give it an advantage.
China causing border problems in all directions
Military expenditure is just the total amount
Regional dispersion reduces military strength by half
Chinese encirclement should be strengthened
China has long borders and its strategy should be to engage in peaceful diplomacy with neighboring countries, but for some reason the opposite is true for that country. In that respect, the United States is smart and has formed a North American alliance with Canada and Mexico, and among the countries with which they share borders, I think Russia is the only hostile element.
China is so selfish that it is happy to make enemies in all directions, but Quad is outwitting them. Comparing military expenditures by country is helpful, but it is on a different level from practical ability.
In large countries, military power is dispersed. Will Yunnan's soldiers and tanks be able to participate in the fighting in Fujian? Even if it is counted as military expenditure, it is not a real military force.
If Japan, the United States, and Taiwan cooperate in the event of a Taiwanese emergency, many Chinese forces will head there, but what will happen if the Indian army invades the Kashmir region during that time?Australia, Vietnam, and the Philippines will suppress the Spratly Islands. be able to.
South Korea's geographical advantage in the Quad lies in its operations in the Northeast, but Moon Jae-in seems unable to understand this at all. In the event of a Taiwanese emergency, it would be a good idea for countries with border issues with China to close their borders one after another.
