Former Prime Minister Aso plans to visit South Korea and meet with President Yoon - A person who has been monitoring Japan - Korea issues from within the Cabinet
2022-11-03
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Mr. Aso visits Korea
Former Prime Minister Aso is visiting South Korea, but the Japanese government has said that it is part of parliamentary diplomacy and not as Prime Minister Kishida's special envoy. What did Mr. Aso come to Korea for?
Mr. Aso has been observing Japan-Korea relations for a long time from within the Cabinet
Mr. Aso was the prime minister who concluded the Japan-Korea currency swap during the 2008 Korean currency crisis, which occurred during the Lehman shock in the United States. After rebuilding the economy, the Lee Myung-bak administration said that Japan's aid was unnecessary. Mr. Aso subsequently served as deputy prime minister from the second Abe administration to the Suga administration. During that time, he was involved in various Japan-Korea issues, including Lee Myung-bak's landing on Takeshima, the comfort women agreement, the suspension of the Japan-Korea currency swap, the radar irradiation incident, the forced labor judgment, the comfort women judgment, and the white country issue, in his capacity as vice prime minister. Become the person you were. Like former Prime Minister Abe, he will probably be the only person who has looked at a series of issues as a cabinet member.
The handover on the Korean side is in disarray
Meanwhile, in South Korea, the government changed from Lee Myung-bak to Park Geun-hye, and after impeachment, came the Moon Jae-in government, which removed all people who were said to be pro-Japanese from diplomatic relations. After that, he launched a series of anti-Japanese movements, leading to the current Yun Seok-Yue administration. In other words, on the South Korean side, there is no continuity in Japan-Korea relations, the handover is probably fragmentary, and it is highly likely that they do not understand anything other than symbolic concerns.
What will Mr. Aso present to the South Korean government
It would not be surprising if Japan-Korea relations contain a variety of other problems in addition to those that have been made public. If the problems that have come to light are just the tip of the iceberg, Mr. Aso is probably the person who knows the various problems and background behind them. In other words, it is highly likely that the meaning and content of the comprehensive solution that South Korea calls and the comprehensive solution that Japan thinks of are different.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Constitutional Democratic Party member Konishi continued to complain at ABEMA TV that there was no legal basis for former Prime Minister Abe's state funeral.
Opposition party member developing original theory
It is clear that the Cabinet decides on national ceremonies
Clearly answered in parliamentary questions
Opposition parties' opinions should be as good as their approval ratings
The media mass-produces inequality of speech
Congressman Konishi of the Constitutional Democratic Party continued to complain on ABEMA Prime that there is no legal basis for former Prime Minister Abe's state funeral. He developed his own theory that the ceremonies performed by the state in the Cabinet Establishment Act referred to the ceremonies performed by the imperial family.
Looking at the Cabinet Establishment Act, Article 4, Paragraph 3, Item 33 states, ``Matters related to national ceremonies and affairs related to ceremonies and events conducted by the Cabinet (excluding matters that fall under the jurisdiction of other ministries).'' It is written. The Imperial Household Ceremonies set out in the Imperial House Law are interpreted to be included in this, and Article 7 of the Constitution states, ``The Emperor, with the advice and approval of the Cabinet, shall perform the following acts in matters of state for the people.'' It becomes.
This is done with the advice and approval of the Cabinet under the Cabinet Establishment Act. In other words, nowhere does it say that the national ceremonies specified in the Cabinet Establishment Act refer only to ceremonies of the imperial family.
He asked a question in the Diet about the legal basis of the cabinet decision for state funerals, and Prime Minister Kishida clearly stated, ``Holding a state funeral, which is a national ceremony, based on a cabinet decision, means that the cabinet has decided to conduct a national ceremony.'' This is included in the function of administrative power, and Article 4, Paragraph 3, Item 33 of the Cabinet Office Establishment Act clearly states that the Cabinet Office is responsible for affairs related to national ceremonies. I think it is possible, as it is clear in the law that the performance of national ceremonies that include national ceremonies is included in the functions of administrative power.''.
I wonder what the media means by equality of reporting. It is said that reporting the voices of opposition parties equally means not reporting only the opinions of a particular political party, but is reporting the opinions of opposition parties in the same manner really equal reporting equality? . According to opinion polls, even though the largest opposition party is the Nippon Ishin no Kai, it only has about 6% of the vote, while the Constitutional Democratic Party has about 5%. It is hard to believe that these opinions are represented by the number of seats that stand against the ruling party, and it is far from possible that they represent the voices of the people. In other words, reporting should be around 5% to 6% of the total, which would also be consistent with the meaning of equality.
On the contrary, Japan's current media outlets report on the claims of these opposition parties more than they do on the claims of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. Recently, the opposition parties have become weak and are making a fuss by simply making counterarguments and making a fuss as if it were a flaming tactic, and the media, whose audience ratings continue to decline, are taking advantage of this to make numbers, which seems to be creating this inequality. appear. The media should mainly report the opinion that the Cabinet decision to hold a state funeral based on the Cabinet Establishment Act is legal.
Japan was attacked by a coalition of Chinese and Korean forces.Japanese troops were sent to defeat China.
Genkou refers to the invasion of Japan by the Chinese Yuan and the Goryeo army.There are also theories that Khabirai Khan intended to invade Japan, and that King Goryeo incited Khabirai to attack Japan.The two expeditions ended in failure when a Chinese ship sank due to a storm called kamikaze.
After that, Japan entered the Warring States Period and entered a turbulent period.Oda Nobunaga, a genius, was not only good at fighting but also sensitive to the international situation.Literature at that time revealed that urgent Japan's unification was carried out because it predicted that there would definitely be another invasion from the continent.He then told Toyotomi Hideyoshi about it.The enemy will surely come from the continent.
The purpose of Hideyoshi's dispatch to Korea was Ming, China.South Korea is said to have been attacked by Japan, but North Korea is not the purpose.As a result, the Ming army's counterattack on the Liaodong Peninsula led to a stalemate in the war situation, skepticism about the merits of Japan's rule of vast land with different cultural customs, and the death of Toyotomi Hideyoshi.
If Japan had captured Ming at this time, the Japanese era would have been born in the era of different ethnic countries such as Sui, Tang, Yuan and Qing.Relations with Japan, the Korean Peninsula, and China have become clear in this era.It will come to light again in the next Sino-Japanese War.The Korean Peninsula exists between Japan and China and has not been an autonomous country in history.
Historically, Korea has been part of China.Although it exists as a liberal country, its dependence on China remains the same.
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.
Before colonial rule or international law, bilateral commitments must be fulfilled.This is international common sense.
Was colonial rule legal or illegal at that time?History shows that.This is because there was no law or concept to ban colonies.Although not well known, Japan was the first country in the world to submit a bill to abolish racism in 1919.The attempt failed just before it was passed, and the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racism in 1965 had to wait.
There is a saying that the origin of international law is Hugo Grotius' Law of War and Peace, but he is a playwright and poet.It would be impossible to establish international law without international organizations.In a country governed by law, how does international law work now that police power can be controlled?What is the International Court of Justice?It is only after the two countries with disputes appear in court.If the other country does not appear in court, it will not work at all.
There is no police in the United Nations to crack down on the world, and the International Court of Justice will be held with the consent of both countries.
What the United Nations can do now is limited, saying it violates international law.Sanctions cannot be imposed without unanimous agreement among permanent members.The only thing that can be done is economic sanctions.How, then, can the two countries keep their promises?It is written in a treaty between the two countries, and if the treaty is deemed invalid, one country can unilaterally impose sanctions.
The South Korean government is clamoring for Japan's violation of international law and international law, but let's take a look at the Japan-South Korea Basic Treaty.The Japan-South Korea dispute resolution exchange document states, "The dispute between Japan and South Korea will be resolved through mediation in accordance with the procedures agreed upon by the two governments."What is mediation?It will now be the International Court of Justice.Even if the Japanese government invites them to the International Court of Justice, the Korean government will not respond.It remains the same as before and now that bilateral treaties should be observed before international law.
In principle, the commitments between the two countries are fulfilled by the two countries.It is clearly stated that the dispute resolution between Japan and South Korea should be resolved through mediation.
Notes, condolence telegrams, and messages of condolence from leaders of various countries regarding the death of former Prime Minister Abe (added sequentially)
We will only post articles by current and past heads of state, prime ministers, etc. I will omit things at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs level. Since condolences also include posts on SNS, they will be written as "notebook," "condolence telegram," and "condolence message."
President Biden [United States of America] (bookkeeper)"It's a loss, not just to my family and the people of Japan, but to the world. A man of peace and decency, you will be missed." li>
Former President Trump [United States] (condolences)``His assassination is unforgivable. It's not just an atrocity, it's a tremendous loss to the entire world.'' ``He was a great leader. "A tough negotiator." "He has worked tirelessly for peace, freedom, and the irreplaceable bond between the United States and Japan." "I hope that we will pay a swift and heavy price for robbing the Earth of a great being. I wish.”
President Putin [Russia] (condolence telegram)“Respected Yoko AbeRespected Akie AbeYour son and husband Shinzo Abe We would like to express our deepest condolences on the passing of Mr. An outstanding politician who led the Japanese government for a long period of time at the hands of criminals and left many achievements in the development of good neighborly relations between Russia and Japan. I had regular contact with Shinzo, where his great personal and professional qualities were in full bloom.My memories of this remarkable man are the same as his. will remain forever in the hearts of everyone who knew him.With respect, Vladimir Putin"
President Tsai Ing-wen [Taiwan] (colored paper notes)“Taiwan’s eternal good friend, your contribution to Taiwan-Japan friendship and to democracy, freedom, human rights, and peace around the world. Thank you.”
Queen Elizabeth [Commonwealth] (condolence address to His Majesty the Emperor)“Our family is deeply saddened by the sudden and painful passing of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. It was clear that he loved him and wanted to strengthen his ties with Britain even closer than ever before. My deepest sympathies and sympathies go out to his family and to everyone in Japan."
Prime Minister Boris Johnson [United Kingdom] (Condolences)“Very sad news about former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.The global leadership he demonstrated during these unprecedented times is... He will be remembered by many. Our thoughts are with former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's family, friends and the people of Japan. Britain stands with you at this dark and sad time."
President Xi Jinping [China] (Condolences, Condolences)“On behalf of the Chinese government and the Chinese people, and in my own name, I would like to express my condolences to the untimely death of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. We express our ``deepest condolences'' and extend our condolences to Prime Minister Abe's bereaved family. "I once reached an important agreement with him on building Sino-Japanese relations that meet the requirements of a new era. I deeply regret his sudden death." "I will continue to work with the Prime Minister. We would like to continue to develop good neighborly relations and friendly cooperation between Japan and China in accordance with the principles established in the four Japan-China political documents.''
Prime Minister Modi [India] (Condolences)“I am shocked and saddened beyond words by the tragic passing of one of my closest friends. "He was a world-class statesman and an outstanding leader." "We met again on a recent visit to Japan and discussed many issues. He was as witty and insightful as always. I never expected it to happen.'' ``To express our deep respect to Mr. Abe, the nation will mourn on the 9th.''
President Phuc [Vietnam] (Book)“We deeply mourn Mr. Shinzo Abe, a leader of international renown and a great and dear friend of Vietnam.”
Former President Duterte [Philippines] (Condolences)``I feel extremely regretful and deeply saddened to learn of the untimely death of my dear friend, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.'' I join the people of Japan in mourning the death of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and condemn this senseless act of violence." "Former Prime Minister Abe was not only the first foreign leader to visit the Philippines after my presidential election, but he also visited Davao City. He was also the only foreign leader to visit my home in Japan.'' ``I will always feel that former Prime Minister Abe is close to my heart, and I will cherish the time we spent together.''
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong [Singapore] (condolences)``I just had lunch with Mr. Abe in Tokyo in May.'' ``I am deeply shocked and saddened.'' .”
Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha [Kingdom of Thailand] (condolences)``He was talented, intelligent, and experienced,'' ``He played an important role in promoting friendly relations between the two countries,'' ``For many years, Over the years, he has worked to strengthen the relationship between Japan and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).''
President Joko Widodo [Indonesia] (Condolences)“We offer our deepest condolences to the deceased former Prime Minister Abe.”
Prime Minister Hun Sen [Cambodia] (condolences)``I am deeply shocked and deeply saddened'' ``Mr. Abe was an outstanding figure who contributed to peace, stability and prosperity in the region. Politician.''
President Yun Seok-Yeol [South Korea] (condolence telegram)“I would like to express my condolences to the bereaved family and the Japanese people for the loss of a respected politician who was the longest-serving prime minister in the history of Japanese constitutional history. I would like to express my condolences.'' → What does it mean to be respected? This sparks huge criticism within South Korea.
``Forever good friend of Taiwan
Thank you for your friendship with Taiwan and your contributions to democracy, freedom, human rights, and peace around the world.
Tsai Ing-wen 2022/7/11”
(Colored paper written at the time of condolence) pic.twitter.com/VZFcnd9hfQ? Taiwan in Japan 台北駐日経済文化代表処 (@Taiwan_in_Japan) July 11, 2022
