Japan received a warm welcome at the Bandung Conference. Gratitude from each country for colonial liberation.
2023-09-26
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Japan welcomed at the Bandung Conference.
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.
Read it together
Is Korea a spokesperson for Asia?impossible! The Grand East Asian Conference on Independence and Co - prosperity in Asia.
The Great East Asian Conference was held on November 5, 1943.It was the first international conference in which Japan was the leader of a country that expelled white forces and leaders of color gathered.In other words, countries of color had no concept of alliance and fighting together.The Great East Asian Conference discussed policies for post-war independence.China, South Korea, and North Korea are the only countries that Japan claims to have invaded Asian countries.Since China actually fought the Sino-Japanese War, what is South Korea and North Korea?Other Asian countries say they were able to become independent thanks to Japan.
The purpose of the Great East Asian War is to exclude white colonial policies from Asia and maintain independence and co-prosperity among Asian countries.The participants of the Great East Asia Conference are as follows.
Great East Asia Conference Participant Japan: Prime Minister Hideki Tojo
Republic of China: President Wang Zhaoming
Manchuria: Prime Minister Jang Kyung-hye
Republic of the Philippines: President Jose Laurel
Burma: Prime Minister Bar Mow
Kingdom of Thailand: Prince Wangwita Yacon
India: Free India Provisional Head of Government: Chandra Bose
Daedong-A DeclarationDaedong-A countries will work together to ensure stability and build a mutually beneficial order based on ethics.
The countries of Greater East Asia respect each other's independence, achieve mutual aid and friendship, and establish a friendly relationship with Greater East Asia.
The countries of Greater East Asia respect each other's traditions, promote creativity of each nation, and enhance the culture of Greater East Asia.
The Greater East Asian countries will work closely together to promote economic development and promote the prosperity of Greater East Asia.
Daitoa countries contribute to the future of the world by strengthening their friendship with all countries, eliminating racism, exchanging cultures widely, and opening up resources.
Unfortunately, Korea is not a spokesperson for Asia.The Great East Asia Conference is a gathering of Asian leaders to pledge independence and co-prosperity.After the war, Asian countries said they were able to become independent thanks to Japan.That's the truth.
Korea pretends to be an Asian spokesperson, but it is clear that Korea's claims do not represent Asian countries.
A place for unity in Asia and Africa.
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 conference
Fundamental 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 .
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Prime Minister Kishida sends off his visit to Yasukuni Shrine - a place beyond Japan's sovereignty.
I will not visit Yasukuni again this year
Current Prime Minister visited Yasukuni Shrine after the war
Where no incumbent national leader can step foot?
Yasukuni Shrine is not a border issue
Violation of national sovereignty, not historical issues
Historical issues cannot be resolved without sovereignty
Prime Minister Kishida refrained from visiting Yasukuni Shrine and paid the tamagushi fee with his own funds. Some people in other countries even think that Yasukuni Shrine is located outside of Japan. This is because the leaders of a country cannot imagine that there are public places within their country that they cannot set foot in.
[Current Prime Minister who visited Yasukuni Shrine after the war]
The 43rd King Higashikuninomiya Toshihiko
The 44th Kijuro Shidehara
45th, 48th-51st Shigeru Yoshida
56th-57th Nobusuke Kishi
58th-60th Hayato Ikeda
61st-63rd Eisaku Sato
64th-65th Kakuei Tanaka
66th Takeo Miki
The 67th Takeo Fukuda
68th-69th Masayoshi Ohira
70th Yoshiyuki Suzuki
71st-73rd Yasuhiro Nakasone
82nd-83rd Ryutaro Hashimoto
87th-89th Junichiro Koizumi
90th and 96th Shinzo Abe
Will President Xi Jinping be able to visit Taiwan? I wonder if it can't be done? People from outside would normally think that if it can't be done in the first place, then it's not China. A sitting president cannot set foot in certain parts of the United States. Everyone would think that this is an area beyond the reach of American sovereignty.
In areas and islands with territorial disputes near borders, there are places where national leaders cannot set foot. In Japan, these include Takeshima, the Senkaku Islands, and the Northern Territories. However, former South Korean President Lee Myung-bak has landed on Takeshima, and former Russian Prime Minister Medvedev has visited Etorofu Island. Their only purpose is to assert national sovereignty.
Let's say that the reason the Japanese prime minister does not visit these areas is to avoid border disputes. But Yasukuni Shrine is located in Tokyo, the capital of Japan.
Before discussing what the Yasukuni issue is, the problem is that it obscures the fact that it is under the sovereignty of the Japanese state. In other words, other countries are restricting Japan's sovereignty by giving orders to the current leader, the prime minister, to visit public facilities in the capital of Japan. Yasukuni Shrine is originally a Japanese religious facility within Japan, and anyone is welcome to visit it.
Whether or not it is a problem because it enshrines a class A war criminal is not for other countries to decide in the first place. This can also be said to be Japan's decision under its sovereignty as a nation. It would be different if Yasukuni Shrine was located in China or South Korea.
Internationally important elections will be held in 2024 - Japanese politics will be greatly influenced by these.
2024 is X-year. The US presidential election will be followed by the Taiwanese presidential election, Russian presidential election, and South Korean general election. The Russian presidential election is likely to be a close call, but everything else will have a big impact on Japan.
In Taiwan's presidential election, the ruling Democratic Progressive Party has a slight lead, with the Kuomintang and People's Party trailing behind. The third party, the People's Party, has many points in common with the Democratic Progressive Party, but it is a strange party in that it receives political donations from China. There is no movement yet, but if the Kuomintang and the People's Party join together at the last minute, the Democratic Progressive Party will be completely defeated.
The Nationalist Party has made it clear that it will maintain the 92 common sense, which means that it will maintain the "one China principle." If pro-China forces win, the result will likely be the same as in Hong Kong.
South Korea's president is said to be a right-wing national force, but the majority of the National Assembly is left-wing and both Democrats. The majority of the National Assembly will be the pro-China, pro-North Korea, anti-American, anti-Japanese parties we witnessed during the Moon Jae-in era. If this party wins the general election, an anti-Japanese leftist president will be elected again in the next presidential election.
The big event in 2024 will be the US presidential election. If Biden, the Democratic Party of the United States, were to win here, the environment surrounding Japan would shift to the left, and Japan's cabinet would also become left-handed. China's One Belt, One Road initiative may end in failure, but the Free and Open Indo-Pacific concept advocated by former Prime Minister Abe will also become a mere shell.
On the other hand, if the Democratic Progressive Party wins in Taiwan, the power of the people wins in South Korea, and Trump becomes President of the United States, will Japanese politics become right-wing? At that time, the Indo-Pacific concept will progress and a prime minister will be needed to take over the initiative. Is today's Japan simply being swept away without being able to exert its influence even in Asia?
Untimely protests against state funerals - Media incitement that is getting worse - The media is not representative of the people.
The size of the opposition that makes you laugh
What is the argument that divided the nation into two?
What is the content of the poll?
I don't understand the difference from sports newspapers
Mass media turning into sports newspaper due to slump in sales
The process of dividing national opinion into two
The media does not represent the people
Report only the facts, not opinions
On the day of the demonstration by opponents of former Prime Minister Abe's state funeral, it is said that there were around 100 to 200 people, based on a partial count. Police said there were 500 people. It is said that 4,183 people attended the state funeral, and approximately 23,000 people donated flowers (as announced on the 27th).
What exactly was the debate that reportedly divided the nation into two? Kudanshita, where the state funeral was held, is close to Meiji University's Surugadai campus. The university has traditionally had a strong left-wing student movement. Of course, ordinary students have nothing to do with it, but even if left-wing activists in Tokyo gathered together, it gives the impression that there were too few of them.
What is the content of public opinion polls conducted by the media? The problem is the questions. Depending on how the question is asked, it is possible to lead the data to the result intended by the questioner. I would like all public opinion poll data to be disclosed.
It seems like all mass media are now doing what sports newspapers and other media were doing before the decline of major mass media due to the spread of SNS.
In order to sell articles with headlines, sports newspapers publish speculative information in the headlines that have not been fact-checked, and sell them at station kiosks even though they say that the information is unconfirmed by adding a question mark at the end. It will be done. The "?" part is hidden from view due to the way it is displayed.
Many people were surprised and tolerated it, saying, ``It can't be helped because it's a sports newspaper,'' but no one believed it and it was just a form of entertainment. That's what all the media are doing now.
The underlying issue is sales. Sports newspapers used to take desperate measures to increase circulation, but I wonder if many media outlets now think of this as the right way to go. What is more troubling than sports newspapers is that the major media barely have the power to stir up public opinion.
Using the current issue of state funerals as an example, when the opposition party first objects to a state funeral, the media immediately jumps in and reports on it. At this stage, the ruling party and the opposition party are in conflict, so in that sense they are theoretically divided into two parties. However, this does not mean that national opinion is divided into two.
Then, the media outlets loudly convey the opinions of the opposition parties, and the process of dividing national opinion into two begins. It is incitement. First of all, there is a process in which the media themselves agitate and increase the number of opposition parties, and then they cultivate them as if it were a big problem divided into two.
They increase sales by raising the grade of articles based on irrelevant opinions and information by several levels. The more confrontational the structure, the more sensational it is. This is a common method that the media has used in the past on various issues.
The media sometimes uses expressions such as ``representing the people,'' but it feels very strange and even unpleasant. They are just office workers, not representatives of the people. When did they receive the mandate of the people? When did he run for election and when was he elected to the Diet?
If you're an average office worker, you might go to a yakitori restaurant for a drink with your colleagues on the way home from work and talk about politics. The media are just office workers, so that should be fine. You should not express your opinion to the people as if you were a representative of the people. We need to stop privatizing public airwaves and simply collect and report the facts.
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.
Judgment cases seen from the murder of former Prime Minister Abe and the murder of a member of the Diet in the past. [Table of Contents]
Assassination of Inejiro Asanuma
Hyōsuke Niwa stabbed
Shinjiro Yamamura stabbed case
Koki Ishii stabbed
Nagasaki Mayor Shooting Case
Indefinite imprisonment in past examples
Planning is the worst
1 Representative and degree of influence
Life imprisonment or death penalty
Inejiro Asanuma, chairman of the Japan Socialist Party Central Executive Committee, is a 17-year-old right-wing boy, Otoya Yamaguchi, during a speech at the Hibiya Public Hall in Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo on October 12, 1960. The case of being stabbed by an arrow.The criminal Yamaguchi committed suicide in a single room at the Tokyo Juvenile Classification Home on the night of November 2, three weeks after the incident.
October 21, 1990 A former member of the House of Representatives (12th term) belonging to the Liberal Democratic Party and Hyōsuke Niwa, a member of the Aichi Prefectural Assembly (2nd term), was temporarily discharged from hospital due to schizophrenia at the Ground Self-Defense Force station in Nagoya city. He was stabbed in the neck and died the following month.The criminal is readmitted to a mental hospital.
In 1992, on April 12, the day before his visit to North Korea as the leader of the LDP delegation, he was stabbed and killed by a 24-year-old second daughter who suffered from a mental illness at his home. Her second daughter wasdetermined to be incapacitated due to her loss of soul and was not prosecuted, but she committed suicidefour years later.
On October 25, 2002, Democratic Party member Kouki Ishii died after being stabbed in his left chest with a Yanagi knife at his home parking lot in Setagaya Ward. On June 18, 2004, the Tokyo District Court sentenced him to life imprisonment, stating that he could not trust the defendant's alleged "financial trouble" motive.On November 15, 2005, the Supreme Court confirmed a sentence of life imprisonment.
At 7:51 pm on April 17, 2007, Mayor Ito, who was on a tour, arrived in front of his election office in Daikokumachi, Nagasaki City, near JR Kyushu Nagasaki Station. He was shot at around 7:51:45 pm shortly after staff told reporters that the mayor had returned.
On May 26, 2008, the Nagasaki District Court sentencedto death, pointing out that it "shook the foundations of democracy, such as confusing elections."
On September 29, 2009, the appeal trial at the Fukuoka High Court abandoned the first-instance judgment, andwas sentenced to life imprisonment again. In a peculiar case in which the incumbent mayor was shot dead during the election, the suitability of the death penalty for one victim became the biggest issue. Regarding the reason for avoiding the death penalty, Judge Shoichi Matsuo pointed out that "It is necessary to fully consider that there is only one victim."
He then decided that "it is a challenge to democracy, but the motive is a grudge against the victims, not the purpose of obstructing the election itself," and concluded that "the choice of the death penalty must be hesitant."
Regarding the cases where politicians were killed in the past, except for the case where the criminal committed suicide, both the case of Kouki Ishii's murder and the case of Tetsuya Shiroo's shooting have been confirmed as indefinite imprisonment for the murder of one victim.
The murder of former Prime Minister Abe includes social impact, election obstruction, firearms tampering, sword law violation, planning, clear murder, execution of murder, and unclear motives. When considering planning, it is a weapon that manufactures firearms by itself and is prohibited by law that has the ability to kill, which is considered to be the most malicious in terms of planning.
It is not at the level of purchasing kitchen knives in advance at a home improvement store or making a detailed action plan to kill the victim.
There is no doubt that he is one of the most influential people in Japan in terms of social impact, but since he is a general member of the Diet, it is unknown to what extent it will be added.
The motive is attributed to personal grudges, but there is no causal relationship between the suspect's mother and religious groups.There is no causal relationship with former Prime Minister Abe. , I can't find the part that takes into account the situation.
If you look at past examples, you will be sentenced to life imprisonment, but it will be interesting to see if you will be sentenced to death.Former prosecutor Yoji Ochiai points out that there is a possibility of the death penalty, using the death sentence of the first instance of the Nagasaki District Court as an example.
Although it is an epoch-making judgment as a death sentence for the murder of one person, what kind of judgment will the judiciary make regarding planning, its maliciousness, selfish motives, etc.? The anger of the people does not seem to subside.
