Internationally important elections will be held in ２０２４ - Japanese politics will be greatly influenced by these.
2023-12-26
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
2024 is an election year
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.
The Nationalist Party follows the ruling Democratic Progressive Party
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.
Kuomintang is a pro-China party
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.
Read it together
Under the United Nations resolution on Albania, China's representative government becomes the People's Republic of China - national representation as a permanent member of the United Nations Security
National representation rights claimed by both sides
Taiwan withdraws from the United Nations as a result of this resolution
Japan and the US tried to prevent Taiwan's expulsion from the UN
Taiwan is just a common name
US supports Taiwan's membership in international organizations
China expands interpretation of Albania resolution
The issue of one China began when the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the People's Republic of China fought over the right to represent China as a permanent member of the United Nations at the United Nations following a civil war. At that time, the Republic of China was a member of the United Nations as a permanent member of the United Nations.
As a result of the 1971 Albania Resolution recognizing the People's Republic of China as the representative member state of the United Nations, the Republic of China withdrew from the United Nations. In advance, Japan and the United States tried to persuade Taiwan to voluntarily decline the right to represent China, but Chiang Kai-shek was not convinced.
One China claimed not only China but also Taiwan. Taiwan was the first to claim the Senkaku Islands before China.
In response to the Albania resolution, the United States proposed a dual representation resolution and Japan proposed an important issue resolution against expulsion to the United Nations. As a result, the Albania Resolution was passed, and the People's Republic of China was to take over the power of representation, eliminating Taiwan's seat.
The problem might have been different if Taiwan had withdrawn its representation rights and applied for recognition as a separate country at the same time.
What we now call Taiwan is not the official name of the country; its official name is the Republic of China. Taiwan is a common name that means the name of the region. At the Olympic Games, it was called Chinese Taipei, and Japan's NHK called it Tiwan, which became a hot topic, but the country's name itself is internationally connected to the United Nations issue.
Based on the above circumstances, the United Nations has simply recognized the People's Republic of China as the representative government of China, and since the Republic of China has withdrawn from the United Nations, this does not mean that the United Nations does not recognize the country.
The United States has said it will support Taiwan's participation in international organizations. U.S. Republican Rep. Jim Risch said that China is expanding the interpretation of the Albania resolution.
Conversely, the basis for China's insistence on excluding Taiwan from the international community is the 1971 Albania resolution.
The United States has criticized China for abusing the Albania resolution by expanding its interpretation. China is pressuring other countries to prevent Taiwan from participating in international organizations.
Leftists are dominant in South Korea
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.
Will Trump be re-elected?
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.
#img2#
If the world turns right-handed
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?
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.
Continuing attacks on the Gaza Strip - What is the definition of a civilian? | The atomic bomb was dropped without any warning.
Regarding the conflict in the Gaza Strip and the invasion of Ukraine, I understand that the concept of war criminals under international law is extremely weak, but I would like to ask about the definitions of civilians, civilian facilities, military personnel, and military facilities. After these wars are over, the international community will need to be redefined.
According to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Americans are members of the National Guard and are allowed to own firearms according to the Constitution's interpretation. Are they civilians or soldiers? For example, in South Korea, where a conscription system is in place, those who have completed their conscription period are registered as reservists. Are they civilians or soldiers?
In the Nanjing Incident, the commander of the Kuomintang army fled, and the Kuomintang army changed into civilian clothes and fled into a private house, where they fought using civilians as shields, but were they civilians or soldiers? I wonder if the private house they barricaded themselves in had become a military facility at that point. Or will it still be a private house?
At the Tokyo Trials, Rabe testified that the Japanese military did not fire on the Nanjing Safety Zone, calling the Japanese invasion a massacre. Civilians in Nanjing were able to escape to the Nanjing Safety Zone, which was demarcated by international law. The Gaza Strip is approximately 50km from north to south, and evacuation to the south would take up to 25km, making it possible to evacuate in one day.
Is the human shield a civilian or a soldier? At the very least, are they risking their lives to protect their homes? Are they civilians or soldiers?
In other words, the international law that judged Japan in the past is weak to this extent, and even today it criticizes the killing of civilians based on this idea, but does not deny wars based on the exercise of the right of self-defense. I'm watching this battle in it. What should be answered is a clear division between civilians and soldiers.
It is said that there were 122 air raids on Tokyo, but each time did the US military notify Japanese civilians that they were about to carry out an air raid? Or, before the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a bomb of another dimension will be dropped that will cause damage over a wide area. Did Truman tell them that it would be difficult to survive there? If it had been done, would Japanese civilians at the time have been evacuated or would they have remained to fight?
Such international laws only have a deterrent effect and have no meaning in actual war.
Korea is opposed to Sado Kanayama's application for registration as a World Heritage site.Japan have evidence that it was not forced labor.
The Cabinet's decision in April 2021 and the inclusion of warship islands as UNESCO World Heritage sites are posted on the grounds that the recruitment at that time was not a forced labor.Forced Labour Convention in 1930.
When registering as a warship island, South Korea strongly opposes it, and Japan has even proposed a draft of the plan, saying that it will support it if it writes forcedlabor.Japan refused, and at the Japan-South Korea Foreign Ministers' Meeting, South Korea finally agreed to write forcedtowork.The Korean side was particular about the description because it knew that forced labor would be described as forced labor in the Forced Labor Convention at that time.Recruitment is not included in forced labor.It is stated in Article 2-2.The recruitment of the General Mobilization Order falls under paragraph (b).
South Korea opposes Japan's move to apply for the registration of Sado Kanayama as a World Heritage Site, saying it will not allow forced labor to be designated as a World Heritage Site.This is just the same view as it was on Gunkanjima.
C029 - Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
ARTICLE 1
1. Each Member of the International Labour Organisation which ratifies this Convention undertakes to suppress the use of forced or compulsory labour in all its forms within the shortest possible period.
ARTICLE 2
1. For the purposes of this Convention the term forced or compulsory labour shall mean all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily.
2. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this Convention, the term forced or compulsory labour shall not include--
(a) any work or service exacted in virtue of compulsory military service laws for work of a purely military character;
(b) any work or service which forms part of the normal civic obligations of the citizens of a fully self-governing country;
(c) any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, provided that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations;
(d) any work or service exacted in cases of emergency, that is to say, in the event of war or of a calamity or threatened calamity, such as fire, flood, famine, earthquake, violent epidemic or epizootic diseases, invasion by animal, insect or vegetable pests, and in general any circumstance that would endanger the existence or the well-being of the whole or part of the population;
(e) minor communal services of a kind which, being performed by the members of the community in the direct interest of the said community, can therefore be considered as normal civic obligations incumbent upon the members of the community, provided that the members of the community or their direct representatives shall have the right to be consulted in regard to the need for such services.
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.
The curse of primary balance has been lost for 30 years, and now is the time for fiscal spending.
The lost 30 years were born from the curse of fiscal surplus
Why not use fiscal stimulus to address the national crisis?
Japan used to be the same as today's China
Why did Japan go for austerity?
30 years of innovation only to be stolen
Only Councilor Sanae Takaichi answered these questions clearly
The curse of a primary balance surplus has become an excellent material for opposition parties to appeal to the government for fiscal austerity. Yoichi Takahashi has said that he does not mind fiscal stimulus, or printing money, up to the inflation target of 2%.
Both Prime Minister Abe and Policy Research Council Chairman Takaichi have set an inflation target of 2%. In the first place, the topic of primary balance became popular after the bubble burst.
As many large companies go bankrupt, the government repeatedly imposes fiscal stimulus, resulting in deficits and financial bankruptcy. The bursting of the bubble was a national economic crisis.
So when is the government going to do something about the national crisis without spending money? In 1989, 32 of the 50 companies in the world by market capitalization were Japanese companies, but by 2019, there was only one Japanese company, and that number had disappeared. Ta.
During the bubble period, Japan was to America what China is today. It is true that growth was not based on illegal business like in China, but there is no doubt that it was a threat to the American economy.
The United States should have predicted Japan's bubble would burst. Or maybe it's a country that can play a role in triggering this.
If Japan had been able to implement bold fiscal stimulus after the bubble burst, it would have been possible to quickly overcome the aftereffects and return to a growth trajectory. Japan is among 11 countries subject to currency manipulation monitoring announced by the U.S. Treasury Department on December 3 of this year.
Trade friction is at the root of the current U.S.-China relationship. In addition, the defense of East Asia was also involved, and Japan at the time was also experiencing trade friction between Japan and the United States.
Even after the bursting of the bubble economy, Japanese companies have continued to innovate in a variety of ways. i-mode was the world's first mobile phone to connect to the Internet, the all-in-one concept of integrating a camera, calculator, memo pad, etc. in a bag into a mobile phone, and mixi was the original social network.
These ideas became the exclusive domain of American GAFA. Even though Japan was in the bud of creating a new industrial structure, it ran out of water and nutrients.
So why or who put a stop to it?
Internal pressure, external pressure, various things can be imagined. Japan's balance sheet shows that its finances are sound, and fiscal stimulus will not cause a national fiscal collapse. This is exactly what was at issue in the last presidential election. There are two points: fiscal spending and national defense.
Councilor Takaichi was the only one who clearly answered that question, and I had no idea what the other candidates were saying.
Japanese economy continues to fly low. We need a rocket engine to get back on the growth track.
