Public opinion without examining Abenomics - there is no point in criticizing it based on contradictory premises.
2024-01-08
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Abenomics three arrows
There are some surveys and opinions in public opinion that Abenomics has ruined Japan, but is that true? First of all, what is Abenomics? Were you asking people who answered the same question as in the poll, or were you asking people you didn't know? I wonder if asking someone I don't know will give me the results I expected. First, let's review the three arrows of Abenomics.
Three arrows of Abenomics
Bold monetary policy
Flexible fiscal policy
Growth strategy to stimulate private investment Monetary policy is still ongoing, but former Prime Minister Abe has said that the consumption tax increase was decided in advance and was carried out at a time when it could not be postponed, so he was unable to fire a second arrow. In other words, Abenomics is actually the first arrow in a variety of environments. In other words, I would understand if there was an evaluation of the fact that it did not advance to the second stage, but I have doubts about evaluating Abenomics itself.
Results are rarely published
Next, I will list some of the achievements of Abenomics.
Main achievements of Abenomics
The total national and local tax revenue will reach a record high of １０７ trillion yen in fiscal ２０１９, up from ７８.７ trillion yen in fiscal ２０１２.
The stock price, which was around ８,０００ yen, rose to over ２４,０００ yen under the Abe administration.
Public pension investment profits increased by ５７.６ trillion yen in seven and a half years.
The effective job opening ratio was ８３ job openings for every １００ people in ２０１２, and １６４ job openings for every １００ people in ２０１９.
Business operators improved their treatment due to the labor shortage. The minimum hourly wage rose from ７４９ yen in ２０１２ to ９０１ yen in ２０１９.
The rate of children from single-parent households going on to university increased significantly from ２３.９% to ４１.９%. Sanaenomics three arrows
Sanaenomics (Japanese Economic Resilience Plan) will be published. Representative Sanae Takaichi announced a policy to carry on Abenomics during the last presidential election.
Sanaenomics three arrows
Financial easing
Flexible fiscal stimulus in times of emergency
Bold crisis management investment/growth investment What they have in common is that monetary easing policy will continue, and if the Takauchi Cabinet is elected, the government will implement aggressive fiscal policy.
The Japanese government had no balance sheet
The fact that the Japanese government's balance sheet was introduced for the first time in １９９５ means that the Japanese government did not have the concept of strategic investment, which companies take for granted. How can you invest without a balance sheet or cash flow statement? It was only a matter of being able to compare the income and expenditure for a single year, or the previous year. The term "primary balance" has come to be used like crazy. At that time, Japan believed that deregulation would revive the economy, and the government repeatedly took the approach of relaxing regulations through legal revisions.
Dual structure of industrial transfer and wages
As a result, the Japanese government was unable to rebuild the national economy or make strategic investments for economic growth after the collapse of the bubble, which was an unprecedented economic crisis. More than ３０ years have passed since we stubbornly closed the doors. Then, companies moved their manufacturing sectors to emerging countries, and GDP and tax revenues mainly went to neighboring countries such as China, creating a dual wage structure of dispatched labor in order to prevent an increase in the number of unemployed people in Japan. . The economic disparity that arose from this process is said to be one of the causes of the current declining birthrate.
Choosing the next president based on policy
So, has Abenomics ruined Japan? Would that also mean denying Sanaenomics? Or will we continue to turn down investments from the government as we have been doing, paying close attention to the primary balance under the guidance of the Ministry of Finance and listening to the beautiful words of fiscal consolidation? The point of contention should be to gather opinions on whether or not bold fiscal spending by the government is necessary. In any case, regardless of whether the policy is better or not, there are parts where it seems like the point at issue is not policy at all, but just an extension of a personal attack, which is unfortunate.
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.
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 sealed Greater East Asia War, what is the original meaning of the word Hakko Ichiu?
There are some words that were banned by GHQ after the war. Typical examples include the words Greater East Asia War and Hakko Kazuu.
The Greater East Asia War became known as the Pacific War, or World War II, and many Japanese people have probably never heard of Kazuu Hakko. What exactly was the Greater East Asia War? It would be best to think of it as a war based on Japan's Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere concept.
Starting with India, Asian countries were colonized by the West one after another over hundreds of years. The countries that were invading these countries were mainly Western maritime nations: Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain. In fact, not a single country in Asia was able to resist this and surrendered its country. In the end, almost all of the vast Asian region became a Western colony, and even China, which was once called a great power, went through the Opium War and the Arrow War, and its major cities were leased out one after another, resulting in a state of divide-and-rule.
It was clear that the opening of the Suez Canal would greatly shorten the sea route that had previously reached Asia via the southernmost tip of Africa, accelerating the division of Asia.
Russia was lagging behind in colonial policy in Europe. The Russian coast freezes over in winter, making it impossible to navigate. Even if sailing is possible during the season, they will have to pass through the narrow strait between present-day Denmark and Sweden, enter the North Sea, and then travel through the English Channel. Even going out into the Atlantic Ocean was influenced by other countries, and Russia was only able to acquire some areas such as Alaska regarding its colonial policy in the Americas.
Russia planned to colonize Asia by land. This is the Trans-Siberian Railway. They used this railway to send soldiers and weapons, colonize Northeast Asia, and transport the supplies they obtained to St. Petersburg. With the completion of this colonial infrastructure, it was clear that colonial policy in Northeast Asia would accelerate. The Trans-Siberian Railway was opened in 1904, and at the same time information was received that the Baltic Fleet, said to be the strongest fleet at the time, was heading for Vladivostok, the terminal station of the Trans-Siberian Railway.
What was the Baltic Fleet planning to do now that it was able to receive supplies from Vladivostok? China? Korea? Of course, it is natural to acquire those areas, but if it is a continent, it will be a land strategy, so do we need a fleet for land routes? In other words, it is clear that the purpose of these ships was to subdue Japan. The Baltic Fleet sank the ship in the Sea of Japan before entering Vladivostok during the Russo-Japanese War and the Battle of the Sea of Japan. In the end, Japan won, and Russia's plans suffered a major setback. The Russo-Japanese War was from 1904 to 1905, and the Trans-Siberian Railway was completed during this war.
Even among Japanese people, there are many who say that Japan waged a reckless war. Is it really reckless? In fact, Japan has defeated all European countries such as Britain, France, and the Netherlands, including in Southeast Asia. If anything was reckless, it could be said that it was the start of war with the United States. Next, there are those who say that Japan invaded Asia. Now let's think about where we invaded. Thailand was the only independent nation in Asia west of China. In other words, the Asian countries that Japan invaded no longer existed in Asia at the time, in the sense that they were self-governing. They were Western colonies, so Japan invaded Britain and the Netherlands. If I had to say it, if we think of the Sino-Japanese War as an invasion of China, then we can say of the Asian countries that they invaded China.
So why is it said that Japan invaded Asian countries? That's probably why the term Greater East Asia War was banned. At that time, the world was about to be divided into European maritime nations. All of the Americas are colonies. What about Australia? What about the African continent? Europe's maritime nations will acquire all of this. Is Asia different? There's no reason for that. Japan is the only Asian nation that has resisted this global colonial policy.
The Greater East Asia Conference was held in 1943. Participants included representatives from Burma, Manchukuo, the Republic of China, Japan, the Kingdom of Thailand, the Philippines, and India. I would like to introduce the Greater East Asia Joint Declaration that was adopted here.
The countries of Greater East Asia will work together to ensure stability in Greater East Asia and build an order of coexistence and mutual prosperity based on morality. The countries of Greater East Asia will respect each other's independence and independence, bear the fruits of mutual aid and harmony, and establish affinity in Greater East Asia. The countries of Greater East Asia will mutually respect their traditions, develop the creativity of each ethnic group, and enhance the culture of Greater East Asia. The countries of Greater East Asia will cooperate closely with each other on a basis of mutual benefit, plan their economic development, and increase the prosperity of Greater East Asia. The countries of Greater East Asia will deepen relations with all countries, eliminate racial discrimination, widely exchange cultures, and contribute to the advancement of the world by willingly opening up their resources.
This is a declaration issued by representatives from various regions of Asia. The ideas common to each statement are the coexistence and co-prosperity of Asian countries, mutual respect, and the elimination of racial discrimination. Was there ever an example of such an agreement between countries in that era? Britain and other countries gained wealth through the slave trade from Africa, which was reflected in the industrial form of producing goods in the Americas using cheap labor and exporting them to Europe. In Manchukuo, the Five Tribes of Harmony was actually sung, and the idea was that all ethnic groups living in Manchuria would build a nation on an equal footing. In other words, Manchukuo advocated the most advanced ideology in the world at the time, and the Greater East Asia Joint Declaration was pioneering in its content, calling for Asian countries to coexist and prosper together and eliminate discrimination. This underlying idea is the spirit of Kazuu Hakko. Hakko Ichiu is the idea of living in peace with the world as one home, centered on His Majesty the Emperor, without discrimination of race, ethnicity, religion, etc. It may seem unreasonable based on current values for countries other than Japan to have the Emperor at the center, but although there are 56 member countries in the British Commonwealth of Nations, the so-called Commonwealth is made up of 56 countries. is the current King of England, Charles III. The original meaning of Hakko Ichiu is found in the latter part, and it can be said that it is also expressed in the Greater East Asia Joint Declaration.
So, where in Asia did Japan invade? In order to cover up all of this, the words Greater East Asia War and Hakko Ichiu were banned. The purpose, of course, was to justify war and colonial policies for the West, and the story was changed to one in which Japan suddenly went crazy and invaded Asian countries.
Japan's struggle against Western colonial policy is a well-known hist
Three years of Japanese and Russian people living together in the Northern Territories - Return of the territory and current residents
Japan's territorial issues include Takeshima, the Senkaku Islands, and the Northern Territories. These three regions are completely different geopolitically, historically, in the relationship between the two countries, and in the process by which problems arise. To put the issue of the Northern Territories simply, Japan announced its surrender on August 15th, but it was officially announced on September 2nd that the Soviet Union later ratified the Potsdam Declaration, but it was not accepted internationally outside of the United States, Britain, China, and the Soviet Union. April 28, 1952, the day the San Francisco Peace Treaty went into effect. During that time, the former Soviet Union invaded and annexed the Northern Territories.
It was in 1948 that the Soviet Union ordered deportation to the Japanese islanders, so there was a period of about three years from 1945 when Soviet soldiers, Soviet immigrants, and Japanese people lived together. It is very interesting to hear the testimonies of Japanese islanders from that era.
``Russians were big and scary.'' ``Soldiers came to my house with shoes on and guns, and they said, ``Watch, watch!'' So I thought it was something, so I handed him the watch, and he said, ``Harasho, harasho,'' and was happy. So I went home.
Russian children were cute and cute and looked like angels. Her eyes were so white and big, and her green eyes were cute like a cat's. Japanese and Russian children played together, going back and forth to each other's homes. This is the testimony of former islanders and Japanese people.
I believe that former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was the first prime minister to ask the Japanese people, who are demanding the return of the Northern Territories, where about 17,000 people currently live, whether they should expel the Russians currently living there. The Japanese people living in the Northern Territories at the time continued to demand the return of their territory, but the Russians living there never asked them to leave or take away their homes.
The Taiwanese emergency is a Japanese emergency, and it is not clear what the basis is - a basis that assumes various things is necessary.
Taiwan emergency is Japan emergency
Japan confirms security coverage of Senkaku Islands
Taiwan first claims sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands
Sea defenses are extensive
The Taiwan Strait is a sea lane in East Asia
The Chinese government reacted sensitively to former Prime Minister Abe's online participation from Japan at a symposium held in Taiwan, where he said, ``Taiwan's emergency is Japan's emergency.'' Thinking about this matter, Japan and Taiwan do not have a military alliance to defend Taiwan, so it would be difficult to realize it in that sense. The U.S. law regarding Taiwan relations is extremely ambiguous regarding the participation of the U.S. military in the war.
Former Prime Minister Abe was particular about whether the Senkaku Islands were within the scope of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, and received assurances from Mr. Trump, and later in a telephone conversation with President Biden, former Prime Minister Suga confirmed that the Senkaku Islands were covered by the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.
The Taiwanese emergency is a Japanese emergency that seems to have no basis in many legal and treaty terms, but if you think about it, the Senkaku Islands themselves seem to be the key to it.
In the first place, Taiwan was the first country to claim sovereignty over Japan's Senkaku Islands. Three months later, China claimed the claim. Since China calls Taiwan its own territory, what belongs to Taiwan belongs to China. It seems like he made his point in a hurry.
If China were to invade Taiwan, it would logically be considered an invasion of the Senkaku Islands, which are claimed by China and Taiwan. In other words, the conditions for Japan-U.S. security and the activation of the right of collective self-defense are in place. I cannot believe that former Prime Minister Abe would pay baseless lip service.
Another theory is that defense in battle at sea will cover a wide area, and that Japan's remote islands near Taiwan will also be involved in the battle. In this case as well, the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty applies, and if Japan enters the war, the U.S. military may also participate.
The Taiwan Strait is an important sea route for transporting oil and natural materials to Japan. If China were to take possession of this area, Japan would be in a situation where it would have a stranglehold on the sea route through which it supplies resources. Some are claiming that this is an emergency in Japan.
In any case, China has declared in advance that the Chinese military will not turn the waters off northeastern Taiwan, including the Senkaku Islands and other remote islands of Japan, into a combat zone, and that the Taiwan Strait will be maintained as before after the invasion of Taiwan. The question is, what will happen if this happens? Still, there needs to be a basis for invoking the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.
