maritime defense
2021-06-29
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Taiwan's defense is the defense of the Senkaku Islands and is synonymous with Japan's.If China maintains its maritime routes from Japan to Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam, it will not be able to enter the Pacific Ocean and will only be able to develop strategies from the west.
Moon Jae In Korea is pro-China.Even if Korea joins forces with China, China will not actually be able to enter the Pacific Ocean.In this sense, Korea and Taiwan have different strategic meanings on Quad.
With this in mind, Moon Jae In is not flying around like a bat, but is moving in a way that you don't really understand if you don't say you're going to be left behind unless you don't actively participate in Quad.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
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.
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.
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.
Just because there is a labor shortage doesn't mean it's okay to collect labor from anywhere - let alone anti - Japanese countries.
Even if we overcome deflation and restore international competitiveness through the fiscal stimulus advocated by the late Mr. Abe and Mr. Takaichi, and even if the total amount of money increases and wages rise, if the economy becomes rich, this means that domestic production will rise. , it is said that even with the current production volume, it will no longer be possible to make things as the population declines, so if the production volume increases, there will be an even greater shortage of personnel.
The current dual wage structure for dispatched workers is simply a measure to compensate for the domestic unemployment rate by relocating production bases to emerging countries due to the strong yen. On the other hand, if the yen depreciates, it will become possible to move production bases back to Japan, and some companies have actually returned to Japan amid the current depreciation of the yen. If production bases return, GDP and tax revenue will increase.
In other words, this is the economic growth that the people want, but what is crucially lacking is human resources. It is difficult to believe that Japan's industrial structure, which is dominated by manufacturing, will be easily replaced by AI. While Japan's competitiveness will increase if Abenomics and Mr. Takaichi's economic policies are implemented, I imagine that it will also lead to a shortage of labor in Japan.
Although there was a shortage of soldiers during the Greater East Asia War, it is said that only about 1.6% of recruited soldiers from the peninsula were able to join the Japanese army. If they don't understand the Japanese language, Japanese culture, or the purpose of war, the entire unit will suffer. Even Japanese women were able to work under the Women's Volunteer Corps Ordinance after passing various hurdles, and those who passed were given the approval of the local governor at the time.
There are people in Europe and America who think it would be a good idea to make immigrants and illegal immigrants work, but do they want to make the same mistakes and go down the path of creating social unrest? If human resources are absolutely necessary, the host countries should be limited by considering cultural background, historical and diplomatic compatibility, and Japan should even be involved in the education of Japanese language and culture. It would be better to abandon ideas such as procuring labor from countries that provide anti-Japanese education now.
Interpretation of Former Prime Minister Abe's Preamble to the Constitution - It is necessary to revise the preamble at the same time as the revision of Article 9 of the Constitution. The following is the preamble to the Constitution of Japan. Former Prime Minister Abe, who appeared on TV as acting secretary general of the LDP in 2005, was talking about the interpretation of the preamble to the Constitution. The preamble to the Constitution is a declaration of peacekeeping on the premise that it has no military power, and it is premised that it will be supported by other countries.
How Japan enjoyed peace during the post-war Cold War, and how to maintain peace in the midst of the rise of China and the runaway of North Korea, should be discussed separately. ..
Preamble to the Constitution of Japan
The Japanese people act through their representatives in a legitimately elected parliament, ensuring the achievements of harmony with the nations and the abundance of freedom throughout our country for our descendants, the government. Decided to prevent the tragedy of war from happening again by the act of, proclaiming that sovereignty exists in the people here, and finalizing this constitution. In the first place, national affairs are based on the solemn trust of the people, whose authority comes from the people, whose power is exercised by the representatives of the people, and whose welfare is enjoyed by the people. This is a universal principle of mankind, and this Constitution is based on this principle. We exclude any constitutions, statutes and imperial rescripts that violate this.
The people wish for lasting peace and are deeply aware of the noble ideals that govern human relations, and trust in the justice and faith of the peace-loving nations. We decided to keep our safety and survival. We want to occupy a prestigious position in the international community, which strives to maintain peace and forever remove tyranny and servitude, oppression and narrowness from the earth. We affirm that the people of the world have the right to live in peace, free from fear and deficiency.
We must not concentrate on our own nation and ignore others, and the law of political morality is universal and follows this law. I believe that it is the responsibility of each country to maintain its sovereignty and to establish equal relations with other countries.
The Japanese people pledge to do their utmost to achieve their noble ideals and goals in the honor of the nation.
[Interpretation of former Prime Minister Abe] We have decided to maintain our security and survival by trusting the justice and faith of peace-loving nations. → Leave it to other countries and decide to do nothing (Abe interpretation)
We want to occupy a prestigious position in the international community, which strives to maintain peace and forever remove tyranny and servitude, oppression and narrowness from the earth. → Let's get compliments from the international community that we are working on instead of asking for something (Abe interpretation)
It is a frank opinion that seems to be the former Prime Minister Abe. Many Japanese still think that Japan's peace has been protected by Article 9 of the Constitution, but the interpretation that it was protected by the United States rather than by Article 9 of the Constitution is more realistic. prize.
On the flip side, if the United States does not protect Japan, Japan's peace will be completely destroyed.
The debate on the revision of Article 9 of the Constitution is overheating, but it seems necessary to discuss revising the preamble itself on the premise that it does not have force in the first place.
