Catch - all regulation and its contents Even though South Korea was a white country, I could not understand its meaning.
2021-07-10
Category:South Korea I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Export control of conventional weapons
The Wassenaar Arrangement is an international agreement regarding the export control of conventional weapons, with which ４２ countries, including Japan and South Korea, have concluded an agreement. Based on this premise, Japan will introduce catch-all regulations, and will notify the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry and receive permission when exporting cargo or providing technology that may be used for the development of weapons of mass destruction or conventional weapons. I made it mandatory.
Group A: ２６ countries (white countries)
Group B: ６ countries (including South Korea)
Group C: countries that do not fall under A, B, or D
Group D: countries under the UN arms embargo ・Countries of concern designated by regions and exporting countries Determined at the discretion of the exporting country
The above framework is determined at the discretion of the exporting country from the standpoint of national security. For this reason, Japan is constantly calling for a "review of export control operations." South Korea claims that Japan imposed export controls this time, but Japan has simply reviewed its operations, and as long as the prescribed procedures are followed, exports will continue as before. It's been two years and I still don't understand this. On the other hand, if we were a white country without understanding this basic thing, it would be even more frightening. Do they think they were put in Group D? Group D is currently subject to export restrictions from Japan.
Group D consists of １１ countries, including Afghanistan, Central Africa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Iran, a country of concern.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
South Korea is furious after being told that kimchi originates from China - Do they go crazy when they are forced to do something they always do?
While watching YouTube videos about Sichuan cuisine, I suddenly noticed the controversy surrounding the origin of kimchi, which is based on Sichuan's foamed vegetables. I used to think that Sichuan cuisine was spicy because spices from western countries such as India and Pakistan were introduced, but chili peppers are native to South America, so chili peppers probably didn't exist in China.
There is a theory that it was brought to Japan when guns were introduced, or that it was brought by missionaries, but it seems that it was brought to the Korean peninsula during Hideyoshi's Bunroku and Keicho campaigns. It was the end of the 16th century. So I researched when chili peppers were introduced to Sichuan, and found that it was in the 17th century, at the end of the Ming Dynasty. I'm not sure when chili peppers began to be used in Awa Nai or Korean kimchi, but it would be a mistake to say that the current kimchi made with chili peppers originated in Sichuan Province.
If that's the case, there must be a culture of foamed vegetables using chili peppers all over China, or even on land routes to Beijing. Chinese historical debates tend to be like this. China's 3,000 years will turn into its 4,000 years the next day, but there are no excavations that have spread its culture geographically. It ends with a dot. Culture is transmitted through people as a medium.
Incidentally, as part of its national strategy, China claims that ginseng is many times more superior to Korean ginseng, and supports vast fields of ginseng. This is an economic revitalization project for the underdeveloped and ethnically diverse Yunnan province.
By the way, when I looked into the origin of chili peppers, I found that there is a record that it dates back to 6000 BC in Mexico. A little respect for Mexican chili peppers would end this debate.
Moon Jae In Cancelled of Visiting Japan Prime Minister Suga's remarks at a press conference: I havsaid I will treat him with diplomatic manner if President Moon will come to Japan.Along with the announcement of the president's postponement, South Korea has expressed its hope for the success of the Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics.I would like to keep this in mind.Furthermore, in order to restore Japan-South Korea relations to a healthy relationship, we would like to continue to communicate firmly with South Korea based on Japan's consistent stance."
The first point is to respond politely to visiting Japan (meaning participate in the opening ceremony of the Olympics).It didn't mean a summit meeting.
The second point is to communicate firmly with South Korea based on Japan's consistent position (assuming that Japan does not make concessions).
Whether Moon Jae In had completely misread these two points or pretended not to understand them, they had passed each other from the very beginning.
assumption of the division of A Korean journalist(Shinichi Nabe) explained, "Most Koreans want reunification," adding, "It is true that most Koreans want reunification".Next, "What if Japan were divided into East and West after the war?Don't you want to unify?It's the same as that".I sometimes hear such a remark.
As a Japanese, there are many cases where people are silent about such sudden questions, but they are always simply questions.For example, if Western Japan had repeatedly provoked its allies by communism, dictatorship, and nuclear weapons, the Japanese would not want reunification.The collapse of the system and the opening up of the people are all prerequisites.
The preamble of the Constitution lies at the root of South Korea's anti - Japanese sentiment.The reason for affirming anti - Japanese sentiment and excluding pro - Japanese sentiments is found in the
The preamble of the Korean Constitution states that 3.1 the legal system of the provisional government of the Republic of Korea will be inherited. Then, what is the March 1 Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea? It is an organization that called itself the Provisional Government and was established in 1919 as an anti-Japanese force. Looking at the contents of the charter, we see that the oath is strongly anti-Japanese: ``We will fight to the last man to indoctrinate Japan from barbarism.''
The preamble of the constitution describes the principles that govern the entire constitution. The structure of this idea is to inherit the legal structure of the March 1 Charter of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea. If we interpret these without contradiction, Article 21 of the latter part of the Korean Constitution states freedom of speech and Article 22 states academic freedom, but if we read it based on the preamble of the Constitution, we can see that 3.1 Legal framework of the provisional government It can also be interpreted as allowing freedom of speech and academics on the premise of inheriting the law. This is actually the case in Korea today.
If you look at the oath of the provisional government quoted in the preamble of the constitution, it clearly states anti-Japanese ideology. In the first place, the constitution should not quote anything or include language that assumes other countries.
In any case, as long as South Korea is under this constitution, anti-Japanese activities are always legitimate, and on the contrary, pro-Japanese activities are criticized as acts that destroy the legal system of the March 1 Provisional Government Charter and the Constitution. If members of the Diet follow the principle of adhering to the Constitution, then anti-Japanese members are conducting legitimate parliamentary activities. This is the main reason why it is said that #anti-Japan is South Korea's national policy.
How can the preamble of the Constitution be consistent with fundamental human rights such as freedom of speech, thought and belief, and academic freedom? There appears to be no case where a legal interpretation has been obtained in the Constitutional Court through a lawsuit or controversy that has raised this point. The Korean government is free to expand its interpretation as much as it wants. This is the case now, as seen in the No Japan movement, where anti-Japanese activities are legitimate activities, and pro-Japanese speech is denounced as ``traitors.'' Is this an exception to basic human rights, with speech affirming the era of Japanese rule being suppressed, or is anti-Japanese a duty of every Korean citizen as written in the Provisional Government's oath?
Provisional Government OathOathTo my 2,000,000 fellow citizens whom I respect and loveMarch 1st year of the Republic of Korea One day, since the Korean nation declared its independence, men and women, young and old, all classes, and all sects, of course, have come together to fight under the inhumane violence of Japan, the Germany of the East. The sympathy of the world is now suddenly focused on our people because they have expressed the character of a nation that is extremely patient with fairness, longs for independence and freedom for its people, and loves truth, justice, and humanity. It was at this time that the government was organized with the mandate of all the people of the country. I hereby swear that this government, together with all the people of this country, will work wholeheartedly to fulfill the great mission of restoring the nation and establishing its identity as a nation, observing the provisions of the provisional constitution and the principles of international society. My fellow countrymen, be inspired. Every drop of blood we shed is the gift of freedom and fortune to our descendants. It is the precious foundation for building God's kingdom. The way of our people will surely edify Japan's wild horses. Our justice truly trumps Japan's violence. My brethren, rise and battleto the last man.
3.1 The provisional government was the result of an anti-Japanese movement that occurred on March 1, 1919 under Japanese rule, and after that, Syngman Rhee established a provisional government in Shanghai, where he was in exile. This provisional government is considered the legitimate root of the Korean government, and Syngman Rhee became the first president of Korea after Japan's defeat. In other words, the Korean government itself is based on anti-Japanese organizations. Therefore, the Constitution will inherit the legal system of the Provisional Government Charter.
It is no wonder why this story has not been reported in Japan, but it seems safe to assume that there are almost no members of the Korean Diet who are not anti-Japanese. On the contrary, he says that it is impossible to become a member of the Diet while advocating pro-Japan policy. Rather than saying, ``Many South Korean parliamentarians are anti-Japanese,'' it seems more accurate to say, ``South Korean parliamentarians exist because they are anti-Japanese.'' South Korea will never become a pro-Japanese country. That future will never come. Will the South Korean government or National Assembly propose a constitutional amendment and delete the text written in the preamble? If that happens, the roots and identity of the Korean government will disappear.
Anti-Japanese activities are legitimate activities that are affirmed by the Korean Constitution. Depending on the interpretation, it can also be considered to be outside the scope of freedom of speech. We need to think about South Korea with this in mind.
Death toll from Halloween Shogi chess accident in Seoul rises to 151 - Different countries respond differently to similar accidents.
Deadly accident occurs on Halloween in Seoul
Akashi fireworks festival accident for which police were held responsible
Shanghai accident started with suspicious report
China's return to people's responsibility
How will South Korea sum up this issue
The number of people killed in a shogi accident during Halloween in Seoul has increased to 151. This is the worst accident in terms of man-made disasters. This accident reminds me of the Akashi fireworks festival accident in Japan and the New Year countdown accident on the Shanghai Bund in China. Shogi accidents occur when players are pushed from behind in a crowded crowd, or when they step on someone else's foot and lose their balance. This chain causes a major accident.
This also happened during the Akashi Fireworks Festival, and 11 people died. However, it is impossible for the people who disrupted that arrangement to be held responsible. Problems with the police and security were investigated day after day, and in the end, a civil court ordered Hyogo Prefectural Police and the security company to pay damages. The conclusion is that it was foreseeable and that the necessary measures were not taken. In the criminal trial, one police officer and one security company were sentenced to 2 years and 6 months in prison, and 3 city employees were sentenced to 2 years and 6 months in prison, suspended for 5 years was found guilty.
Next, regarding the incident in Shanghai Bund, I was in Shanghai on the day of the accident. A Chinese person I spoke to the next day asked me, didn't you go to the Bund last night? I found out when I was asked. According to the news reports after the accident, 36 people were said to have died. From then on, it turned out to be a complete lie. On New Year's Eve, Shanghai was in a state of chaos, with people rushing to the point where it was difficult to walk, not only on the Bund, but also everywhere, including the station premises, and it would have been no surprise if an accident occurred anywhere. . If it was an accident during the New Year's countdown on the Bund, it was clear that 36 people would not have been there.
Afterwards, I was looking into how this incident was summarized in China, and came across an article called Expert Opinion. "Increase public awareness of safety, avoid danger, and avoid crowded places." In other words, public responsibility for gathering too much. It was not intended to hold the government or police responsible.
There was clearly a problem with the accident in Seoul, and it was a catastrophe in which many people died. Maybe it's because it happened right after the accident, but when I look at articles from South Korea, there doesn't seem to be any complaints about the lack of police or security. In Japan, a ruling after the accident increased the responsibility of the police and security companies for events where large numbers of people gather, resulting in an increase in the safety of citizens.
Shogi falling accidents occur in various countries, but the way each country views and deals with the problem is completely different. How will South Korea summarize this accident?
