Leaders Participate in the Olympic Opening Ceremony - Prime Minister Abe Participated for the Athletes and Moon Jae - in Used for Political Use
2021-07-12
Category:Japanese comfort woman problem I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Former Prime Minister Abe participated in the opening ceremony despite opposition.
At the time of the Pyeongchang Olympics held in South Korea, Moon Jae-in had already spoken out about the invalidity of the comfort women agreement, and in Japan, there was much domestic public opinion against Prime Minister Abe's participation in the opening ceremony of the Games. However, it was thought that Prime Minister Abe would not participate, but Prime Minister Abe announced his intention to participate. The reason was that ``I had to participate as the country's top leader in order to encourage the Japanese national team players.''
South Korea intends to participate in the opening ceremony and do business with us
I have seen Moon Jae-in in this sense, and he is truly a disappointing person. The South Korean athlete did not even know whether his country would participate in the Tokyo Olympics until just before the Olympics, and his argument that he might boycott was so lame that it was dismissed by the IOC. As for Moon Jae-in's participation in the opening ceremony, it appears that he was trying to make a deal until the very end, unilaterally offering a deal in exchange for a summit meeting.
Who is using the Olympics for politics?
South Korea has been the most sensitive to the political use of the Olympics, and appears to have criticized Japan at every turn at the national level. From the perspective of Japan, the South Korean athletes who play the leading role in sports tournaments are nowhere to be seen, and it appears that Moon Jae-in, far from using the Olympics for politics, seems to think that the Olympics themselves are a political venue.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Japanese Military comfort woman A major flaw in the scrapping of the agreement is President Moon Jae In's dissolution of the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation.
The comfort women agreement is an official agreement
South Korea does not understand the agreement
2015 Comfort Women Agreement
The claim date is from 1965. Comfort women agreement establishes foundation
With the dissolution of the foundation, former comfort women cannot negotiate with Japan
In 2021, Moon Jae-in recognized the comfort women agreement as an official agreement between the governments. I wonder if these words were uttered out of a feeling that further deterioration of Japan-Korea relations would be a problem because it would affect the economy, regarding the lawsuit filed by former comfort women against the Japanese government. The problem is that the South Korean side doesn't fully understand the contents of the 2015 agreement.
Reading the comfort women agreement, it is clear that the main purpose of the agreement is for the South Korean government to establish a ``foundation'' to support former comfort women. Based on this assumption, the comfort women issue between the two countries will be finally and irreversibly resolved. In addition, we will refrain from blaming or criticizing each other regarding this issue in the international community. The Korean government will strive to resolve the issue of the girl statue in front of the Japanese Embassy in South Korea appropriately through consultations with related organizations. The order is as follows.
2015 comfort women agreement
Japanese side:
(2) The Japanese government has been sincerely addressing this issue, and based on its experience, it has recently decided to use the Japanese government's budget to heal the emotional wounds of all former comfort women. Take measures to ease the situation. Specifically, the South Korean government established a foundation for the purpose of supporting former comfort women, provided a lump sum of funds from the Japanese government's budget, and the Japanese and South Korean governments cooperated to provide support for all former comfort women. We will carry out projects to restore the honor and dignity of comfort women and heal their emotional wounds.
2. South Korean side:
(1) The Korean government evaluates the Japanese government's statements and efforts leading up to this announcement, and the Japanese government has confirmed the above 1. On the premise that the measures stated in (2) are steadily implemented, through this announcement we confirm that, together with the Japanese government, this issue will be finally and irreversibly resolved. The Government of the Republic of Korea will cooperate with the measures taken by the Government of Japan.
The comfort women agreement states that the South Korean government will establish a foundation and work through its activities to resolve issues with former comfort women.
In other words, the entire premise of this comfort women agreement was the establishment of a foundation, and as expected, Moon Jae-in dissolved this foundation. If this is recognized as an official agreement, there is an obligation to rebuild the ``Foundation for Reconciliation and Healing.'' Since this has not been done, even if South Korea says something, it will simply be bringing up a topic unrelated to the comfort women agreement. The issue of claims was resolved in 1965.
The purpose of establishing the foundation is to carry out projects to restore the honor and dignity of former comfort women and to heal their emotional wounds. Nowhere does it say that Japan should simply distribute the 1 billion yen it contributed. In other words, South Korea has abandoned its efforts to establish a foundation and restore the honor and dignity of former comfort women.
Looking at this from a different angle, with this agreement, the comfort women issue is no longer an issue between the governments of the two countries, but an issue between the foundation and the individual former comfort women. The former comfort women are demanding that Japan's prime minister meet in person and apologize, which is an unlikely request, but let's assume it happened. That can only be the result of negotiations conducted through the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation. Without the Foundation, no one can negotiate with Japan. This is not an issue of claims or human rights, but rather an issue of default by the South Korean government, which has abandoned its efforts to establish a foundation and resolve the issue.
If you confuse the claim rights issue with the comfort women agreement, you will lose sight of the essence. The major flaw in the cancellation of this agreement is that it dissolves the Foundation.
Legality of Japanese Annexation of Korea The Supreme Court's decision on recruitment is based on the unilateral recognition of torts under Japanese rule. There are two main points in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Korea. One is the issue of the Japan-Korea Claims Agreement. The second is the recognition of torts under Japanese rule, which was the premise of the decision.
The waiver of claims in post-war processing was under the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Japan has abandoned its diplomatic protection rights related to claims. Countries that do not ratify the peace treaty will individually conclude a treaty. Diplomatic protection means that the country does not diplomatically protect the exercise of claims against other countries. A-bomb survivors in Hiroshima have attempted to claim damages against the United States for indiscriminate attacks on civilians as a tort. At this time, the view of the Government of Japan is that the Government of Japan has abandoned its diplomatic protection rights and the government is not involved. However, he replied that the individual's claim was not extinguished. "Yanagi answer". It is the answer of the Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs and the administrative view.
In fact, South Korea has been activating the movement for individual claims by quoting this Yanai answer. Until then, South Korea, on the contrary, interpreted that the individual's claim itself had disappeared (described in the Korean side manual of the 1965 Agreement), and after hearing this Yanai's answer, he knew for the first time that the individual's claim would not be extinguished. It was. Aside from the administrative view of Japan, the legal view was that in 2007 the Supreme Court of Japan stated that it was not subject to protection, including individual jurisdiction. At the same time, the individual's claim right will not be extinguished.
In other words, the problem is that a treaty is a promise between countries, not a contract between individual citizens. Individuals do not lose their claims as individual rights, but the state does not act for them. The Supreme Court of Korea interpreted that the jurisdiction would not be extinguished. The first point is whether or not jurisdiction is included.
Regarding the second tort recognition, when Japan signed the 1965 Agreement, Japan is approaching the conclusion with a consistent view that the annexation of Korea is not an illegal act under international law. The eight articles presented by the South Korean side in the agreement are about claims for the property of natural persons (individuals), but it is written and agreed in the agreement to abandon them. And it is not the concept of compensation, but economic cooperation.
The Japanese annexation of Korea is not illegal because there is no fact that Japan occupied it by force and forcibly concluded it, and it was signed and stamped when the two countries signed the agreement. The letter of the emperor Sunjong's name is written on the power of attorney to delegate full authority to Prime Minister Ye Wanyong, and there is no debate about whether this is a signature, and Sunjong itself is not recognized as an emperor. There is a claim that there is no signature of Gojong, but the universal public law of international law at that time stipulates that the signature of the head of state is not always necessary for concluding a treaty.
The reason why tort recognition is the point is that the Korean side ignored the views and interpretations under international law and unilaterally recognized it as tort. Korean civil law stipulates that personal property rights and claims will be extinguished if not exercised for 20 years. In other words, normally, both the recruiter and the comfort woman have passed the extinction prescription of the claim. Looking at the cases of claims related to the claim right at the time of the annexation of Japan and South Korea in South Korea, there are a number of judgments that were dismissed because of the extinction prescription. What happens if the Japanese annexation of Korea becomes an illegal act? The claim right at point 1 does not expire. Since it is a principle of international law that the right to claim under tort has no statute of limitations, the Daiho-in Temple has unfoundedly recognized the annexation of Korea as a tort.
As mentioned above, an individual's claim will not be extinguished only on the premise of tort. The treaty exists as another matter, it is a promise between countries, and the Korean government has a strict obligation to keep the treaty.
Japanese Military comfort woman recruited through a newspaper contest. There are many questions about forced arrests from a necessity point of view.
The most questionable point is whether forced arrest of Japanese Military comfort woman was necessary.Lee Yong-soo, who is said to be a former Japanese Military comfort woman, said that the sex industry exists in modern countries and Japan, and that the balance between supply and demand seems to be balanced.In other words, the percentage of men who seek this and women who provide services as a profession.How about in Korea?It is not a situation where people should be forcibly taken away even if they omit ethical issues related to sexual morals.By the way, Japan's unemployment rate stood at 2.8 percent in September.
At that time, many people on the Korean Peninsula were too poor to find jobs, but the unemployment rate dropped dramatically due to Japanese investment, and Joseon itself was surprisingly modernized and developed.Japan was never rich during the war, but men would have to hire them first to get a job.Are there more women who need jobs financially than now?The proportion of men and women after birth or in nature is about 1:1 .It's a simple arithmetic problem.
Japanese Military comfort woman is open to the public through newspaper advertisements, as left as data from that time.And prostitution itself was legal under the laws of the time.In addition, they are paid several times as much as college-graduated men.That seems to have gathered enough people.There are many questions as to why 300,000 people were forcibly taken away.
At that time, Japanese Military comfort woman was paid a lot of money, and when I returned to Korea, I got enough money to buy a house in just about two years.
Korean group trying to stop the comfort women movement in South Korea The method is to stay up all night and reserve a space first.
Preemption of space for South Korean far-right groups began in May 2020. In the wake of allegations of misappropriation of sponsorship funds by Rep. Yoon Mi-hyang, who served as the president of the Justice and Remembrance Solidarity (a core organization in the comfort women litigation movement), far-right civic groups held a rally in front of the Statue of the Girl of Peace. They began filing reports ahead of the Justice League.
Meeting notifications can be submitted 30 days (720 hours) in advance, but members of far-right and conservative groups are staying up all night taking turns at the waiting area at Jongno Police Station, where meeting notifications are accepted. , the place is taken away every time.
Although it is a primitive method, it is amazing that they are trying to stop the comfort women movement even by staying up all night.
Kang Kyung-ran, head of the Solidarity Movement for Justice League, said, ``Far-right groups are claiming to ``end the Wednesday demonstrations forever'' and have filed a gathering at the same location. She is a prostitute () on a daily basis, and she does not hesitate to say things that insult us.
I have decided to petition the National Human Rights Commission to take urgent remedial measures and investigate the human rights violations occurring at the rally site, as well as to investigate the police who ignore these acts."
The anti-comfort women movement in South Korea is led by far-right political parties and carried out by civil society groups.
Professor Ramseyer's negative statement [There is no evidence of forced abduction of comfort women] is a complete lie. [Translated excerpt of Yonhap News article]
On January 5th, Mark Ramseyer, a professor at Harvard Law School in the United States, who defined South Korean comfort women as "prostitutes" and received international backlash, has now proven that "comfort women were forced to be recruited." It is expected that there will be a stir by asserting that there are no contemporary documents that do so.
Professor Ramseyer made this clear on the 5th in his article ``Sexual Contracts in the Pacific War: Responses to Criticism'' posted on the Harvard Law School website.
In this paper, which is a rebuttal of previous criticisms directed at her, Professor Ramseyer argues that ``Korean women were drawn into [comfort women] by the Japanese military who fought against their will, regardless of their will.'' I will respond to the allegation,'' and declared, ``This allegation is false.''
At the same time, he asserted, `` Korean women were not forced to serve as comfort stations due to planned coercion by the Japanese military.''
He specifically argued that the 1983 book ``My War Crimes'' by Japanese author and activist Seiji Yoshida was the de facto basis for the forced recruitment of comfort women.
For 35 years after the end of the war, there was no evidence (proving forced conscription). It was only in the late 1980s that some Korean women began to advocate this."
He added, ``The comfort women debate started with Yoshida's 'fraud'''' and ``Most of the experts who criticized me were from Japan and South Korea, but even though they knew about this book, no one He also didn't mention this book."
Regarding the paper in question, Professor Ramseyer said, ``The core of the paper was about the contract, such as why the comfort women received advance payment and what conditions under the contract determined the women's working hours.'' ``However, none of the criticisms leveled at me were aimed at this kind of economic analysis.''
In a paper published that day, Professor Ramseyer cited a study last year by Lee Yuken, a co-author of ``Anti-Japanese Tribalism'' and a research committee member at the University of Economics Research Institute, which received support from far-right groups in Japan.
Professor Ramseyer also claimed that comfort women victims, who remained silent for a considerable period after the war, changed their words after they began demanding reparations from Japan.
In a situation where there is no document proving forced recruitment, the only evidence, the testimonies of victims, lacks credibility..
In particular, he referred to comfort woman victim Lee Yong-soo as ``the most notorious (of all the people who changed their words)''.
[Excerpt above]
Professor Ramseyer says that no evidence of her forced abduction or her contract has been found anywhere. Similarly, the Japanese government has made a cabinet decision under the Abe administration that there is no evidence of forced recruitment.
