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.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
After the tragic death of former Prime Minister Abe, Japan will carry out Abe's will and amend its constitution - calling for the unity of the Liberal Democratic Party.
Election activities, security issues
One SP for each former prime minister?
Other former prime ministers who have not been seen since leaving office
Mr. Abe continued his activities with light security
Restrict Korean sovereignty
What Abe wanted to achieve
Former Prime Minister Abe was killed by a bullet, and it has been difficult for him to sort out his feelings, but it seems that public opinion is starting to sort itself out somehow. The current situation is targeting the Nara Prefectural Police in the area where former Prime Minister Abe gave a speech. Naturally, if the police had questioned the perpetrator beforehand, or there was a gap of several seconds before the second shot was fired, I myself wonder why the SP could not have arrested him during that time. I also thought about it.
However, when we piece together information that has been reported, it appears that in Japan, after the prime minister retires, there will be one SP. It is speculated that the Nara Prefectural Police, who were in charge of the election speech that day, were providing security for normal campaign activities. And if you look at the video, you can see it in a 360-degree open state. It would be difficult to provide security in a 360-degree open space. If it is at least 180 degrees, it is limited to the front, left and right, but even then it seems impossible to completely defend with one SP and regular prefectural police.
In other words, does this mean that former Prime Minister Abe went to support candidates in the House of Councilors election in an environment where he could not defend himself even if someone killed him if he had that intention? Therein lies the essence of the problem. Normally in Japan, after a prime minister resigns, he is rarely seen, and his political activities are rarely reported in the media. I don't know if the reason is that security is getting thinner at each level, but that's what happened to successive prime ministers. Considering the danger to myself, that might be the normal thing to do. But Abe was different.
Former Prime Minister Abe's reason for resigning as Prime Minister was due to worsening of his chronic ulcerative colitis, but after getting better with medication, he began energetically supporting Liberal Democratic Party members for the future of Japan. He even created a YouTube channel and will be cheering for Liberal Democratic Party candidates in the House of Councilors election. This is despite the fact that they are only given the security mentioned above. Considering this, it can be said that Mr. Abe continued to enthusiastically engage in political activities even though his life was in danger.
I don't know where public opinion will conclude this issue, but my honest feeling is that this is a direct attack on Japan's democracy and an incident that has destroyed the spiritual pillars of the Japanese right. We cannot retreat even one millimeter against this attack. Former Prime Minister Abe is a politician. His earnest wish was to amend the Constitution. If we are to mourn his death, he must accomplish this.
Britain and Italy begin joint development of next - generation fighter jet - Will Japan's next - generation fighter jet be a game changer? It has been announced that the UK and Italy will jointly develop Japan's next-generation fighter aircraft. It had already been announced that Japan would develop a successor to the F-2, but now Japan has agreed to jointly participate with the UK and Italy. Prime Minister Sunak said the joint venture would create thousands of jobs in the UK and strengthen security ties.
It has advanced stealth characteristics, and AI functions support humans when the pilot is under extreme stress or unable to respond to a situation. If necessary, it can be operated without pilot instructions and can fire supersonic missiles.
Since the 1990s, the Ministry of Defense's Technical Research Headquarters (currently the Defense Equipment Agency) has developed the advanced technology demonstration aircraft X-2 to explore the possibility of developing a future stealth fighter F-3 (tentative name) using Japanese technology.
The X-2 aircraft underwent a total of 32 flight tests until October 31, 2017, verifying its stealth and maneuverability. This demonstrated that Japan has the ability to produce the F-3 domestically.
Among the 6th generation fighter jets currently being developed by various countries, the F-3 will have the highest performance. This is a fighter jet that truly represents the evolution of Made in Japan technology.
It is clear that the F-3 fighter will play an important role in NATO's strategy in the future, and it will be a game changer in China policy due to its clear performance differences. The future of Japan joining NATO has become a reality.
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
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.
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.
