Korea is opposed to Sado Kanayama's application for registration as a World Heritage site.Japan have evidence that it was not forced labor.
2022-01-27
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Reason that recruitment is not compulsory labor
The Cabinet's decision in April ２０２１ and the inclusion of warship islands as UNESCO World Heritage sites are posted on the grounds that the recruitment at that time was not a forced labor.Forced Labour Convention in １９３０.
Korea, which has always opposed it
When registering as a warship island, South Korea strongly opposes it, and Japan has even proposed a draft of the plan, saying that it will support it if it writes forcedlabor .Japan refused, and at the Japan-South Korea Foreign Ministers' Meeting, South Korea finally agreed to write forcedtowork .The Korean side was particular about the description because it knew that forced labor would be described as forced labor in the Forced Labor Convention at that time.Recruitment is not included in forced labor.It is stated in Article ２-２.The recruitment of the General Mobilization Order falls under paragraph (b).
South Korea opposes Japan's move to apply for the registration of Sado Kanayama as a World Heritage Site, saying it will not allow forced labor to be designated as a World Heritage Site.This is just the same view as it was on Gunkanjima.
C０２９ - Forced Labour Convention, １９３０ (No. ２９)
ARTICLE １
１. Each Member of the International Labour Organisation which ratifies this Convention undertakes to suppress the use of forced or compulsory labour in all its forms within the shortest possible period.
ARTICLE ２
１. For the purposes of this Convention the term forced or compulsory labour shall mean all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily.
２. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this Convention, the term forced or compulsory labour shall not include--
(a) any work or service exacted in virtue of compulsory military service laws for work of a purely military character;
(b) any work or service which forms part of the normal civic obligations of the citizens of a fully self-governing country ;
(c) any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, provided that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations;
(d) any work or service exacted in cases of emergency, that is to say, in the event of war or of a calamity or threatened calamity, such as fire, flood, famine, earthquake, violent epidemic or epizootic diseases, invasion by animal, insect or vegetable pests, and in general any circumstance that would endanger the existence or the well-being of the whole or part of the population;
(e) minor communal services of a kind which, being performed by the members of the community in the direct interest of the said community, can therefore be considered as normal civic obligations incumbent upon the members of the community, provided that the members of the community or their direct representatives shall have the right to be consulted in regard to the need for such services.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
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.
constitutional monarchy A country with an imperial or royal family is not a presidential system.This is because it is a constitutional monarchy.The president will be the head of state.Therefore, countries with imperial and royal families adopt a parliamentary cabinet system if they are democratic.Koreans often say that Japan is a democratic backward country because it does not directly elect its leader.I was surprised to hear that even a university professor who is Korean said such a thing.Britain, the birthplace of modern democracy, is also likely to become a backward country.
Will increased defense spending enable Japan to create innovations never seen before? - Amendment to Article 9 of the Constitution, revival of the military industry, and technological development.
Aims after constitutional amendment
Japan becomes a military power
The history of weapon development is a history of technological innovation
A world of innovation that cannot be imagined in everyday life
Japan should revise Article 9 of its constitution and revive its military industry. As I recall, Congressman Takaichi was the first member of the Diet to speak clearly about this issue. Amendments to Article 9 of the Constitution will expand Japan's military power and increase its defense capabilities, which will greatly reduce the risk of war. My personal opinion from the beginning has been that simply reducing the risk is a failure, and that technological innovation will be born by developing various military technologies in the name of military budgets.
If that happens, there will be countries and people who ridicule Japan's efforts to become a military power and try to get in the way, but it would be better to say clearly, ``Japan will become a military power.'' No engineer is aiming for second or third place in the technological development competition. When it comes to Japanese technology, it is normal to aim for the top in the world. Too many people think that if they developed a weapon, they would be murderers.
What exactly are the bronze tools used for thousands of years BC? It is a weapon and a vessel. What is iron? This is also used as a weapon, agricultural tool, and various decorations. These processing techniques were developed to defeat the enemy in war. Countries that acquired these processing techniques gained supremacy over their regions and acquired cultures such as bronzeware and iron-related crafts.
What exactly is an aircraft? Don't stop thinking just because the Wright Brothers achieved their dream of flying. The development of airplanes progressed with the investment of national funds for use in the war, making them faster, safer, lighter, and larger, and they were put into practical use during World War I. What exactly are passenger planes commonly used today? Grumman and Boeing are in the military industry.
Hitler was passionate about automobile development and invested a large amount of state funds. At that time, automobiles were the pinnacle of industrial technology, and were connected to the drive and performance of military vehicles and tanks. Winning in automobile races increased national prestige. Why are BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Volks still so strong?During this era, Germany won the technological competition.
What are nuclear weapons? A bomb that uses the enormous energy released during nuclear fission. So what is a nuclear power plant? The electricity for the PC I am currently using is also generated by nuclear power.
Is the country that developed the coronavirus vaccine a medical technology powerhouse? Completely different. These are countries that conduct military research into bacterial and viral weapons.
The technology to defeat the enemy in war is a technological innovation for survival that assumes the extraordinary, and has no taboos. Human history has proven that this is a field where innovations and paradigm shifts that cannot occur in everyday life can occur in the sense of achieving a goal using various methods. In other words, Japan should seriously aim to become a military power. This is because, at the same time, unimaginable technological innovations that can be used for peaceful purposes will be born.
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.
Is the Unification Church issue a problem of separation of church and state? - Abnormal public opinion that condemns people just by saying hello.
The problem started with the murder of the former prime minister
There is no law that says no to politicians getting involved in religion
What are the benefits of specific religions from the country
Incoherent media tone
The issue of the Unification Church has become somewhat incomprehensible in Japan. It is said that the mother of the person responsible for the incident in which former Prime Minister Abe was shot and killed was a member of the Unification Church, and that her past misfortunes related to this were the motive behind the incident. Former Prime Minister Abe reportedly gave a speech at the Unification Church. However, this is still just a statement before the trial. I don't even know if that's the real motive.
Politicians are often asked to attend and give speeches at meetings of various organizations. It can also be said that this is part of political activity. Some people refer to the constitutional principle of separation of church and state, but when interpreted as a law that prohibits the state from providing benefits to specific religious groups, it can be interpreted as a law that prohibits individual politicians from drinking alcohol, regardless of which religious group they greet at. It's not something I already know.
Facilitation by the state refers to the provision of advantageous systems and benefits to specific religious groups by law. Even if they say hello at the Unification Church, they will probably also visit Yasukuni Shrine, and if the Dalai Lama of Tibetan Buddhism visits Japan, will the Japanese Prime Minister meet him? He will probably meet the Pope when he visits Japan. Does this violate the principle of separation of church and state? We just met.
The problem with the Unification Church is simply a question of how to regulate large donations to religious organizations that violate public order and morals, as well as forced requests, and is far from an issue of the separation of church and state.
