Know the difference between the Rising Sun Flag and Hakenkreuz - What is the Korean historical perspective that equates them?
2022-02-12
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
National flag of the defeated country
In the history of the world, I have never heard of a country changing its flag because it won or lost a war. Britain and France have been at war many times, but did Britain, which won the Anglo-French War, demand that the French flag be changed? On the contrary, there is no idea that such a thing would become a point of contention in post-war processing. South Korea persistently demands that Japan abolish the Rising Sun flag, just as Germany abolished the Hakenkreuz flag.
The Rising Sun flag is a naval flag recognized under international law
A national flag symbolizes the country. The disappearance of a national flag means the disappearance of that nation. The Rising Sun Flag is the internationally registered flag of Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Force. Calling for the abolition of that flag is the same as calling for the abolition of the Maritime Self-Defense Force. Is South Korea claiming that it wants to go to war with Japan? If this is not the meaning, then the perception of what a ``flag'' is is too different internationally.
Nazis always quoted
South Korea always equates the Rising Sun flag with the Hakenkreuz, and claims that since the Hakenkreuz, the symbol of Nazi Germany, has been abolished, the Rising Sun flag should also be abolished. Hakenkreuz is the party flag of the Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers' Party), and there is a history of it being used as the national flag. There is no Nazi party now, so there is no Hakenkreuz. That's simply the story.
Unless Japan disappears, the Japanese flag will not disappear, and unless the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force disappears, the Rising Sun flag will not disappear. In the first place, the Rising Sun Flag is a flag that has been passed down culturally, so it will not disappear even if it has nothing to do with the Self-Defense Forces. No country will abolish its flag at the request of another country.
POINT There is only one country in the world calling for the abolition of the Rising Sun Flag. That country is not at war with Japan.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Prime Minister Kishida sends off his visit to Yasukuni Shrine - a place beyond Japan's sovereignty.
I will not visit Yasukuni again this year
Current Prime Minister visited Yasukuni Shrine after the war
Where no incumbent national leader can step foot?
Yasukuni Shrine is not a border issue
Violation of national sovereignty, not historical issues
Historical issues cannot be resolved without sovereignty
Prime Minister Kishida refrained from visiting Yasukuni Shrine and paid the tamagushi fee with his own funds. Some people in other countries even think that Yasukuni Shrine is located outside of Japan. This is because the leaders of a country cannot imagine that there are public places within their country that they cannot set foot in.
[Current Prime Minister who visited Yasukuni Shrine after the war]
The 43rd King Higashikuninomiya Toshihiko
The 44th Kijuro Shidehara
45th, 48th-51st Shigeru Yoshida
56th-57th Nobusuke Kishi
58th-60th Hayato Ikeda
61st-63rd Eisaku Sato
64th-65th Kakuei Tanaka
66th Takeo Miki
The 67th Takeo Fukuda
68th-69th Masayoshi Ohira
70th Yoshiyuki Suzuki
71st-73rd Yasuhiro Nakasone
82nd-83rd Ryutaro Hashimoto
87th-89th Junichiro Koizumi
90th and 96th Shinzo Abe
Will President Xi Jinping be able to visit Taiwan? I wonder if it can't be done? People from outside would normally think that if it can't be done in the first place, then it's not China. A sitting president cannot set foot in certain parts of the United States. Everyone would think that this is an area beyond the reach of American sovereignty.
In areas and islands with territorial disputes near borders, there are places where national leaders cannot set foot. In Japan, these include Takeshima, the Senkaku Islands, and the Northern Territories. However, former South Korean President Lee Myung-bak has landed on Takeshima, and former Russian Prime Minister Medvedev has visited Etorofu Island. Their only purpose is to assert national sovereignty.
Let's say that the reason the Japanese prime minister does not visit these areas is to avoid border disputes. But Yasukuni Shrine is located in Tokyo, the capital of Japan.
Before discussing what the Yasukuni issue is, the problem is that it obscures the fact that it is under the sovereignty of the Japanese state. In other words, other countries are restricting Japan's sovereignty by giving orders to the current leader, the prime minister, to visit public facilities in the capital of Japan. Yasukuni Shrine is originally a Japanese religious facility within Japan, and anyone is welcome to visit it.
Whether or not it is a problem because it enshrines a class A war criminal is not for other countries to decide in the first place. This can also be said to be Japan's decision under its sovereignty as a nation. It would be different if Yasukuni Shrine was located in China or South Korea.
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.
The Japan - U.S. summit meeting will focus on the Ukraine issue, the Taiwan Strait, China, and IPEF. Japan significantly expands defense spending.
Japan's defense spending to expand significantly
Is the U.S. military “involved” or “intervened” in the Taiwanese emergency?
Official White House press conference record
What is Japanese leadership
Ukraine issue is Taiwan issue
What is Asian-based security?
There wasn't much that was announced at the joint press conference following the summit following President Biden's visit to Japan, but it can be summarized as: unity among allies on the Ukraine issue, commitment to the China issue, the Taiwan Strait issue, and the establishment of IPEF. Examples include cooperation in economic initiatives aimed at the future.
If I had to say, the noteworthy points are that the United States supports Japan's bid to become a permanent member of the United Nations, the United States' understanding of Japan's significant expansion of its defense budget, and the fact that the G7 meeting will be held in Hiroshima, and that there will be no rule-based changes to the status quo. The G7 should be a place where both Europe and Asia can come together and reach an agreement that this will not be tolerated.
In response to a reporter's question about whether the United States would intervene militarily in the event of an emergency in Taiwan, President Biden clarified that it would. He said there was no change to the "one China policy" and that this did not mean China had the right to use military force to seize Taiwan. However, there are cases where "get involved to" used here is translated as "involvement" and cases where "get involved to" is translated as "intervention."
In the official White House press conference transcript, Q : You didn't want to get involved in the Ukraine conflict militarily for obvious reasons. Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan, if it comes to that?PRESIDENT BIDEN: Yes.
(See link at the bottom of the article). Did Mr. Biden answer in the sense of involvement or intervention? Incidentally, TBS translates it as involvement, while Nippon Television translates it as intervention. Normally translated, it would mean involvement...
In recent years, the United States has begun to say about Japan that it has high expectations for Japan's leadership. Regarding Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the United States has focused on providing weapons and imposing economic sanctions, and has largely remained silent, giving the impression that it is a European problem that should be dealt with by Britain, Germany, and other European countries.
The Japanese government has considered the Ukraine issue as a Taiwan issue from the beginning and has continued to commit to supporting Ukraine, but President Biden's recent remarks may have been made out of the blue at a joint press conference, and the Japanese government may continue to provide weapons as usual. Does this mean involvement by, etc.?
President Biden has also stated that there will be no changes to the Taiwan issue, so it is difficult to interpret this. If the Taiwan Relations Act remains unchanged as before, there is a high possibility that the world will respond in the same way in the event of a Taiwan emergency. In other words, Taiwan will only fight by providing weapons .
The fact that the United States welcomes Japan's significant increase in defense spending also seems to be a message that Japan should take leadership in Asia's problems. Does this mean that if Japan wants to protect the Taiwan Strait, it should do so?
What was clearly evident at this joint press conference was that Prime Minister Kishida himself stated that the Japan-U.S. Alliance is Japan's only alliance, and that Japan is protected by the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. In other words, the United States is currently protecting Japan.
This means that Japan will have to significantly expand its defense spending, build up the ability to defend itself, and think about the Taiwanese crisis on its own terms. Otherwise, he cannot become the leader of Asia. If the United States is only indirectly involved, who will protect democracy in Asia? That only exists in Japan.
Study abroad boom in Japan at the end of the Qing Dynasty - The Korean peninsula missed the chance to modernize, and China failed to inherit the revolutionary spirit and plunged into civil war.
Japan study abroad boom in China
Studying in Japan begins with 13 students
Korea became an independent nation in the Sino-Japanese War
The Korean Peninsula missed the chance to modernize
Even after the Qing Dynasty fell, the revolutionary spirit was not inherited
Wang Zhaoming government established after the Sino-Japanese War
In China, a boom in studying abroad in Japan arose after the Sino-Japanese War. The purpose of studying abroad was to learn about Japan's modernization and policy of enriching the country and strengthening its military. Emperor Guangxu, Kang Youwei, and other Chinese intellectuals carried out the Restoration movement of ``transformation and self-strength,'' but it was thwarted by the pressure of conservative forces. Subsequently, educational reforms at the time were modeled on Japan, including the abolition of the imperial examination system (1905), the establishment of the modern school system (1904), the promulgation of the "Educational Philosophy" (1906), and the trial of compulsory education (1907). This is what we sought.
In 1896, for the first time, 13 young people were sent by the Qing Dynasty government to study in Japan, where they studied Japanese, chemistry, physics, mathematics, and other subjects for three years at the Tokyo National Higher Normal School's cram school. It is said that approximately 20,000 international students had come to Japan by the time of the Xinhai Revolution in 1911.
Political figures include Zhou Enlai, Li Dabei, Chen Duxiu, Wei Bei, Dong Yiwu, Chiang Kai-shek, Man Zhongshi, and Wang Zhaomei. Sun Yat-sen came to Japan as an exile in 1895. Cultural figures included Lu Xun, Guo Muruo, Tian Han, and He Xianggong.
While Joseon Dynasty was aiming for Chinese-style modernization, the Sino-Japanese War broke out in the wake of the Gongbo Peasants' War, and with Japan's victory, the Korean Peninsula became an independent nation. Kim Ok-gyun, who called for Japanese-style modernization, was assassinated about four months before the Sino-Japanese War began.
The movement of modernization on the Korean Peninsula was actually faster than in China. However, it did not become a big sensation and was crushed by the Joseon Dynasty, which had an old political system. Ironically, this was also due to pro-China policies. On the other hand, immediately after losing the Sino-Japanese War, China changed its policy toward Japanese-style modernization. Koten Miyazaki describes Kim Ok-gyun, who was exiled to Japan and was assassinated in Shanghai, as a person who should have become the Sun Yat-sen of the Korean Peninsula. Miyazaki, along with Takeshi Inukai and others, supported Sun Yat-sen's Xinhai Revolution. The Korean Peninsula has failed to modernize on its own.
As a result, in 1911, Sun Yat-sen succeeded in the Xinhai Revolution and founded the Republic of China, but as a condition of Emperor Xuantong's abdication, he made an exchange deal in which Yuan Shikai, a Beiyang warlord, became president, and the Qing dynasty ended. became increasingly authoritarian. A second revolution will begin to overthrow this. Even after the Northern Expedition was completed and Chiang Kai-shek became the president of the Nationalist Party, the division of China in the West continued. The spirit of Sun Yat-sen's revolution was to learn from Japan's Restoration and to stand together with the West and maintain our independence.
As the partition of China progressed, the Sino-Japanese War broke out, and the spirit of revolution was inherited by Wang Zhaoming's Nanjing Provisional Government. He was a close aide to Sun Yat-sen, had the experience of studying abroad in Japan, and participated in the Greater East Asia Conference. Over a long period of time, China failed in its revolution. On the contrary, the civil war between the People's Republic of China continued, and the People's Republic of China with a completely different ideology was born, not to mention Sun Yat-sen's revolution. The Japanese Restoration that Sun Yat-sen aimed for was not only about modernization, but also about achieving a rich nation and strong military in Asia, and protecting its independence from becoming a Western colony.
Japan is the only country with people of color that has succeeded in modernizing itself. It was only natural for Asian countries to learn from Japan in order to modernize.
World's First Anti-Racism Bill - Proposed by Japan, a Permanent Member of the League of Nations.
I wonder if Japan appears in world history around the time of the Sino-Japanese War. The world took note of the great accomplishments of the eastern island nation, and the West, which had considered China a great power, came to call China the ``sleeping lion.''
The next great achievement was the Russo-Japanese War. Heihachiro Togo, who won the Battle of the Sea of Japan, was featured on the front page of newspapers around the world, and is said to be the first Japanese person to be featured on the front page of a newspaper around the world. After that, Japan rose to the forefront of the world and became a permanent member of the League of Nations in 1919.
In 1919, Japan became the first country in the world to propose a bill to eliminate racial discrimination at the United Nations. Already during this period, Japan objected to the West's domination of Asia. Former Foreign Minister Nobuaki Makino criticized the racial discrimination caused by Western countries' colonies in various parts of Asia. (Nobuaki Makino: second from the left in the front row of the photo)
This is the world's first international organization to introduce a bill on the elimination of racial discrimination, with two representatives from France and two from Italy in favor, 11 from Greece, the Republic of China, Portugal, Czechoslovakia, the Kingdom of Serbs, the Kingdom of Croatia, Slovenes and Japan, and the United Kingdom against it. ・There were 5 people from the United States, Poland, Brazil, and Romania, so there was a majority in favor.
Many Japanese people think that the elimination of racial discrimination is a concept developed from the West, but in fact, it was Japan that first called for the elimination of racial discrimination.
At the time, Britain was abducting black people from Africa and trading them as slaves to the Americas. America used black slaves to grow cheap agricultural products and export them to countries around the world. The American representative argued that this was a no-go because it was not unanimous. Is there such a thing as a principle of unanimity among the 16 members?
Makino once objected, saying that the bill could be passed by majority vote, but the bill was rejected in accordance with the principle of unanimity in the United States, which was already a superpower at the time. This was nine years after the annexation of Japan and Korea and 22 years before the start of the Greater East Asia War.
South Korea continues to say that it was discriminated against and deprived of by Japan, but Japan was fighting in international organizations on a completely different scale. The annexation of Japan and South Korea and the annexation of Taiwan are assimilation policies that are completely different from Western-style colonies. Assimilation policy means that the Japanese, Koreans, and Taiwanese living there have equal rights and are subject to the rule of law.
The Greater East Asia War was a war between Japan and the white countries that ruled Asia, based on the idea that all Asian countries should maintain their independence and co-prosperity. The Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere concept was not something that suddenly appeared on a whim.
Korea claims that it suffered racial discrimination during the annexation of Japan and Korea, but it seems that they do not really understand what racial discrimination at that time meant.
