The United Nations that has stopped functioning due to old - fashioned values - Japan remains an enemy country - Where is the country to be monitored?
2022-04-18
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
United Nations with Enemy State Clause
Enemy State Clauses in the Charter of the United Nations are set forth in Articles ５３, ７７ and １０７. The enemy country is a country that was an enemy at the time of World War II, and it is permitted to impose military sanctions against re-invasion by the enemy country without passing a resolution of the Security Council. The United Nations is a coalition of victorious nations, one of which is to monitor and control defeated nations. Needless to say, one of the enemy countries is Japan. Among such organizations, Russia, which is currently at war, and China, which aims to expand its power to Asia, exist as permanent members. China and South Korea are the countries that try to lower Japan's international status by taking advantage of the nature of the United Nations as a victorious coalition.
Japan, which has borne much of the United Nations
The contribution to the United Nations is determined based on GDP. As for the contribution, Japan, which is stipulated as an enemy country, is in ３rd place, and Germany is in ４th place. In recent years, China has been ranked second due to the growth of GDP, but Japan is still second in terms of cumulative contributions.
The United Nations does not work with old values ??
In the postwar US-Soviet Cold War era, NATO and the Warsaw Pact face each other. Nevertheless, this victorious alliance will continue to maintain the enemy state clause of World War II. And now, even when witnessing Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the United Nations is monitoring Japan and Germany with Russia and China as permanent members. The countries that the world must monitor will be clearly different.
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.
Which country did Japan invade? - Japan invaded European - controlled areas - Asian liberation and colonial policy.
When considering the aspects of Japan's war of aggression, first of all, the Korean Peninsula was made an independent state by the Treaty of Shimonoseki and was annexed by the Treaty of Annexation, so it is not included in the invasion. Taiwan was also formally ceded under the Treaty of Shimonoseki, so it was not included in the invasion. Southeast Asian countries are already Western colonies and do not have administrative powers. To be honest, Japan invaded Britain, the Netherlands, France, Portugal, and the United States. Would you call this an invasion of Asia? Viewed in this way, if China had dared to invade, it would have been China that was barely maintaining its administrative power.
Now, regarding what Japan's purpose was, if we say that Japan is no different from Western colonies in terms of increasing its national power through colonial rule, the reality is different. Japan did not adopt racist policies and developed laws, and eventually Southeast Asian countries grew to the point where they were able to fight against whites and protect their own countries on their own. War operations are meaningless unless they are linked to national interests. So these things are always related to Japan's national interests.
Historically speaking, Japan was isolated from the rest of the world until the Meiji Restoration. It took only 27 years from the establishment of the new government to its victory over the Qing Dynasty, which was said to be a world power. It would be 37 years until Japan again defeated Russia, which was said to be a world power. Next, it was in 1919 that Japan won World War I and became a permanent member of the League of Nations, so Japan isolated itself from developing countries that had never seen a steam engine, and only 51 In 2019, I will be sitting on a chair at the table at the center of the world. Japan proposed the ''Racism Discrimination Elimination Bill.''
There is probably no one who has not seen the vast area called Asia on a map. On top of that, over a long period of 400 years, the white maritime nation colonized Asian countries one after another. Japan is an island nation floating on the farthest east coast. Japan's opening to the world was related to this movement of white people. The colonization of the vast area of Asia was already approaching Japan.
Japan's Restoration and opening of the country, as well as the energy of the industrial revolution and modernization, were explosively generated during these global movements. If one country or one ethnic group in such a vast region of Asia, where so many ethnic groups live, were to unite and confront the white countries, the white people would never come to such a farthest island nation. It would be a good thing if there was even one country that could stop the invasion of white people, but unfortunately there was not a single country in Asia like that.
The main focus of Japan's colonial policy in Asia is to build a collective security system for people of color in Asia and to spread the results of Japan's Restoration to Asia. This is clearly stated in the Greater East Asia Joint Declaration, which is signed by the participating leaders from each country. If we look at history from a myopic perspective, we will not be able to understand this era.This may seem obvious, but no matter how many times you hear about former comfort women or visit coal mine sites, you will never understand this era.
Does Japan procure labor from anti - Japanese countries? - Are you not considering the issues of immigration policy?
It is said that Europe and the United States are reconsidering their immigration policies due to failures, but the United States views immigration from South America as a problem with guns and drugs, not immigration from Canada or Europe. When considered as a white group, they tend to have a lower birthrate, and it is predicted that white people will become a minority in the United States by 2060.
If Europe is facing social unrest due to immigration from Muslim countries, it is certain that this will happen if it accepts immigrants from countries that can be described as hostile religions. In Europe, the periphery means Islamic countries or Africa due to location. However, travel and work within the EU are basically free, so EU countries accept foreigners. The reality is that the West is trying to prevent immigration from dangerous countries.
What is fatal for Japan is that historically it has not been blessed with neighboring countries. If Japan had the issue of which country to procure labor from based on this kind of thinking, then it would be a crazy idea to bring labor from a country that routinely provides anti-Japanese education to its citizens. There are members of parliament.
In Asia, at least in terms of cultural background and religion, there are countries that believe in Buddhism, countries that have an affinity with the Japanese imperial family as a kingdom, have a good level of education, are pro-Japanese countries, and have a strong acceptance of Japan. It would be desirable if there could be collaboration that would allow Japan to be involved with educational institutions in partner countries.
In any case, Japan's efforts to combat the declining birthrate will be over once the second baby boom generation fails to have children. Even if the competitiveness of Japanese companies increases due to the weak yen, they will not be able to bring their production bases back to Japan, and on the other hand, if they continue to flow to other countries, their GDP and tax revenues will simply become income for other countries.
Upstream business strategically conducted by Japan.A form of processing trade in which Asian countries, including Korea, assemble and export them.
upstream business used to be a common practice.At that time, supply was scarce in the balance between supply and demand and supply were in short supply.The raw material is the most upstream and the final product is the downstream.Considering distribution, retailers sell to final consumers are the most downstream.If water doesn't flow, you can't do business, but in the age of oversupply, the story will change.The downstream retail stores are more powerful than the upstream manufacturing industry.Japan's 7-Eleven is a symbolic example of this, and OEMs want large companies to build private brands, and manufacturers want 7-Eleven to sell their products.
Japan has developed its upstream business.The strategy is to start with basic research, develop industrial machinery, and manufacture things require Japanese basic technology.Regarding the revision of export conditions for three strategic substances, including hydrogen fluoride, the South Korean government's insistence on supply chain integration means downstream integration, which is intended to put pressure on upstream manufacturing.
Lawmaker Matsukawa of the Liberal Democratic Party affirmed to the world that the global supply chain will not be in trouble.As they say, The world's supply chain never collapsed .
Almost all manufacturing industries in Korea are operated by Japanese industrial machinery and chemicals and parts manufactured in Japan.Currently, They are manufacturing by the basic parts imported from Japan.
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.
