Interpretation of Former Prime Minister Abe's Preamble to the Constitution - It is necessary to revise the preamble at the same time as the revision of Article ９ of the Constitution.
2022-05-10
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
The following is the preamble to the Constitution of Japan. Former Prime Minister Abe, who appeared on TV as acting secretary general of the LDP in ２００５, was talking about the interpretation of the preamble to the Constitution. The preamble to the Constitution is a declaration of peacekeeping on the premise that it has no military power, and it is premised that it will be supported by other countries.
How Japan enjoyed peace during the post-war Cold War, and how to maintain peace in the midst of the rise of China and the runaway of North Korea, should be discussed separately. ..
Preamble to the Constitution of Japan
The Japanese people act through their representatives in a legitimately elected parliament, ensuring the achievements of harmony with the nations and the abundance of freedom throughout our country for our descendants, the government. Decided to prevent the tragedy of war from happening again by the act of, proclaiming that sovereignty exists in the people here, and finalizing this constitution. In the first place, national affairs are based on the solemn trust of the people, whose authority comes from the people, whose power is exercised by the representatives of the people, and whose welfare is enjoyed by the people. This is a universal principle of mankind, and this Constitution is based on this principle. We exclude any constitutions, statutes and imperial rescripts that violate this.
peace-loving nations. We decided to keep our safety and survival. We want to occupy a prestigious position in the international community, which strives to maintain peace and forever remove tyranny and servitude, oppression and narrowness from the earth. We affirm that the people of the world have the right to live in peace, free from fear and deficiency.
[Interpretation of former Prime Minister Abe]
We have decided to maintain our security and survival by trusting the justice and faith of peace-loving nations. → Leave it to other countries and decide to do nothing (Abe interpretation)
We want to occupy a prestigious position in the international community, which strives to maintain peace and forever remove tyranny and servitude, oppression and narrowness from the earth. → Let's get compliments from the international community that we are working on instead of asking for something (Abe interpretation)
It is a frank opinion that seems to be the former Prime Minister Abe. Many Japanese still think that Japan's peace has been protected by Article ９ of the Constitution, but the interpretation that it was protected by the United States rather than by Article ９ of the Constitution is more realistic. prize.
On the flip side, if the United States does not protect Japan, Japan's peace will be completely destroyed.
POINT The debate on the revision of Article ９ of the Constitution is overheating, but it seems necessary to discuss revising the preamble itself on the premise that it does not have force in the first place.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Possibility of the world's largest oil field off the coast of Izura, Ibaraki Prefecture - Hope for investigation and mining including security.
It is estimated that there is a huge oil field off the coast of Izura in Ibaraki Prefecture. A slag called carbonate concrete was formed by the bond between calcium and carbon, and the origin of carbon was unclear by research teams at Ibaraki University and Hokkaido University who found that it was natural gas. From the area of ??the reef, the total amount of natural gas ejected from the seabed is estimated, and the fact that natural gas is emitted means that there is a high possibility that oil resources are buried under it. If oil resources are discovered, they will be one of the largest in the world.
There seems to be an opinion that it is cheaper to buy oil from abroad as before because it takes a lot of time and cost from investigation to mining, but as a problem including security before the economic point of view. I want you to proceed with the investigation. In the first place, QUAD is the area where oil tankers pass from the Middle East, and China is trying to control it, and its original purpose is to prevent those movements.
What if oil comes out in Japan? Will the Spratly Islands issue and the Taiwan Strait issue become less important to Japan? No, it wouldn't be. China is cleverly developing oil resource diplomacy, which is a card of further threat to Asian countries. Achieving a free and open Indo-Pacific by QUAD could sell Japanese oil to Asian countries and reduce China's influence on the Spratly Islands relatively. I would like the country to discuss the overall benefits of having resources, not just the perspective of which is cheaper.
Just because there is a labor shortage doesn't mean it's okay to collect labor from anywhere - let alone anti - Japanese countries.
Even if we overcome deflation and restore international competitiveness through the fiscal stimulus advocated by the late Mr. Abe and Mr. Takaichi, and even if the total amount of money increases and wages rise, if the economy becomes rich, this means that domestic production will rise. , it is said that even with the current production volume, it will no longer be possible to make things as the population declines, so if the production volume increases, there will be an even greater shortage of personnel.
The current dual wage structure for dispatched workers is simply a measure to compensate for the domestic unemployment rate by relocating production bases to emerging countries due to the strong yen. On the other hand, if the yen depreciates, it will become possible to move production bases back to Japan, and some companies have actually returned to Japan amid the current depreciation of the yen. If production bases return, GDP and tax revenue will increase.
In other words, this is the economic growth that the people want, but what is crucially lacking is human resources. It is difficult to believe that Japan's industrial structure, which is dominated by manufacturing, will be easily replaced by AI. While Japan's competitiveness will increase if Abenomics and Mr. Takaichi's economic policies are implemented, I imagine that it will also lead to a shortage of labor in Japan.
Although there was a shortage of soldiers during the Greater East Asia War, it is said that only about 1.6% of recruited soldiers from the peninsula were able to join the Japanese army. If they don't understand the Japanese language, Japanese culture, or the purpose of war, the entire unit will suffer. Even Japanese women were able to work under the Women's Volunteer Corps Ordinance after passing various hurdles, and those who passed were given the approval of the local governor at the time.
There are people in Europe and America who think it would be a good idea to make immigrants and illegal immigrants work, but do they want to make the same mistakes and go down the path of creating social unrest? If human resources are absolutely necessary, the host countries should be limited by considering cultural background, historical and diplomatic compatibility, and Japan should even be involved in the education of Japanese language and culture. It would be better to abandon ideas such as procuring labor from countries that provide anti-Japanese education now.
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.
Greater East Asia War as seen from Hideki Tojo's will - Who is a war criminal? Judgment at the Allied Tribunal of Victorious Nations
At the end of the war, Japan surrendered unconditionally and faced trial by the Allied powers. This trial was based on the Charter of the Far East Military Tribunal, which was created based on the Charter of the International Military Tribunal. The Charter of the Far East Military Tribunal was dated January 19, 1946, so the rules were created completely after the end of the war, and the Charter of the International Military Tribunal on which it was based was dated August 8, 1945, just one week before Japan's surrender. It was signed in London by the four Allied nations: Great Britain, France, the United States, and the Soviet Union. In other words, it is a complete ex-post facto law, stipulated for class A-C war criminals, and was created to judge Japan.
Excerpt from Hideki Tojo's will
When I think back to the beginning of the war, I feel truly heartbroken. Personally, I feel comforted by this execution, but my domestic responsibility cannot be atoneed for with death. However, as far as international crimes are concerned, he maintains his innocence. I bowed down before power. As for me, I will go to the prison satisfied with my domestic responsibility. However, it is truly unfortunate that he was responsible for his colleagues, and that his punishment was extended to lower-ranking officers. I deeply apologize to His Majesty the Emperor and the people.
The peoples of East Asia should forget what happened this time and cooperate with each other in the future. East Asian people should have the same rights as other ethnic groups, and should be proud of being a colored race. I cannot help but respect Indian judges. This made him feel proud of the East Asian people.
American leaders have made a huge mistake. What happened was that Japan, the barrier to redness, was destroyed. Manchuria is now a base for redness. The division of Korea into two is the root of the troubles in East Asia. The United States and the United Kingdom have a responsibility to provide relief.
The non-retroactivity of law is one of the basics of modern law, and new laws cannot adjudicate cases that occurred before the law was enacted. Moreover, two days before the signing of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, and the next day on Nagasaki.
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.
