Prime Minister Kishida sends off his visit to Yasukuni Shrine - a place beyond Japan's sovereignty.
2022-08-17
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
I will not visit Yasukuni again this year
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
A place where the current national leader cannot step foot?
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.
Yasukuni Shrine is not a border issue
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 .
Read it together
Hideki Tojo's grave is located in Migane, Aichi Prefecture - China and South Korea's opposition to visiting Yasukuni Shrine is cultural interference born of ignorance.
Hideki Tojo rests in Migane, Aichi Prefecture
What are China and South Korea demanding
All graves are in separate locations
Shrines are not graves
I think Yasukuni Shrine is a graveyard
South Korea, a country that digs up graves
Yasukuni Shrine throughout Japan
The photo I posted is of the Mausoleum of the Seven Martyrs of Japan, located on Mt. Mt. Mt. Mt. in Nishio City, Aichi Prefecture. It enshrines seven soldiers and politicians who were executed by the Tokyo Tribunal.
Those enshrined are Hideki Tojo, Kenji Doihara, Seishiro Itagaki, Hyotaro Kimura, Iwane Matsui, Akira Muto, and Hiroki Hirota. The remains of these seven people are said to be buried under this mausoleum. In other words, the graves of Hideki Tojo and others are located here.
So what exactly are China and South Korea saying? They say that the Prime Minister should not go to Yasukuni Shrine because war criminals are enshrined there. The German Chancellor is loudly shouting that he will visit Hitler's grave.
As mentioned above, the grave is in a different location. A shrine is a shrine. It is said that there are over 2,466,000 heroic spirits enshrined at Yasukuni Shrine, and each of their graves was probably erected by their local community or family members.
I wonder if the Japanese Prime Minister went to visit the Mausoleum of the Seven Martyrs of Japan in Aichi Prefecture.
A shrine only has a divine seat, which is said to be the place where the god appears and sits. A shrine is not a grave. It is essentially impossible to separate the divine throne. If there is a division, it is a branch shrine.
China and South Korea demand that the Yasukuni Shrine be separated for war criminals, but this is probably also the idea of graves. The remains of the heroes are not buried anywhere in Yasukuni Shrine. They mistakenly think it's some sort of mass grave.
In South Korea, the grave of a Korean War hero buried in South Korea's national cemetery was recently dug up because he had served in the former Japanese army. From Japan's perspective, it is a country with a culture that is extremely abnormal. In the first place, shrines are not graves, and that is also the extent of our understanding of graves.
In conclusion, if Yasukuni Shrine is enshrined in two parts, there will be two Yasukuni Shrines, and if it is enshrined in ten parts, there will only be ten Yasukuni Shrines. It might be a good idea to have Yasukuni Shrines all over Japan. It may be a talisman to keep people who flirt with you away from Japan.
Violation of national sovereignty, not a historical issue
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.
Historical issues cannot be resolved without sovereignty
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.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
The Taiwanese emergency is a Japanese emergency, and it is not clear what the basis is - a basis that assumes various things is necessary.
Taiwan emergency is Japan emergency
Japan confirms security coverage of Senkaku Islands
Taiwan first claims sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands
Sea defenses are extensive
The Taiwan Strait is a sea lane in East Asia
The Chinese government reacted sensitively to former Prime Minister Abe's online participation from Japan at a symposium held in Taiwan, where he said, ``Taiwan's emergency is Japan's emergency.'' Thinking about this matter, Japan and Taiwan do not have a military alliance to defend Taiwan, so it would be difficult to realize it in that sense. The U.S. law regarding Taiwan relations is extremely ambiguous regarding the participation of the U.S. military in the war.
Former Prime Minister Abe was particular about whether the Senkaku Islands were within the scope of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, and received assurances from Mr. Trump, and later in a telephone conversation with President Biden, former Prime Minister Suga confirmed that the Senkaku Islands were covered by the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.
The Taiwanese emergency is a Japanese emergency that seems to have no basis in many legal and treaty terms, but if you think about it, the Senkaku Islands themselves seem to be the key to it.
In the first place, Taiwan was the first country to claim sovereignty over Japan's Senkaku Islands. Three months later, China claimed the claim. Since China calls Taiwan its own territory, what belongs to Taiwan belongs to China. It seems like he made his point in a hurry.
If China were to invade Taiwan, it would logically be considered an invasion of the Senkaku Islands, which are claimed by China and Taiwan. In other words, the conditions for Japan-U.S. security and the activation of the right of collective self-defense are in place. I cannot believe that former Prime Minister Abe would pay baseless lip service.
Another theory is that defense in battle at sea will cover a wide area, and that Japan's remote islands near Taiwan will also be involved in the battle. In this case as well, the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty applies, and if Japan enters the war, the U.S. military may also participate.
The Taiwan Strait is an important sea route for transporting oil and natural materials to Japan. If China were to take possession of this area, Japan would be in a situation where it would have a stranglehold on the sea route through which it supplies resources. Some are claiming that this is an emergency in Japan.
In any case, China has declared in advance that the Chinese military will not turn the waters off northeastern Taiwan, including the Senkaku Islands and other remote islands of Japan, into a combat zone, and that the Taiwan Strait will be maintained as before after the invasion of Taiwan. The question is, what will happen if this happens? Still, there needs to be a basis for invoking the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.
What are the purposes and practical benefits of the annexation of Japan and Korea? Japanese security perspective at the time
There are two main reasons why Japan annexed the Korean Peninsula. The reason that South Korea claims that it is for exploitation is completely untrue because the management of the Korean Peninsula was in the red. In other words, the amount of Japanese tax money that was spent on the Korean Peninsula was probably greater. Would you call this exploitation? Japan annexed the Korean Peninsula primarily for the purpose of defending Russia and building infrastructure from Manchuria to Busan.
It is clear that Russia's purpose is to use the Trans-Siberian Railway to colonize the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria, and in reality Russia is acquiring interests in northeastern Asia one after another. The reason why Japan carried out the Triple Intervention on the Liaodong Peninsula, which it acquired after the Sino-Japanese War, was because it did not want to hand over its Manchurian interests and because it did not want Japan to control the ports and shipping routes on the Liaodong Peninsula. The Baltic Fleet is not needed at all to colonize the continent or the Korean peninsula. The places you go by boat are places that can only be reached by boat. It's Japan, and there's another one. It's Taiwan. In other words, Russia was targeting the Japanese archipelago, the Korean Peninsula, and the Manchuria region, including Taiwan, which Japan had acquired in the Sino-Japanese War.
In 1891, Tsar Alexander III of Russia issued a royal order to build a railway that would penetrate all of Russia, and it became clear that it was not just a railway construction, but that the Trans-Siberian Railway could be constructed from both the start and end points. It was also clear that Vladivostok, which was just a stone's throw away from the Korean peninsula, would be connected to the Russian capital. The Baltic Fleet is coming there. Japan succeeded in destroying the Baltic Fleet off the coast of Tsushima, the narrowest sea area, but what would happen if it were to pass through? If Russia acquires the Korean Peninsula one after another and builds a military port in Busan, the Japanese archipelago will be just a stone's throw away. In this form, the Korean Peninsula would have surrounded the Japanese archipelago in a circular shape, and Japan would have had no chance against Russia, which had great national power.
With the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, the Romanov dynasty lost power, and Lenin took advantage of this to launch the Russian Revolution during World War I. This was in 1917, 12 years after the Russo-Japanese War. Still, Japan will have to be wary of the possibility that Russia will rebuild its system and send a fleet. If the Korean Peninsula becomes Japan due to the annexation of Japan and South Korea, the Russian fleet passing through the Sea of Japan will be caught in a pincer attack all the way to Vladivostok, and the situation in the Sea of Japan will be completely advantageous to Japan. Masu. In other words, Japan surrounded the Sea of Japan.
As a result of the Russo-Japanese War, Japan acquired the railway between Harbin and Port Arthur, which later became the South Manchurian Railway, under the Treaty of Portsmouth. And Russia's interests in Manchuria were largely rejected.
After Korea became an independent nation after the Sino-Japanese War, Japan obtained the right to build a railway on the Korean Peninsula, and built a railway across the peninsula to Busan. After the Russo-Japanese War, the Harbin-Lushun railway obtained in Manchuria was expanded and connected to the railway on the Korean Peninsula. In other words, Japan built a huge infrastructure that connects the Manchurian region to Busan, which is just a stone's throw from Japan. This will ensure infrastructure by sea and land from Dalian and by rail. In other words, victory in the Russo-Japanese War meant that the Sea of Japan was surrounded in both name and reality, making it an exclusive maritime area, and connecting it with southern Manchuria by railway. will be sold to Manchukuo. In other words, Japan obtained the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria, which Russia had been trying to obtain.
This was a result of Japan's large expansion from the perspective of Japan's security against Russia, and in the past there was a critical situation in which Tsushima might become the line of defense, but now the line of defense is now more than 1000 km away. This means that it has also moved northward.
At that time, the Korean peninsula was in constant political instability and conflict, and the country's finances were in a state of collapse as it had failed to issue its own currency. Diplomatically, Japan has sold various interests to Russia due to financial issues, and the fact that the Korean Peninsula is in doubt from the perspective of Japan's security.
Japan's security was also in doubt. This was due to the size of Russia's national power at the time, and if the Russian fleet were to succeed in moving north through the Sea of Japan, Japan would be in a hopeless situation.
Conversely, by placing Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula under control, Japan's security became rock solid. For this reason, Russia was geopolitically inferior to Japan, and even when World War II broke out, the Soviet Union signed a Japan-Soviet Nonaggression Pact. If Japan were to invade the Far East while fighting the Nazis in Europe, Russia would be left alone. In this sense, one of the reasons why the management of the Korean Peninsula was in the red is that it required various investments such as building railways and developing infrastructure from Manchuria to Japan. The administration of the Korean Peninsula was financially in the red, but what if we considered it in conjunction with Manchuria?
Let's compare it with the longitudinal railway under Taiwan's rule. Even if you look at it this way, the railways on the Korean Peninsula cover more areas. This may be due to the difference in population of the Korean peninsula, which had a population of 13.13 million compared to 2.6 million at the beginning of Taiwan's rule, and the fact that the central part of Taiwan is mountainous. While the railway was completed, it seems that the Korean peninsula had a very different role as a railway that ran from Manchuria to Japan. To this day, Korean railways still use the Korean Government-General's Office railway line that was built at this time. Regarding Taiwan, it is also based on the Taiwan Governor-General Railway.
North Korea actually still uses this line, and since the South Manchurian Railway was converted to China, it naturally connects to China. When Kim Jong-un visits China, he travels by train, but he is actually using the benefits of the Korean Government-General's Office Railway.
In today's world, it is completely understandable to think that the annexation of Japan and Korea was a failure. Perhaps this is because South Korea is a country that has experienced many frustrating things for Japan, such as the occupation of Takeshima and the subsequent anti-Japanese movements. If you look at history, there is no doubt that this was caused by the annexation of Japan and Korea. On the other hand, the Manchurian region was rich in resources such as coal, oil, iron, and aluminum, and was used to produce agricultural fertilizers and machine tools. If Russia were to cut off the land route to transport this to Japan, Japan would end up there.
Speaking of what Japan failed at, it was actually in the post-war period. The restoration of diplomatic relations in 1965 was based on the conclus
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.
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.
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.
