Japan's new foreign minister pledges to defend universal values

Wich one?

Marvel Universe or DC Universe?

What does he means??!. Does he knows, what he is talking about???.Does he speak English?!

When Japan economy is in the dumps ???.PLEASE explain in details.

Like hang Japanese prisoner without prior notice, most American citizens are more diplomatic, than Japanese foreign policy makers

In other words, doing what their masters across the Pacific tells them to do.

Hayashi, who did not clarify his stance on the need for such sanctions, said, "Freedom, respect for fundamental human rights and the rule of law should be guaranteed in any nation."

He better start looking at Japan and make a list…

First, it was Kishida's "New Capitalism" and now it's Hayashi's "Universal Values"?! I won't be holding my breath 'cos "nothing's gonna change my world" swallowing the LDP's old sake in a new bottle.

Is that like universal design?

It's in the English textbooks.

Like most topics,noone has a clue what it is.

u_s__reamer

First, it was Kishida's "New Capitalism" and now it's Hayashi's "Universal Values"?! I won't be holding my breath 'cos "nothing's gonna change my world" swallowing the LDP's old sake in a new bottle.

Exactly.

I bet you the moment the words came out of his mouth he had already forgotten he made a pledge.

Abe was averaging a pledge a day.

New Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi pledged Thursday to safeguard universal values as well as the peace and stability of Japan and other parts of the world in the face of China's military buildup and assertive territorial claims.

how is he going to safeguard universal values to other parts of the world when he can't even safeguard it in Japan?

these clowns are more suited in super mario costumes and making youtube videos than running a country...

What does he means??!. Does he knows, what he is talking about???.Does he speak English?!

He graduated from the JFK School of Government. I’m sure he speaks English.

I predict Hayashi will be a future prime minister. He’s competent, is not a yes man and knows how to build bridges.

So was Kono-san. Being a yes man is the only way.

That seems to be the extra-ingredient: that one is malleable and can accommodate voices and strings to allow access.

Nice slow but deliberate massage. Remind people that there are enemies outside the gate

Pretty soon they might be able to have offensive capability again

For Hayashi to be a future prime minister competency is not a necessity (Suga et al), but he also needs to be malleable (a yes-man) to the powers that control the LDP.

But before that horse bolts, he’ll have to define ‘universal values’ just as Kishida needs to define ‘new capitalism.’ And how he will ‘safeguard’ those values.

usually when government officials use undefined terms like "universal values" that unless defined nobody can argue with, it usually means they are about to infringe on people's rights

You mean like right to an attorney after being arrested and right for children to visit both parents after a divorce?

Or to arrest any Japanese parent who kidnaps their child and brings them back to Japan? Last time I checked criminalizing child abduction was a universal value...

how is he going to safeguard universal values to other parts of the world when he can't even safeguard it in Japan?

by paying lip service to them. That's about it..

these clowns are more suited in super mario costumes and making youtube videos than running a country...

pretty much describes the WHOLE LDP

Better to call him Japan's new alien minister if he's going to talk about the universe.

A sensational announcement that makes him sound omnipresent.

Japan want to talk about the next generation ?

Better start making babies then and abandon the antiquated stubborn to move forward Japanese style.

We have not inherited the earth only borrowed it from our children !

New Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi pledged Thursday to safeguard universal values as well as the peace and stability of Japan and other parts of the world in the face of China's military buildup and assertive territorial claims.

In light of maintaining "universal values as well as the peace and stability of Japan and other parts of the world", does the construction of the Henoko new base on Okinawa for the U.S. Marines despite a strong local opposition conform to the norms he advocates?

Can anyone here explain why the building of a replacement for Futenma is absolutely necessary to safeguard "universal values as well as the peace and stability of Japan and other parts of the world"?

voiceofokinawaToday  11:34 am JST 

Can anyone here explain why the building of a replacement for Futenma is absolutely necessary to safeguard "universal values as well as the peace and stability of Japan and other parts of the world"

No replacement for Futenma is needed. Futenma can stay as it is, as it has, for the past almost 25 years when talk of moving all military personnel off that base.

Hayashi underscored the increasing importance of the alliance between Japan and the United States, calling it "the basis for peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region."

Underscoring the importance of the bilateral alliance means strengthening of the U.S. military presence whereby U.S. bases will be maintained here forever like solid rocks. Should alliances be like that at all times?

RegBilk,

No replacement for Futenma is needed. Futenma can stay as it is, as it has, for the past almost 25 years when talk of moving all military personnel off that base.

Futenma's return was bilaterally agreed upon in 1996. So, it must be returned to Okinawa by all means in no time. If you say the base can stay as it is, America's credibility is impaired greatly outright. 

You must know that Futenma sits on illegally confiscated private land -- confiscated after the Battle of Okinawa ended and in violation of the "Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land"? Article 46 of which states: "Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated." 

The U.S. Marines cannot use an illegal property of Futenma forever like thieves.

voiceofokinawaToday  12:44 pm JST

Futenma's return was bilaterally agreed upon in 1996.

Gee, I didn't go through the task of looking up the exact date, when I said "almost 25 years ago"---guess I was right though!

So, it must be returned to Okinawa by all means in no time. If you say the base can stay as it is, America's credibility is impaired greatly outright. 

Henoko is a bad idea. The US position in 1996 was that it would keep a forward position on Okinawa regardless of where it is located. No need to destroy the seabed, when the marines have a perfectly operating base like Futenma.

You must know that Futenma sits on illegally confiscated private land -- confiscated after the Battle of Okinawa ended and in violation of the "Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land"? Article 46 of which states: "Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated." 

I don't know that. I know the US and Japan (Okinawa is part of Japan as you know) have a bilateral security treaty, and Japan allows the US to maintain bases in Japan, including Futenma. So, if Futenma sits on illegally confiscated private land, why has Japan allowed the US to stay there?

The U.S. Marines cannot use an illegal property of Futenma forever like thieves.

The US earned that land. Japan attacked the US (violating how many laws and treaties?) so the US gets to maintain that land now.

RegBilk,

Your rejoinder sounds like "the guilty are audacious". That you didn't know about the illegality of the occupying U.S. forces' action doesn't exonerate the illegal status of Futenma. Neither does any agreement between the two governments, the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty or Okinawa Reversion Agreement.

You say the U.S. earned that land. But I'm saying you got it illegally, that is, you stole it. You didn't refute that argument of mine but only insist the U.S. has every right to the land because Japan attacked the U.S. and was defeated. If so, then the security treaty under which these bases are putatively offered to the U.S. is shenanigans -- nothing but a farce. You can't base your argument on a questionable reason.

voiceofokinawaToday  03:54 pm JST

You say the U.S. earned that land. But I'm saying you got it illegally, that is, you stole it. You didn't refute that argument of mine but only insist the U.S. has every right to the land because Japan attacked the U.S. and was defeated. 

Do you rent a room or house? Yes? So did you steal the land upon which that room stands? Of course not, right? Because the owner is allowing you to live there.

I will make this easy. Who owns the land upon which Futenma base is located? Even easier, I will give you the answer:Japan.

So, how can something be stolen--when it never was?

Japan owns the land, and lets the US use the land. Very simple concept.

Maybe Japan stole the land from the Ryukyu Kingdom? Then Japan should be admonished.

RegBilk,

When did the occupying U.S. forces requisition the land? Not in 1951 when the bilateral security treaty was signed nor in 1971 when the Okinawa Reversion Agreement was signed.

You seem to say that because of these agreements the U.S. has right to use it freely. But the land remains stolen property notwithstanding. Any bilateral agreement can't exonerate the illegality of it. That's the point at issue.

Besides, Japan was a party that lost the war and had to act as the victor dictated.

Maybe, U.S. policymakers are now aware that the land was indeed requisitioned illegally in violation of the Geneva “Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land.” So, they earnestly want Futenma to be relocated somewhere else to get rid of its illegality if it remained at the current site.

That's the reason why I keep saying the Futenma relocation is like money laundering. You can call it "base laundering".

voiceofokinawaToday  07:07 am JST

You seem to say that because of these agreements the U.S. has right to use it freely. 

Yes, that is part of it.

But the land remains stolen property notwithstanding. Any bilateral agreement can't exonerate the illegality of it. That's the point at issue.

If I steal your bike, and then you tell me I can use it, and even transfer to me the right to use it, the bike remains stolen?

Who is claiming the land is stolen? Japan?

So, they earnestly want Futenma to be relocated somewhere else to get rid of its illegality if it remained at the current site.

The US is worried about illegality of Futenma AB? Is the US also worried about Kadena, Butler, Courtney, Kinser, etc.?

That's the reason why I keep saying the Futenma relocation is like money laundering. You can call it "base laundering".

I'm against relocating Futenma because Okinawans don't want that, it is bad for the sea, reef, sea creatures, it is a waste of time, and the US hastily gave in to pressure at the time, when there was no connection between Futenma AB and the rape of the young Okinawa girl.

RegBilk,

If I steal your bike, and then you tell me I can use it, and even transfer to me the right to use it, the bike remains stolen? 

You admitted, as I do, that the land where Futenma sits was indeed stolen by U.S. occupation forces.

Who is claiming the land is stolen? Japan?

I am the one who is claiming the land was stolen by U.S. occupation forces. And you acknowledged it. If the land is a stolen property, then the U.S. has no right at all to demand a replacement for Futenma be built anywhere in Okinawa. It must be closed and the land be must be returned right then and there. Any agreement between Tokyo and Washington is void and null.

As for your metaphor of a stolen bike. If you stole my bike and used it freely, saying that my guardian had transferred to you the right to use it, without knowing that you had stolen the bike, will you be happy and reticent about it all?

Japan needs those US bases more than USA does, at this time

How can you challenge 'universal' values? If they are already universal, they wouldn't be challenged

There are too many countries such as PRC that do not acknowledge that universal values even exist. This is a great challenge. The Enlightenment passed by much of Asia and thus its ideas do not inform most Asian nations much less their governing institutions. The idea of inalienable rights is completely alien to many Asian and African societies. Worse, some like PRC reject the idea outright since to acknowledge those rights would immediately threaten their hold on power. It is up to democratic nations especially those few in Asia to keep pounding the drum on fundamental human rights or they will be lost for all Asians.

You admitted, as I do, that the land where Futenma sits was indeed stolen by U.S. occupation forces.

Listen up. If Japan had not started and ugly war and attacked the US in the process there would have been no reason for the US Marines to come to Okinawa. If Japan had not invaded China and butchered its people mercilessly Chiang Kai-shek would have defeated Mao in 1937 and there would be no Communist China today, nor would the Soviets have had a reason to intervene late in that war to divide up the Korean Peninsula and arm the north to invade the south. There would be no reason for the US to keep strong forces in Asia because there would be no major enemies to deter. But Japanese militarism opened a big fat can of worms in Asia and the US learned a hard lesson about surprise attacks and never wants to go there again. So quit your whining and be glad those are US and not PRC forces in Okinawa.

Suretto,

Japan needs those US bases more than USA does, at this time

Probably, so. But, just because of that, is stealing others' possessions and inflicting a lot of burden and trouble on other people permissible? Is that a universal value, among others, that Hayashi advocates so much?

Desert Tortoise,

You want to say all this mightn't have happened had Japan not started the war? In other words, all this unreasonable state of affairs, i.e. the excessive U.S. military presence with large swaths of bases, some planted on stolen lands, is the end result of Japan's starting the aggressive, atrocious war. But note that Japan was retaliated against to the nail for that and was defeated. 

And who's instigating some sector of Japanese society, people nostalgic for the old days, to revive militarism? There's no vestige of that aggressive war on the part of Japanese society at large today except those U.S.-friendly groups of people with reactionary ideas, but a lot of vestiges of the World War II retaliation by the victor side abound.

Evil to evil. Is that what you stand for?

voiceofokinawaNov. 15  04:22 pm JST

You admitted, as I do, that the land where Futenma sits was indeed stolen by U.S. occupation forces.

Wrong. But if you believe I admitted it, then you agree that Japan gave the US the right to use the bases, and so the bases are not stolen.

If you are so concerned with Okinawa land use, you should be aware of the big picture.

Japan stole Okinawa from the Ryukyu Kingdom.

How can you make a serious argument about theft of the bases and ignore Japan's illegal, forceful annexation of the Rykyu Kingdom?

Instead of focusing on the minor base issue, I would expect someone concerned with Okinawa to press for Japan to pay reparations to the Okinawans, and to give back Okinawa to its people---Ryukyu Kingdom should be a sovereign entity again and rule itself.

I am a little put off by the hypocrisy.

RegBilk,

Wrong. But if you believe I admitted it, then you agree that Japan gave the US the right to use the bases, and so the bases are not stolen.

Then, prove that the land where the Futenma air station sits was taken lawfully by the U.S. occupation army. Your answer may be that the Japanese government agreed in various treaties for the U.S. military to use it freely. 

 My rejoinder to that is such makeshift bilateral agreements signed afterwards are void and null under the larger capacity document like the Geneva Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which the U.S. ratified as one of the first among nations. To repeat, Article 46 of the said Convention states: "Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated."

You admitted that the U.S. occupation forces might have violated the Convention but may add their illegal action could be condoned because of the various bilateral agreements signed later. You used the bike metaphor to explain your stand, saying a stolen bike is not a stolen item anymore if a parent allows the thief to use it freely.

voiceofokinawaToday  04:06 pm JST

You admitted that the U.S. occupation forces might have violated the Convention but may add their illegal action could be condoned because of the various bilateral agreements signed later. You used the bike metaphor to explain your stand, saying a stolen bike is not a stolen item anymore if a parent allows the thief to use it freely.

I admitted nothing of the sort.

I wonder why you support Japan's occupation of Okinawa? Japan has military bases on Okinawa's land. I would think these offend you.

Japan stole the lands of Okinawa Prefecture from the Ryukyu Kingdom, owes reparations to the people, and must return the lands.

RegBilk

I admitted nothing of the sort.

But you couldn’t refute my contention that Futenma sits on illegally confiscated lands. Simply muttering these words means nothing. You must prove that the land was lawfully acquired by the U.S. occupation forces. 

Now, you bring up a totally different topic -- that "Japan stole the lands of Okinawa Prefecture from the Ryukyu Kingdom.

That's a moot issue even a bureaucrat charged with Japan's internal affairs couldn't give a proper answer when asked by Lawmaker Kantoku Teruya during a Dietary session several years ago. Can you answer clearly if I asked you if the North American continent belongs to native Americans that was stolen by American or Canadian settlers?

Confine your discussion to the topic at hand.

voiceofokinawaToday  06:44 pm JST

But you couldn’t refute my contention that Futenma sits on illegally confiscated lands. 

I'm agreeing--those lands were illegally confiscated by Japan.

Now, you bring up a totally different topic -- that "Japan stole the lands of Okinawa Prefecture from the Ryukyu Kingdom. 

I thought we were talking about illegally confiscated lands on Okinawa and military bases there.

Confine your discussion to the topic at hand.

Is your comment below confined to the topic at hand?

Can you answer clearly if I asked you if the North American continent belongs to native Americans that was stolen by American or Canadian settlers? *

RegBilk,

Is your comment below confined to the topic at hand?

Of course, not. Likewise, your bringing up of the issue of Okinawa's annexation to Japan is not closely relevant to the Futenma issue.  

Apparently, you can't present a logical, convincing counterargument to my contention that Futenma sits on illegally confiscated private lands. As always, you sound like "the guilty are audacious”. Futenma is not a war spoil the U.S. occupation forces obtained legitimately.

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's.

voiceofokinawaNov. 16  11:33 pm JST

Apparently, you can't present a logical, convincing counterargument to my contention that Futenma sits on illegally confiscated private lands. 

Why present a counterargument? I am agreeing with you that Futenma sits on illegally confiscated private land---it was illegally confiscated from the Ryukyu Kingdom by Japan, which illegally annexed, confiscated, stole all its land.

Now, the US has various agreements with Japan to use that land. Security agreements, status of forces agreements, treaties. You don't know about those? So, the US did not "obtain" Futenma, or any other bases on Okinawa, or in Japan, or in the 30 or more other countries where US bases are located. The UK, Greece, Italy, Germany, for example, aren't claiming the US stole their lands. Why are you trying to argue that?

It was a shame that the Japanese military illegally confiscated private lands, such as where Torii is located, or Kadena AFB, from the Ryukyuans before and during WWII. The second great tragedy to befall those islands and their people.

RegBilk,

I am agreeing with you that Futenma sits on illegally confiscated private land---it was illegally confiscated from the Ryukyu Kingdom by Japan, which illegally annexed, confiscated, stole all its land.

The annexation of Okinawa to Japan is a historical and domestic issue to be discussed and solved by us. The annexation may have been illegal. But, based on this, you can't justify the illegality of your confiscating private land where the Futenma air station is.  

If I say the U.S.A. must evacuate somewhere else, because it sits on native Americans' land, how do you respond?

The UK, Greece, Italy, Germany, for example, aren't claiming the US stole their lands. Why are you trying to argue that?

Are U.S. bases in those countries sitting on private land that was confiscated by U.S. forces?

I'm not saying the U.S. occupation of Okinawa after World War II was illegal. Rather, I'm saying some of the U.S. bases in Okinawa are short of legal standing; they are illegal in light of international law, whereby they, especially the Futenma air station, must be returned to their legitimate owners right then and there without any pre-conditions. 

The U.S. side has no innate right at all to demand a replacement be provided in exchange of the return of the base.

Mr. Hayashi cannot claim the way the U.S. has been operating bases in Okinawa, or more broadly in Japan, is a universal value.

voiceofokinawaToday  08:03 am JST

If I say the U.S.A. must evacuate somewhere else, because it sits on native Americans' land, how do you respond?

A little different, since the Ryukyu Kingdom was a unified entity, and native Americans represent many separat factions. But sure, I wish the US would give more land back to Native American tribes.

voiceofokinawaToday  10:51 am JST

I'm not saying the U.S. occupation of Okinawa after World War II was illegal. Rather, I'm saying some of the U.S. bases in Okinawa are short of legal standing; they are illegal in light of international law, whereby they, especially the Futenma air station, must be returned to their legitimate owners right then and there without any pre-conditions. 

It probably was illegal at some point. And then Japan made an agreement with the US to make it not-illegal. So, if the Okinawans want to bring a claim against anyone, they should bring it against Japan. But they would lose, because part of the agreement between Japan and the US made Japan give up any rights to make such claim against the US.

Sad story.

And now, the real owners of the land on which bases such as Futenma sit are not the original owners. There are hundreds of owners, many who own just a few tsubo or so.

RegBilk,

However hard you may try to call white black, the fact never fails to remain the same: Futenma sits illegally on private land that was requisitioned in blatant violation of international law. Did such violation of international law happen in the UK, Germany, Italy and Greece, which you mentioned?

You say the U.S. occupation army’s illegal action was condoned by various bilateral agreements between Japan and the U.S.A. I countered to this by pointing out that international law supersedes makeshift bilateral agreements. Can an agreement dealing with stolen goods be effective under a criminal law of any nation?

voiceofokinawaToday  12:27 pm JST

However hard you may try to call white black, the fact never fails to remain the same: Futenma sits illegally on private land that was requisitioned in blatant violation of international law. Did such violation of international law happen in the UK, Germany, Italy and Greece, which you mentioned?

Is it a fact though? According to who? Is there a court case that dealt with this issue and we have a judgment clarifying our understanding?

Germany--yes. But again, all those countries, like Japan, entered into subsequent agreements with the US nullifying any illegality that might have bee attached to the acquisition of the bases.

You say the U.S. occupation army’s illegal action was condoned by various bilateral agreements between Japan and the U.S.A. I countered to this by pointing out that international law supersedes makeshift bilateral agreements. Can an agreement dealing with stolen goods be effective under a criminal law of any nation?

Backing up a bit---you're ok with Japan's illegal annexation of the Ryukyu Kingdom?

Bilateral international agreements are subject to international law. And yes, if someone steals a candy bar from a grocery store, the store owner can say, Hey, no problem, it's yours.

RegBilk,

Is it a fact though? According to who?

Do you ever deny the fact that U.S. occupation forces encroached upon a large swath of private land in the municipality of old Ginowan Village (now Ginowan City) with impunity to build the Futenma Air Station while villagers from the hamlets of Ginowan, Kamiyama, Shinjo, Nakahara were herded in a camp like POWs? That's the hard fact. 

Do you deny the fact that the land requisition by the occupation forces was done in clear violation of the said Geneva Convention. Did U.S. bases in Germany and Italy come into being this way?

voiceofokinawaNov. 17  04:36 pm JST

RegBilk,

Is it a fact though? According to who?

Do you ever deny the fact that U.S. occupation forces encroached upon a large swath of private land in the municipality of old Ginowan Village (now Ginowan City) with impunity to build the Futenma Air Station while villagers from the hamlets of Ginowan, Kamiyama, Shinjo, Nakahara were herded in a camp like POWs? That's the hard fact. 

Do you deny the fact that the land requisition by the occupation forces was done in clear violation of the said Geneva Convention. Did U.S. bases in Germany and Italy come into being this way?

I deny it. Japan gave the US permission. If there is a nation at fault for the use of land by the military on Okinawa, it is Japan.

The US was in compliance with the The Hague Convention.

RegBilk,

It's surprising that you should be so adamant to insist there was no violation of the Convention when U.S. occupation forces encroached upon private land with impunity despite the provision thereof stipulates that private property cannot be confiscated. Do you really believe the U.S. occupation forces' encroachment upon private land was in compliance with Article 46 of the said Convention?

You may counter that bilateral agreements signed between Japan and the U.S. afterwards have exonerated the irregularities if there were any. My counter-argument to this is that international law supersedes mere makeshift bilateral agreements whereby the illegal status of Futenma remains unchanged. Agreements between two persons to transfer the ownership of a stolen good is void and null under criminal law of any nation, you know.