@kazetsukaiToday 12:06 pm JST
As during the Russo Japanese war when many of their ships were acquired from foreign navies, the only alternative for now may be to "buy" what is needed for defense as with the F35 until such time as Japan is able to increase its forces by building its own. And of course build more allies in Asia.
Unlike planes and tanks, Japanese warships are actually built reasonably to schedule and at controlled costs. Looking at the recent results of European warship construction, I don't think I'll want to chance buying anything off them nor would they be able to contribute too much.
voiceofokinawaToday 06:17 pm JST
Is this the reason why the JMSDF must send warships and fighter jets to the Persian Gulf as part of the U.S.-led Coalition? Why should Japan fight against or be at loggerheads with Iran, with which Japan has kept friendly relations for decades?
Wait, wait wait, why does sending a warship necessarily mean fighting Iran? If Iran doesn't attack the convoy, then there is no battle. If there is, they can defend the merchants.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
@Chip StarToday 02:52 pm JST
They would have freed East Asia from colonial powers? (Yes, that was sarcasm.)
It'll depend on when they have the nuke. Let's say they make it in 1941 (we'll also give them suitable delivery means since otherwise they'll have real trouble moving a Little Boy sized bomb around). They might be able to then demonstrate it to the United States (who will still be years from having their own). The Pacific War might just be averted, Chip Star. China might just throw in the towel. It might not be so bad :-)
-1 ( +10 / -11 )
HeckleberryToday 06:49 pm JST
Actually, I personally find that picture up there rather amusing. My first post on this thread was supposed to be a parody of what the Chinese would say in a similar situation (a certain number of PRC flags have been destroyed recently in HK, and they are not amused). I just wish they are actually fighting for democracy or anti-extradition (to China), not the right to ignore international law.
10 ( +15 / -5 )
@Heckleberry Today 06:43 pm JST
Samsung is expected to be fully independent of Japanese raw materials before the year is out
Well, I hope they don't get too fleeced by China and Russia and all those subs they are bringing in. Once those guys get their teeth in, Samsung would never escape. At least Japan doesn't ask you to infringe your own sovereignty and refrain from actions clearly within your rights (read: THAAD).
But then, Koreans have historically been Chinese lackeys. They may just be returning to that state. It'll suck for the Koreans, but they've proven they can't be independent so maybe that is their lot in life.
14 ( +21 / -7 )
Wallace Fred Today 06:29 pm JST
That's pretty "optimistic". The measure was designed from the start to allow such proportional measures to be taken. Why do you think the Japanese would blink? Did Korea do anything unexpected? They've been suffering from Korean extremism for decades and I just don't see them imagining Korea would fold immediately.
4 ( +11 / -7 )
kazetsukaiToday 05:12 pm JST
Abe need his limited naval forces close to Japan at this time.
The Chinese navy is a threat, no doubt, but it does not necessarily mean the best choice is to conserve everything. The MSDF can gain from actual demi-combat experience against an enemy which unlike pirates can fire missiles - it'll get rid of bad habits, shake off cobwebs ... etc.
Plus there is the whole buy points with America part of the equation, which is worth more than a few ships.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
OK. He's been caught. Will they allow the statue now?
3 ( +7 / -4 )
@Wallace FredToday 08:17 am JST
I like TIK too, Wallace, but some of us are at work and just can't watch videos. Maybe you can tell us what he said.
I can also say he is not a professional historian (something he admits to last week), so he doesn't have authority.
Further, TIK is a good secondary source collater, but he also works in the Anglosphere. If all the sources he has says one thing, he can only make that conclusion, regardless of whether it is the truth.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
@Dream2030Today 06:23 pm JST
Abe and his followers argued that the decision of South Korea’s Supreme Court was wrong and tried to justify his government’s restriction of exports to South Korea by it today.
First, at least according to the article, this did not happen. Today, he said that "the main cause of escalating tensions between Japan and South Korea is a loss of trust over court rulings". He did not actually use it to justify it.
However, even if it did happen, I'll grade there's nothing much wrong with it. I think people are just not aware of the gravity of South Korea's violation. Unilateral renunciation of a treaty and then claiming you can't do anything because of separation of powers is gross hooliganism against the international order. There is nothing wrong with saying that it is a demonstration of unreliability, which in turn justifies national security defenses that would otherwise not be imposed.
Abe should never have introduced commercial weapons into a political dispute’
First, they did not even TRY to claim illegality on that basis. If they did, they are living in fantasy world. Ultimately, political disputes are resolved with the involvement of hard power. It may not always be deployed, but it is always there and influences the result. If no one can apply coercions on anyone else, little would get resolved because there is no reason to. Given this reality, the idea that it is wrong to introduce commercial "weapons" into a political dispute is laughable. Even anime written for 10 year olds are not made with the presumption problems can be solved only with "Pretty please".
I suspect, what they really wanted to say is something like "Abe should never have introduced strategic weapons into a tactical dispute" - an argument of disproportionality. And if you are short sighted and you just think it is just a small amount of money, well you can see where they came from. But the problem actually stretches beyond the would-be lawsuits and is actually strategic as heck.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I actually agree, though there are countries that don't even have a ship to send. I think Japan should just send Escort Ships and be done with it. Japan really needs the brownie points to accumulate in case China attacks, and ships unlike ground troops are limited liability commitments.
0 ( +9 / -9 )
@Dream2030Today 04:16 pm JST
Wow, so your inability to detect sense allows you to ignore the plaintext? As for the 2nd part, to be more accurate, both sides disagreed on the characterization, so they decided to just settle things with a money transfer.
And why should Abe confess to things that he doesn't believe in? Please remember the Constitutional protection of the conscience. I really like how Korea's fans tend to think Japanese freedom of speech and conscience is worthless, while their feelings are gold.
@Dream2030Today 04:37 pm JST
I am not very familiar with Nigel and Malawi. However, as I understand it that thing placed Japan lower than South Korea - the land where they actually attacked contrarian views with criminal prosecutions. That has not happened in Japan (at least not recently). I can only conclude that there are flaws in the measurement, possibly due to the questionnaire which introduces substantial errors based on the expectations of the answerers.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
@Dream2030 Today 03:18 pm JST
Wow, … to put it straightforward, … you say 1) the decision of South Korea’s Supreme Court is “incorrect” because it is against the 1965 treaty between governments;
Correct, and let me add the consequences of act is severe and goes beyond this treaty. Basically, the Supreme Court is saying the clear meaning of treaties can be voided on unilateral judicial interpretation.
2) any government can be against the principles of Separation of Powers, if in order to keep it; thus,
International law obligates this. Do you wish to contend that entities should be allowed to violate contracts and treaties because of internal organization?
3) any “coercion” by governments against the Supreme Court should be acceptable; and 4) if not, “a complete Might makes Right or Suppression of Will situation” will come.
How did you get that from "[if] there is a viable tort, what, if any coercions are acceptable.
This last is one of the big problems of international relations and law, because obviously you can't get anywhere if no one can apply coercions even for clear faults, yet you don't want to make a complete Might makes Right or Suppression of Will situation."?
Still, you can answer the question even with that (mis)understanding. Obviously, you don't agree "any" coercion should be acceptable. Do you want to extend that to say "No" coercion is acceptable?
If you don't want to go that far, then you must accept "some" coercion is acceptable, and your only choice is to decide whether this coercion is acceptable. I will point out among the coercions this is a weak one, to the point you can argue no coercion happened at all. After all, is removal of a privilege a coercion?
At least arguably No.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
@Dream2030 Today 03:28 pm JST
That is, while it states that it aimed at settling the “problem” of “property” and “claims” “between the two countries and their nationals” and “promoting the economic co-operation between the two countries,” the “property and claims” here should be interpreted by the words themselves, related to promoting economic cooperation.
On this part, it is sufficient to point out the title is "*Agreement on the settlement of problems concerning property and claims and on economic co-operation*". Economic cooperation is separate from "Settlement of problems concerning Property and Claims".
Similarly, the preamble (which assists in interpretation) is
"Desiring to settle [the] problem concerning property of the two countries and their nationals and claims between the two countries and their nationals ; and
[must keep this space]
Desiring to promote the economic co-operation between the two countries ;"
Note TWO separate parts, and in fact the "problem" is just that little bit more important, by virtue of being placed first.
Maybe you shouldn't overcomplicate things by finding excuses for the South Koreans to go against a plain reading interpretation of phrases like
*"The Contracting Parties confirm that [the] problem concerning property, rights and interests of the two Contracting Parties and their nationals (including juridical persons) and concerning claims between the Contracting Parties and their nationals, including those provided for in Article IV, paragraph (a) of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951, is settled completely and finally."*
*"Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2, no contention shall be made with respect to the measures on property, rights and interests of either Contracting Party and its nationals which are within the jurisdiction of the other Contracting Party on the date of the signing of the present Agreement, or with respect to any claims of either Contracting Party and its nationals against the other Contracting Party and its nationals arising from the causes which occurred on or before the said date."*
They are irrelevant with the matters of individual victims’ requests for criminal indemnification.
Nothing in the above makes any exception for "criminal indemnification". The interpretation the Japanese government has taken concerning claims (or claim rights, seikyuken), however, is that technically they are not extinguished, but the competency to grant relief is. It is a harder to understand formulation, but as long as it doesn't violate the "settled completely and finally" bit international law doesn't care.
There is also the small detail that up till at least the 90s the Koreans went for the simpler formulation of extinguished claim rights, before learning (or so the story went) of what the Japanese were doing and changing horses.
http://justice.skr.jp/seikyuuken-top.html (source much loved by Koreans - I've had it stuffed up my nose so many times ... darn it, let me use it as well)
0 ( +1 / -1 )
@LB315Today 04:21 am JST
Everybody may be trying to procure guns, and some may share an intent to use them. But it is still the one who pulled the trigger and killed someone that is a criminal.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
@Dream2030Today 01:09 pm JST
Point out clearly what are those "implications" and how they are relevant to the decision of South Korea’s Supreme Court that no government has right to stop an individual victim seeking a justice.
They didn't just say they can "seek justice" (even Japan says they can seek justice), they tried to impose justice on an issue that by international agreement has been settled (this is the disallowed part).
We are basically getting into a Permissible Coercions problem. You should divide your thinking into several parts.
One block should assess the correctness of the South Korean court's decision. Since the decision definitely goes against the clear wording of the treaty text, it is likely to be incorrect.
The second block should assess whether any government should be allowed to use "Separation of Powers" as a shield to avoid its international obligations. VCLT would quickly dispose of this by pointing out you can't use internal law as an excuse.
The third block should assess if we agree the Korean court's decision is incorrect and that governments should not be allowed to use SoP as a shield, and thus there is a viable tort, what, if any coercions are acceptable.
This last is one of the big problems of international relations and law, because obviously you can't get anywhere if no one can apply coercions even for clear faults, yet you don't want to make a complete Might makes Right or Suppression of Will situation.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
oyatoiToday 12:43 pm JST
So, with this admission, the Koreans have been vindicated in their accusation that the Japanese were merely inventing justifications.
Not quite, oyatoi. While I believe that the judicial ruling is the real cause, as far as what they are saying, there is no contradiction between 1) they are not using trade to retaliate and 2) the main cause of the escalating tensions is because of the judicial ruling.
Further, there is nothing wrong in linking their hooliganism in one department with another. How can you extrapolate another entity's future actions except by referencing their past ones?
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Samit BasuToday 11:44 am JST
Good luck to them then. Let's just hope for their sake they don't get fleeced too badly by the substitute suppliers :-)
3 ( +5 / -2 )
@Samit Basu Today 07:05 am JST
All the international legal scholars conclude that the individual right to seek damages was not covered by the 1965 treaty and Korea has a better than 95% outcome of winning if the case was ever tried at the ICJ.
Link? I have seen some arguments in that direction, but quite frankly they are crap and I don't see how they can squeeze out a "95% outcome of winning". Let's see if yours hit it out of the box.
You are confused. Korea's formal charge is yet to come.
While they can proceed with the formal charge, the political winds aren't in their direction. The problem will be whether Japan can present a credible security claim, and really, even this is not necessarily detrimental - it is self evident you can take chances with a friendly country you can't with an unfriendly one, and you can take fewer chances with a country's whose average resident bears a hooliganism towards the rights of your countrymen.
4 ( +6 / -2 )
smithinjapanToday 02:40 pm JST
First, the exhibits are not "anti-Japan", they are just pointing out the facts of history.
What is the purpose of "pointing out" these purported "facts of history"?
Money. From the Japanese people.
The fact they also want an apology is less important than either the money or their condition that no one in Japan can propose an alternate version of the facts again.
So they want Freedom. From the Japanese people.
What can we possibly call people who to deprive the Japanese people of their money and freedom?
0 ( +4 / -4 )
I think I will abstain by accepting Kawamura's margin of appreciation as the person who has already bet his reputation on the line, and who would likely be held second most responsible (hopefuly the perpetrators will be first) should he put that statue up and the threats come to pass.
Whether you ultimately think that this statue should be tolerated or not, one can easily say it is the "bathwater" you consider keeping so you don't throw out the "baby" by accident.
First, given Korean history of ruthlessly exploiting anyone that does anything that even can be misconstrued as being support for their views, Kawamura's:
Kawamura had argued the exhibition could give the wrong impression that Japan accepts a South Korean claim that comfort women were forcibly taken by the Japanese military and thus it should not be displayed at a publicly funded event.
concern is not without basis.
I must also point out that the statues are not harmless. They are de facto coercive tools to extort money and freedom from the Japanese people. If the usual borderline for freedom of expression is that it is harmless (if perhaps offensive), we need to think about this.
Further is the worth of the people who made and applied for this statue. They support extorting money and freedom. They are not exactly pro-freedom of speech. They argue that to save their feelings, freedom of speech should be restricted. Thus, they have no grounds to argue for a defense of their "rights".
-3 ( +2 / -5 )
@M3M3M3Today 04:57 pm JST
This, apparently was what Hague actually said:
Article 25: The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
While it has been argued (likely self-servingly by countries that have bombed cities) that the failure to say anything about defended targets is a "loophole" - as a principled legal interpretation it is a fail. The correct move is to read it in conjunction with:
Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions
"The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence, the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population, are prohibited."
So that they won't contradict each other, such that:
1) If the town is undefended, attack or bombardment is categorically prohibited. In addition to being a positivist demand of the Hague Convention, it also gives logical effect to Article 51(2) - if there is no military then the only plausible objects of attack are civilians.
2) Even if the town is defended, since Article 25 does not actually permit the bombardment of towns if they are defended, the correct reading is to say whether the bombardment is legal depends on the object of attack (an evaluation of the attacking nation's "mental state" or intent). If the object is to hit a military target, it is permissible even if the object happens to be inside a town. If the object is to hit the civilian population, then the fact the target is "defended" does not create a permission for attack.
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
GyGene Today 10:26 am JST
No. Japan had ample warning about what was going to happen but still refused to surrender. The USA did not want to drop these terrible bombs.
If refusal to surrender, even if it is for unconditional surrender, removes the illegality from war crimes, then Nanking is not a war crime.
Heck, Nanking's numbers are even less favorable. For one thing, it was not a State action, but a "failure to stop". The demanded concession was if harsh at least less than an unconditional surrender. Further, Japan undeniably attacked the United States, while the Japanese were at least arguably shot at by Chinese at Marco Polo and Shanghai also started with a Japanese offensive.
-15 ( +5 / -20 )
S Korea launches 'Let's Learn Japan's Restrictions' website for puzzled businesses
The title should have been "Let's Learn Japan's Rules, without the privileges they gave us from 2004-19"
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Peter14Today 05:29 pm JST
That's true, yes, but the Americans never said (well, after the Korean War anyway) the Japanese can't change their constitution. In fact they've been encouraging it. If you want to blame something a better target is their War Guilt Information Program which pushed the attitudes and version of history that led to today. So they do bear significant responsibility but still it has been over 70 years. You'll think the Japanese can let realism pull them out of the rut.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
starpunkToday 01:11 am JST
Japan's Constitution clearly states that 'war is abolished forever'. That means that they don't have to follow anybody's ideas - or bullying.
Sure, you can say that. Do you want the Americans to come save you when the Chinese attack? If you want a chance of that happening, you have to pitch in with these parties. If you want to really not have to follow these ideas, we'll have to jack the defense budget to 5% of GDP.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
@SJ Today 07:55 am JST
Unlike Japan, political views of people are diverse in S. Korea, and they are learning how to accommodate the opposite opinions, evolving into an open society.
Their political views are "diverse"? SJ, wake me up when the camera shows a bunch of protestors suggesting that Korea get out of this by unconditionally complying with international law, rendering our well known judgment unenforceable. Accompanied with measures that would prevent a repeat of this unfortunate incident.
Until then, "diverse"?
1 ( +4 / -3 )
You already had most of a year to reverse your mistake before the retaliatory measures were taken, Korea.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
SJ Today 08:03 am JST
Personally I do not like those statues, but being forced to pull out them is unimaginable in modern democratic countries, indicating that Japan is now de facto a fascistic country controlled by the ultra-right wing group.
To be fair, those statues are not harmless expressions. They are basically extortion tools deployed by South Koreans anywhere they can get permission to put them. Their ultimate goal is to inflict harm in two protected legal interests: Money/Economic and Freedom, against people they themselves admit are not guilty.
That someone did not like them is inevitable.
AlexBecuToday 09:21 am JST
Japanese children have been bullied and attacked by Korean children after seeing this statues.
Hadn't heard of this. Won't be surprised if this is true. The history they've been taught encourages extremism against Japanese. Just look at, heck, even their courts. Look at their military. The damage is deep.
itsonlyrocknrollToday 09:22 am JST
Whatever the political motivations of sighting/exhibiting a "Comfort woman statue" at international art exhibition. threats of acts of terror, arson are totally unacceptable.
Terror? Nah. Arson? Yes.
0 ( +6 / -6 )