tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post2219176259379735949..comments2024-03-29T18:47:52.197+11:00Comments on Submarine Matters & Australian Nuclear Weapons: Update on Japan's legislative process for Soryu sale to AustraliaPete2http://www.blogger.com/profile/06134037393078707072noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-68479301936470198982015-03-11T23:16:01.132+11:002015-03-11T23:16:01.132+11:00Hi Anonymous
Thank you for the information on rev...Hi Anonymous<br /><br />Thank you for the information on revisionist numbers in the Diet.<br /><br />I'll use the information in a future post.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-9046670153641444822015-03-11T01:16:10.015+11:002015-03-11T01:16:10.015+11:00Revisionist are A)LDP, B)Komei, C)Japan Innovation...Revisionist are A)LDP, B)Komei, C)Japan Innovation Party, D)Party of Next Generation, E) Sunrize Party.<br /><br />(1) Current composion of HoR(Total =475 representitves )<br />A=292, B=35, C=41, D=1, E=1, A+B+C+D+E=370>2/3Total=317 <br /><br />(2) Current composion of HoC(Total =242)<br />A=115, B=20, C=11, D=6, E=0, A+B+C+D+E=152<2/3Total=162---only 10 seats difference. <br /><br />Half member (121) of HoC elected in 2010 including LDP(49,then- supporting rate =24%) , Party of Next Generation(2) and major anti-revisionist JDP(41, 32%) will subject to election in 2016. Current supporting rate for LDP and JDP is 37, 11%, respectively. JDP may lose more than 10 seats and LDP win these seats, it means 2/3majority of revisionists in HoC.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-31490320744503762472015-03-10T13:48:14.848+11:002015-03-10T13:48:14.848+11:00Hi again Anonymous
Re your "2) 25 July 2014,...Hi again Anonymous<br /><br />Re your "2) 25 July 2014, Toyokeizai online criticized two dyfuctional cases of “The Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology” .<br />2-1) Japan can not export defense equipment to a conflict country, but according to definition of “The Three Principles”, there is no conflict county exist, even Israel is not conflict country."<br /><br />My response - Yes under "The Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology" http://www.mofa.go.jp/press/release/press22e_000010.html "country party to a conflict [is] (a country against which the United Nations Security Council is taking measures to maintain or restore international peace and security in the event of an armed attack)" <br /><br />But then 2(2) and 2(3) further dilute the strictness-narrowness of the conflict country definition.<br /><br />COMMENT - So the “Principles” are very much open to the interpretation of Japan's politicians. This may actually be in Australian interests if/when Australia is an ally of Japan. <br /><br />Your "2-2) In the case of PAC2 missile gyro technology transfer to USA in 2014, before the transfer approval by Japanese National Security Council, USA had decided to sell the technology to Qatar."<br /><br />I think the dangers of selling to the US are that it has much political and economic power as a customer. The US has also many alliance obligations with many allies. This means the US can lever/exploit(?) its alliance with Japan to strengthen its alliance with Qatar. <br />The US is often powerful enough to "legally" do what it likes. The US can often draw-up or dominantly interpret international law. This may be in Japan's and Australia's favour given our alliance with the US.<br /><br />I think the international arms trade is always difficult due to money over principles, money influencing political behaviour, secrecy tied in with alliances and national interests. <br /><br />Money for submarine corporations (MHI and KHI) and money for the Kobe political district may cause distortions to principles. Money is of course also important to economic and national well-being.<br /><br />2-1) and 2-2) show how flawed or fortunately open the “Principles” are. <br /><br />These Principles appear to act as legal vehicles for Abe to persuade the Diet to change defence laws-policies even though the "Principles" are legally weak or wide open to interpretation.<br /><br />It will be interesting to see if amendments to defence laws themselves are wide-open to interpretation.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-87438954197722220832015-03-10T11:49:34.489+11:002015-03-10T11:49:34.489+11:00Thankyou Anonymous for your views.
I understand y...Thankyou Anonymous for your views.<br /><br />I understand your point 1)<br /><br />I first assumed that the LDP-Komeito coalition were the only revisionists for the laws and Constitution. However with your description of the Innovation Party's (9% lower house (HoR) seats) potential alliance with the LDP (61% HoR) moves my simple picture into more realistic complexity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Japan#Latest_results<br /><br />If the Innovation Party is a potential voting ally for the LDP then Komeito (7% HoR) would realise that it is not a irreplacable ally for the LDP at least in the HoR. I note the Innovation Party has no seats in the upper house (HoC) but Komeito has (8% HoC) and LDP (48% HoC). So the upper house (HoC) is the LDP and LDP-Komeito Coalition major weakness when considering Constitutional change.<br /><br />To create (or amend?) laws the LDP has sufficient seats 61% in the HoR to pass them but with only 48% in the HoC the LDP needs Komeito's 8% HoC (or some other party's seat votes) to pass those laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Diet#Powers<br /><br />So Abe's major electoral win in December 2014 gave him LDP law passing dominance in the HoR, but not passing Constitional change power in the HoR. Abe's LDP 48% in the HoC do not have the power to pass laws. LDPs 48% in the HoC + Komeitos 8% cannot pass a Constitional change. 11% more is needed for the necessary 2/3s super-majority. <br /><br />Abe is experiencing (what we call in Australia) a "Hung Parliament" in the HoC. Just as Abbott is experiencing a Hung Parliament in our upper house (the Senate).<br /><br />I'll look at your 2) soon.<br /><br />Kind Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-2014479616590298982015-03-09T22:27:45.156+11:002015-03-09T22:27:45.156+11:00I personally think your discussion is in the right...I personally think your discussion is in the right direction. Other comments are:<br /><br />1) Second opposion party, the Japan Innovation Party may support revision of the Constitution. As resionists have more than 2/3 seats of the Lower House, if they win 2/3 seats of the Upper House in the next election, they can propose the revision. <br /><br />2) 25 July 2014, Toyokeizai online criticized two dyfuctional cases of“The Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology” .<br />2-1) Japan can not export defense equipment to a conflict country, but according to definition of “The Three Principles”, there is no conflict county exist, even Israel is not conflict country.<br />2-2) In the case of PAC2 missile gyro technology transfer to USA in 2014, before the transfer approval by Japanese National Security Council, USA had decided to sell the technology to Qatar.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com