The following is from a serial column by Senator Aoyama Shigeharu, published in the monthly magazine Hanada on the 26th.
There's something crazy about the media and the Constitutional Democratic Party's praise for Ishiba Shigeru's diplomacy.
Regarding the first meeting between Prime Minister Ishiba and President Trump, there has been a storm of praise from ruling party lawmakers and opposition party lawmakers, scholars, critics, and commentators who are regulars in the old media, saying "well done."
However, as a current member of the Liberal Democratic Party, I see it differently.
I am not a contrarian.
There may be quite a few contrarians among writers, but for better or worse, I do not have that tendency.
So why don't I join in the rave reviews?
Two specific issues cannot be overlooked.
Prime Minister Ishiba looked relieved at the plenary session of the House of Councillors, where the results of the US visit were deliberated.
I was worried that Trump would dislike him, but he unexpectedly praised him.
It's not just Trump.
It is the question from Tetsuro Fukuyama, a member of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, the largest opposition party supposed to be at the forefront of pursuing the Jiminto Cabinet, and who served as Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary in that Democratic Party administration.
"I believe sufficient security results were achieved at this Japan-US summit. I want to express my respect to Prime Minister Ishiba."
Can this be called an "opposition question"?
It is no different from the so-called "flattery questions" of ruling party members.
(Incidentally, I, a worthless person, do not ask flattery questions.)
When I asked a senior opposition party member after the plenary session, he answered as if he had suddenly become a good student, saying, "The question is to evaluate what should be evaluated."
I feel that behind this "opposition version of flattery questions" is the presence of Yoshihiko Noda, the leader of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (former Prime Minister).
Noda shares the same views as Prime Minister Ishiba on separate surnames for married couples and tax increases.
Prime Minister Ishiba stated that a grand coalition (with the CDP) was possible, gauging the mood within the LDP, and then changed his stance after seeing the strength of the opposition.
Changing one's stance is a specialty of Prime Minister Ishiba.
However, there are still shadows lingering beneath the surface.
There is also impatience about the Prime Minister teaming up with other opposition parties.
The "achievement of the security treaty is sufficient" refers to President Trump's remarks regarding the Senkaku Islands.
The President promised Prime Minister Ishiba, "Article 5 of the Japan-US Security Treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands."
Article 5 is a clause that states that if Japan is attacked, the US military will fight even if the US is not being attacked.
At the same plenary session, a member of the LDP also highly praised Trump's remarks and said that the entire Ishiba-Trump meeting was "perfect."
Huh?
What, in reality, are you all looking at?
Successive US presidents have repeatedly promised that Article 5 of the Security Treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands.
So, what happened to the Senkaku Islands?
The Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese military have concluded that "Article 5 applies, so the US military will not come unless there is a war. The Self-Defense Forces will not come as long as Article 9 of the Constitution is in place, so there will be no war. "
They have been sending armed vessels into the Senkaku Islands every day until now, invading the islands almost every day of the year.
I have seen this reality many times in the waters around the Senkakus. Meanwhile, when Ishigaki City Mayor Yoshitaka Nakayama tried to land on Uotsuri Island at 2394 Tonoshiro Senkaku, Ishigaki City, Okinawa Prefecture, for the very legitimate purpose of investigating the current situation on the island, erecting a signpost, and collecting the remains of Japanese victims lost at sea, the Japanese government, including the Abe administration, prevented him from doing so. He cannot even engage in his normal fishing activities. China is using this to strongly appeal to the international community, including the US, that "the Senkaku Islands belong to China."
It is the height of injustice.
If President Trump repeats his previous view that "Article 5 of the Security Treaty applies," it would ratify the current tragic situation.
Marco Rubio, Secretary of State (Foreign Minister) of the Trump administration, is the only person in the US Congress who stated, "The Senkaku Islands are Japan's inherent territory, territorial waters, and airspace."
Prime Minister Ishiba should have asked the President to "please say that the Senkakus are Japanese territory."
Both "sufficient security achievements" and "perfect marks" are at odds with the reality in Japan.
Another serious problem is the economy.
When President Trump misrepresented Nippon Steel's acquisition of US Steel as a "large-scale investment," Prime Minister Ishiba welcomed it with a big smile.
In Japan, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, economists, and commentators who usually make a living by criticizing the government all praised it.
What?
For private companies, investment must bring a return.
That is a company's responsibility to its shareholders.
It is common sense in economics.
US Steel cannot expect a return, so Nippon Steel is trying to revive US Steel by acquiring it.
Because US Steel cannot expect such a return, Nippon Steel is acquiring US Steel to rebuild it.
This is exactly the same as when Honda bought Nissan because it was not getting any return on its investment in the company, which was making huge losses, and then tried to turn the company around, including through restructuring.
A senior METI official explained to me, "This is better than the Biden administration's ban on acquisitions. We will take our time to acquire 51% of the shares."
Will taking our time break President Trump's wall of "not being able to acquire a majority stake" come down?
Why?
There's something crazy about the media and the Constitutional Democratic Party's praise for Ishiba Shigeru's diplomacy.
Regarding the first meeting between Prime Minister Ishiba and President Trump, there has been a storm of praise from ruling party lawmakers and opposition party lawmakers, scholars, critics, and commentators who are regulars in the old media, saying "well done."
However, as a current member of the Liberal Democratic Party, I see it differently.
I am not a contrarian.
There may be quite a few contrarians among writers, but for better or worse, I do not have that tendency.
So why don't I join in the rave reviews?
Two specific issues cannot be overlooked.
Prime Minister Ishiba looked relieved at the plenary session of the House of Councillors, where the results of the US visit were deliberated.
I was worried that Trump would dislike him, but he unexpectedly praised him.
It's not just Trump.
It is the question from Tetsuro Fukuyama, a member of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, the largest opposition party supposed to be at the forefront of pursuing the Jiminto Cabinet, and who served as Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary in that Democratic Party administration.
"I believe sufficient security results were achieved at this Japan-US summit. I want to express my respect to Prime Minister Ishiba."
Can this be called an "opposition question"?
It is no different from the so-called "flattery questions" of ruling party members.
(Incidentally, I, a worthless person, do not ask flattery questions.)
When I asked a senior opposition party member after the plenary session, he answered as if he had suddenly become a good student, saying, "The question is to evaluate what should be evaluated."
I feel that behind this "opposition version of flattery questions" is the presence of Yoshihiko Noda, the leader of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (former Prime Minister).
Noda shares the same views as Prime Minister Ishiba on separate surnames for married couples and tax increases.
Prime Minister Ishiba stated that a grand coalition (with the CDP) was possible, gauging the mood within the LDP, and then changed his stance after seeing the strength of the opposition.
Changing one's stance is a specialty of Prime Minister Ishiba.
However, there are still shadows lingering beneath the surface.
There is also impatience about the Prime Minister teaming up with other opposition parties.
The "achievement of the security treaty is sufficient" refers to President Trump's remarks regarding the Senkaku Islands.
The President promised Prime Minister Ishiba, "Article 5 of the Japan-US Security Treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands."
Article 5 is a clause that states that if Japan is attacked, the US military will fight even if the US is not being attacked.
At the same plenary session, a member of the LDP also highly praised Trump's remarks and said that the entire Ishiba-Trump meeting was "perfect."
Huh?
What, in reality, are you all looking at?
Successive US presidents have repeatedly promised that Article 5 of the Security Treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands.
So, what happened to the Senkaku Islands?
The Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese military have concluded that "Article 5 applies, so the US military will not come unless there is a war. The Self-Defense Forces will not come as long as Article 9 of the Constitution is in place, so there will be no war. "
They have been sending armed vessels into the Senkaku Islands every day until now, invading the islands almost every day of the year.
I have seen this reality many times in the waters around the Senkakus. Meanwhile, when Ishigaki City Mayor Yoshitaka Nakayama tried to land on Uotsuri Island at 2394 Tonoshiro Senkaku, Ishigaki City, Okinawa Prefecture, for the very legitimate purpose of investigating the current situation on the island, erecting a signpost, and collecting the remains of Japanese victims lost at sea, the Japanese government, including the Abe administration, prevented him from doing so. He cannot even engage in his normal fishing activities. China is using this to strongly appeal to the international community, including the US, that "the Senkaku Islands belong to China."
It is the height of injustice.
If President Trump repeats his previous view that "Article 5 of the Security Treaty applies," it would ratify the current tragic situation.
Marco Rubio, Secretary of State (Foreign Minister) of the Trump administration, is the only person in the US Congress who stated, "The Senkaku Islands are Japan's inherent territory, territorial waters, and airspace."
Prime Minister Ishiba should have asked the President to "please say that the Senkakus are Japanese territory."
Both "sufficient security achievements" and "perfect marks" are at odds with the reality in Japan.
Another serious problem is the economy.
When President Trump misrepresented Nippon Steel's acquisition of US Steel as a "large-scale investment," Prime Minister Ishiba welcomed it with a big smile.
In Japan, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, economists, and commentators who usually make a living by criticizing the government all praised it.
What?
For private companies, investment must bring a return.
That is a company's responsibility to its shareholders.
It is common sense in economics.
US Steel cannot expect a return, so Nippon Steel is trying to revive US Steel by acquiring it.
Because US Steel cannot expect such a return, Nippon Steel is acquiring US Steel to rebuild it.
This is exactly the same as when Honda bought Nissan because it was not getting any return on its investment in the company, which was making huge losses, and then tried to turn the company around, including through restructuring.
A senior METI official explained to me, "This is better than the Biden administration's ban on acquisitions. We will take our time to acquire 51% of the shares."
Will taking our time break President Trump's wall of "not being able to acquire a majority stake" come down?
Why?
