Forget and Then You Don't Need to Forgive: Why this philosophy just doesn't work

Historical Memory of Japanese, Germans, and U.S.

The author brings up a great point in saying that each of the three nations remember and forget their own wartime atrocities very differently.  The U.S. does portray it's own crimes as those carried out by a select set of blood-thirsty military black sheep and then has gone on to say the war crimes of Japan and Germany were because they sanctioned unfair and inhumane war practices and are savage people.  This is a double-standard the U.S. uses for sure.  But, then again, don't we all think Japan and Germany do the same thing?  It's called nationalism and it's found in public speech, text books, research papers.  It's what any people naturally do when it comes to history, you never want to be the wrong party.  However, at least in this case, the atrocity is not forgotten completely.

I cannot believe that Germany has completely admitted it's responsibility for the Nazi Era.  Just recently, I believe, the chancellor before Merkel said they were not sure it ever happened and many American political analysts we come to call "quack jobs" even still deny its existence to this day.  It's hard to believe but it happens and so we cannot say that Germany has even come clean.  They have done a good job owning up to it but still place all blame on one man and his highly brainwashed posse.

The nation's historical memory that struck me the most was Japan, by far.  The fact that the government is attempting to take the massacres and bombings and Chinese slaughters out of their text books is not only a free speech violation and crazy thought straight out of 1984, it's impossible to believe the Japanese, Chinese, or Korean people would be that gullible.  Forgetting an entire segment of history would be detrimental to the healing process of the Chinese and Koreans and even a detriment to Japan learning from it's past mistakes.  The article 9, as the author rightly connects, seems to show that Japan has reconciled to an extent.  However, as the author suggests, they want to forget but skip the part of realization because maybe they believe they can never be forgiven.  I think that an open admittance and apology would do wonders for Asian relations between Japan and all other nations.

Not only that, this sort of concession and act of repentance of a traditionally stubborn and proud nation would send a ripple effect throughout the entire world.  China might apologize for its mistakes with Tibet, Mongolia, and Taiwan (in the distant future to be sure, but eventually) and, more importantly, equally stubborn U.S. would admit it's historical need to be the world police and keeper of all things democratic and just has kept it from admitting to its mistakes.  The U.S. may apologize to Japan for massive bombings, Iraq for today's situations, war prisoners for their suffering, and other groups much like it apologized to the war camp inhabitants of WWII.  We admitted to stupidity then and received nothing but praise for coming clean.  I understand that the U.S. is afraid it might show weakness on our part to apologize, but, let's face it, what threat do we really have to be scared of nowadays?

Japan: Changed on the outside, same on the inside

A twelve year old compare to the adult U.S?

Japan seems to have a lot of good things going for itself. It has an amazing economy and gives a lot of international aid. However, a lot of its success in the world depends now, as it has since WWII, on the U.S.'s puppeteering. This happened when the U.S. took over the government post-WWII and used the emperor as a Japanese face to a U.S. agenda. The goal in this was to keep loyalty to Americans while appealing to the pride Japanese people have in their culture and abilities. My question here was why would the proud Japanese allow this to happen? The answer provided by the author was that it ensured that Japan would be protected from big, bad nuclear North Korea. Here, the people value military security over other kinds of protection.

A cool thing I read in this chapter was how the successive rulers of Japan all claim to bring about a new "era" in Japan in which progress occurs consistently. It's as if they all claim to be moving in a direction where the Japanese advance militarily, economically, politically towards some greater state of being. Where are they going with this progress? What does Japan want and can it achieve this desire with U.S. pulling the strings? Is this just a revolution as the author says or is real reform going on amongst the Japanese people?

The future of Japan is very important to East Asia and the world because of the scale of Japan's economy. This explains the U.S.'s interests in maintaining control over Japanese affairs and why it coerces Japan into subordination with promises of diplomatic power and stability. Is the U.S. actually holding Japan back from legitimacy in world politics by being it's "Dad" by acting this way? Where would Japan's alliances, power, and influence flow if it is let go by the U.S.? How has Japan managed to maintain its identity and cultural uniqueness when so many other nations under U.S.'s influence have seemed to lose it. Can the U.S. hold on to this forever?

Environmental Concerns Threaten Security in East Asia

Current Context

Overall, it seems Asia's broad and deep environmental problems are in fact threatening the security of its people. Issues stemming from poor practices are flooding, water scarcity, loss of crops, death, and homelessness. These issues threaten species, health, and the economy so they should be considered security issues.

So why are they not security issues?

Several factors have been cited as to why the environment doesn't fall under the traditional, realist vision of security in East Asian nations. Among them are historical tensions from wars and general mistrust between nations, military and arms build-up, and the view that security is a state issue where nations protect their own from foreign entities. There are little to no multilateral alliances among nations and bilateral agreements are prominent. This means that the regional issue of the environment has no hope of being resolved in such a nationalist area of the world. Also, the presence of the U.S., another military-security focused nations, lends to the increasing view that the environment is not a concern of security.

What needs to occur

In my opinion, East Asian nations need to give more support to the regional organizations they have already established for environmental issues. They need to give up some national power to the overreaching entities so they can deal with the environment as the state-line crossing problem it is. These organizations need to make the regulations they agree upon legally binding rather than just guidelines. The health, economy, and security of East Asia depends upon taking a new stance to the issue and putting aside military suspicions and rivalries. They must also address the issue of an ever-expanding economy and use of resources. They need to stop focusing on miltary spending and instead give these resources to its people so they can stop over-cultivating the land just to survive.

The Weight of History

A nation's history helps to shape the way external forces impact it.

It is very bold to say that whether or not a nation can be conquered by another is the prey's own fault. However, this can be partly true. Many nations have been threatened and conquered by imperial forces while others have resisted. The same forces can be said to have been exerted on them and yet the product differs entirely from situation to situation. Beeson, the author of this article Regionalism and Globalization in East Asia, states that a nation's history, characteristics, and people impact their future contacts with outside parties tremendously. I believe I can agree with that.

China

"... Response to the European challenge was a consequence of internal degeneration, rather than simple European superiority" (pg. 31). This was the reason Beeson gives for China's submission to European dominance in the 1800s after the fall of the Ming Dynasty. China is historically ethnocentric, divided, and introverted. This made a very good environment for the Europeans to permeate and weaken from within. Yes, it can be said that European forces were very strong. But, China was so characteristically weak that they fell more quickly, than, say, Japan.

It's interesting that Beeson blames Confuscian thought and an air of superiority of the Chinese for their fall to a elite and self-superior power like Europe. Essentially the Chinese refused to give in a little of their customs and greatness in order to be spared total domination but thus subjected themselves more easily to such a fate. I do not think we can seprate China's history and Europe's history from placing blame for China's fall. I believe it was the interaction of the two that produced this result. China's superiority complex and resistance angered the Europeans moreso than any other nation simply because Europe thought itself and its ideas to also be superior. What I mean is, not only was China's weakness a cause of their downfall but also Europe's increased motivation to dominate China even more forcefully. China's weakness made Europe even stronger. Thus, European action played off of Chinese culture to create a shared outcome between the two actors.

Japan

Japan contrasts greatly to China and thus their fate in the imperial era reflects it. Europe did not see that Japan was just as literate as they were and believed Japan to be worthless to them. Also, Japan allowed Europe to trade and exchange ideas with them a little more openly. Thus, Europe attempts to dominate and threaten Japan's security were less because Japan was less susceptible to collapse with an open mind. Also, Europe was not challenged to work harder to secure Japan because this nation was not a elusive as China. Again, Beeson makes the point that a nation's history changes how its future will be controlled.

Not only does this allow Japan to hold its own against European domination. Japan also becomes a center of competition and rivalry with China. The nation, allowing itself to stay afloat by accepting some Western ideals, is free to dominate parts of Asia as well. This sets Japan up to be just like Europe in its quest to take over other lands rather than be taken over themselves. Japan begins to take on the same goals and means as European imperialists within the Asian region. Thus, the way Japan interacted with the rest of Asia then and now is reflected in their past reaction to potential European threats.

This historical resistance by Japan helped give the nation a reputation for asserting Asia's worth in many areas and also for going against Western influence. This helped them to stop external domination but also caused them to be resented by the rest of East Asia. China for trying to take over certain regions and Southeast Asia for exploiting its resources. Then and now, Japan can be noted as having a sense of superiority and higher value than other Asian nations. I think this is definetly the case as much of the world sees how greatly Japan differs from the rest of Asia in all areas of living.

I'm not sure how this article ties into the Olympics article yet. All I can note is that it shows how the Olympics can have a huge diplomatic effect on the region. The region is characterized by instability and poor regional relations. Thus, it makes sense that sports diplomacy could potentially improve their ties moreso than other, more stable regions. The fact that China has been a historically weak area for others to prey on makes it a hotbed for controversy during the Olympics as the nation tries to show the world it will no longer allow this.