Okinawa..... Okie, leave now ahh!

National security can conflict with the security of sub-groups within a nation.

The people of Okinawa have been jeopardized by Japan in order to keep U.S. forces within the nation.  The Japanese government, for a number of reasons, has decided to maintain relations with the U.S. and keep many forces and bases within their land.  However, mainland Japan has decided to keep most of the U.S. presence in the small islands of Okinawa.  This is a classic example of how the interests of one ethic group can conflict with the interests of another and thus cause marginalization of the former.  Okinawa has been discounted as a lesser population than other Japanese people.

This shows us that security can no longer be played out between national actors only.  The leaders of a nation can threaten the security of social groups within their scope.  Since the author of the speech we read this week, Governor Ota, defines the security of Okinawa as the stability of industry, low rate of crime, freedom of land, and other non-military issues, it is clear the security of Okinawans is threatened to preserve the security of mainland Japan.

Why the Marginalization of Okinawa?

Okinawa used to be its own kingdom centuries ago.  Mainland Japan, in an act of imperialism, annexed the kingdom and established its own rulers and the islands' rulers.  Thus, the people were placed in a position of oppression and social demotion.  When Japan signed a peace treaty with the U.S. requiring the nation to host U.S. forces for a number of years, they naturally appointed Okinawa as the host site to be built on and used for such exploitative purposes.  

And this, the Governor points out, is the reason why the U.S. presence cannot be reduced on the island: it would threaten the military protection the U.S. provides for the rest of Japan.  But what about the Okinawans???

Other Reasons for No Military Reduction in Okinawa

Okinawa is the perfect geographical location for a military base (near mainland Japan, China, Taiwan, and the whole of Asia).  This is too perfect of a position to launch defensives or even offensives for any military body. Thus, the U.S. is hesitant to reduce or reallocate its military to other areas of further north mainland Japan.

Troop and Base Maintenance: What's In It for Okinawans?

Not a whole lot.  As of right now, the economy is suffering under troop presence because the Okinawans have no land to build industry on.  The military bases don't employ many native Okinawans.  The military hurts their personal, daily life quality.  If the troop presence is reduced, security for these people may increase.  However, it does leave the island and U.S. military more vulnerable to invasion and loss of power (respectively).  So, we must weigh the costs versus the benefits in the context of current politics, economy, and social norms.  Do Japan and the U.S. really need to have as many bases in Okinawa as they have right now or can the Okinawans finally have the chance to advance themselves and have the peace they've craved for hundreds of years?

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?

The Girl in the Cafe: Thoughts on the movie and world issues

Greetings from the United States!

Welcome to my blog on the politics of security in East Asia. This blog is for one of my college courses and explores the definition of security and how its being addressed in East Asian nations. I am using a portion of the space for this blog to write about The Girl in the Cafe and how the movie changed some of my values in world, political topics. Want to know more and become part of the world-wide movement? Go to The Girl in the Cafe: On Tour It just may change your life, too.

Just a great movie in general...
This movie is the perfect way to get new demographics interested in real world issues. Placing what seems like a love story within the setting of a G-8 Summit and talks on millenium development goals (MDGs) gives a personal face to politics and the people involved in them. I loved the quirkiness of the couple and how oddly their relationship developed under such circumstances.

The characters are symbols for actors on the world stage
Gina embodies a humane view of MDGs. She is the true heart, soul, and vision behind what these goals seek to fulfill. Lawrence is the voice of reason, the voice of education, and the voice of today's progress-driven world. He is a political analyst with the MDGs in mind but a national government and national interests to answer to. And he does his job but the obsession he has with his work shows he wants the simplicity, compassion, and idealism associated with Gina. She cannot see why the issue of famine is so difficult to resolve but he cannot figure out how to make the issue simple enough. And neither can his colleagues.

The Girl makes you think
She really opened my eyes to how backwards and unflexible the world power distribution is. She thought of this problem on the human level, being a person who has witnessed the death of a child (possibly hers) at the hands of her husband, where the real victims of world hunger also exist. No matter what anyone said to her, she knew that the real answer was to simply help the starving people of the world because developed nations have the food and money to do so. It makes you think... How have we gotten to this place? What forces and international power structures stop us from addressing such basic problems quickly and cohesively? Will we ever be able to take care of the world's people the way we were meant to ever again? Gina puts it very eloquently when she warns of something along the lines of the danger of losing touch with what really matters when one thinks too hard and is too educated. You lose your humanity.

The prime minister says its dangerous to say things when you know too little. Gina responds by saying that it can be dangerous to know too much.

The message of the movie
What do I think about the hopeful, idealistic ending in which the British Prime Minister finally caves into the simple vision the Girl shows him??? I think it is the only way the movie could've ended. There has to be a point where we wake up and start to shift focus from power and money to people, health, happiness, and the right to life again. I want to believe the film makers made this movie because they see a possibility for change, too.

What are the odds that Lawrence, the face of world power structures, meets Gina, the voice of the world community, in a Cafe and finds himself at a table with her? This meeting in the cafe represents the important day the serendipitous encounter of hunger and its relief meet, make a connection, and put all their energies together in order make the world right again the way Gina and Lawrence fight for their love. Amazing movie that really puts life into perspective for a student of politics and anyone who uses reason and theory too much when thinking about the lives of millions of his/her fellow human beings.

The More The Merrier: Peace Talks with North Korea

Hardliners Target Detente with North Korea
Kim & Feffer

A New National Strategy for Korea
Klinger

The situation with North and South Korea is very unstable one. The first article by Kim and Feffer looks at the consequences of the U.S. pursuing unilateral agreements with N. Korea. They argue that the Bush administration is actually hurting chances of N. Korea denuclearizing and making peace with the rest of the world, including S. Korea.

The biggest problem is that N. Korea has not been as transparent as the "Six Party Talks" agreement had called for and yet Bush still conceded to the nation in many ways. Klinger goes on to blame this move on Bush's need to leave a foreign policy legacy. There is a flaw in this, however, as also demonstrated by the Syria situation. No one is entirely certain what nuclear weapons and other tools N. Korea actually possesses because they, as Klinger puts it, use secrecy as their weapon. President Kim is right, not knowing what N. Korea is capable makes them incredibly scary to the outside world. However, this also leads those participating in peace talks with little to base the need for transparency on. So, is this an issue or isn't it? Should N. Korea be granted their right to "privacy" if we have no verifiable grounds on which to suspect them of dangerous activity? Or, as Bush and other nations have concluded, are they only being secret because they have something to hide? Can we factor in N. Korea culture when it comes to national pride?

So how do human rights factor in?
As I see it, we have already decided that human rights are a security issue, right? Then why, as Kim and Feffer highlight, are human rights groups angry over placing these issues alongside political agenda and denuclearization talks? It's kind of like pork (or bacon, whatever its called) with U.S. legislation.... if the Six Parties can somehow manage to slide human rights practices among the nuclear issue, then they may have the chance to make amazing gains in a nation known for kidnapping and starving its people. It seems to me, however, that everyone not in support of discussing human rights along with nuclear weapons is stuck in the old definition of security. However, the fact that human rights are even being discussed in the same article as other, more traditional military, security issues is a step in the right direction.

So how about making it a party?
There is something to both Kim &Feffer's article and Klinger. The first emphasizes that S. Korea is pushing better relations with the North by making it into a business deal: you give us info. and we'll give you money and resources to help your starving people. This is good for inter-Korean security but not for everyone else because it gives N. Korea no incentive to cooperate with everyone else. How do we know they are actually using the money for the intended purposes? We don't unless we follow Klinger's suggestion of requiring N. Korea to show where the money is going. Good luck with that since we can't even get into the country.

What Klinger suggests throughout his whole article is multilateral engagement. The U.S. may gain some sense of security by engaging with N. Korea and S. Korea may also make some gains, but in both cases, no other nations gain from these peace-talks. This is dangerous because, if N. Korea has the deadly weapons we all so fear, then the nations not giving concessions to N. Korea are vulnerable. And so are the people within the country who's human rights issues are continuing to go ignored under unilateral agreements. However, multilateral agreements seems to offer the best incentives. Klinger highlights nuclear compliance and transparency of all "six party" nations, more free trade and less reliance of any one nation on another, and lessen perceived military threat from any one nation on another. Essentially, the more people involved with bringing N. Korea into the world stage, the more N. Korea's accountability is spread out and the harder it would be for them to violate any agreements it has made. That's a great idea!

Seeing the Broader Picture
Klinger definitely has a very well-rounded approach concerning the U.S.'s role with both Koreas. And it's interesting he takes this stance of gaining more power for all six parties but even more so for itself right under S. Korea's nose by putting it in the Korea Herald. Klinger provides suggestions for Free Trade Agreements, enhanced military alliance with S. Korea, and drafting detailed plans for a new U.S.- South Korea alliance as a means for both strengthening their bond and forming more power to get at the N. Korea issue. This makes sense in the nuclear and human rights issues because having stronger bonds between U.S. and S. Korea than the South has with the North allows for a better chance that no one nation forms too strong a unilateral engagement with North Korea. However, I can see potential for the U.S. to gain more power over the East Asia region by disguising as an equal partnership, thus appeasing the increasing distrust over U.S. military presence. However, as the rest of the region benefits from the actions Klinger suggests, N. Korea will feel the pressure to become transparent and thus comply with the human rights and nuclear guidelines the rest of the world has set out to follow.

North Korea: Nuclear Crisis

The documentary we watched on North Korea provided an small glimpse into both sides of the North Korean situation. On one hand, it showed the poverty that pervades North Koreans. The people are malnourished and have no jobs. They are under the strictest regulations and have very few freedoms.

On the other hand, North Koreans seem to rally under several commonalities. They have a fear of external nations, more specifically, the U.S., invading their country. They fear military action and nuclear war. Whether this is something the people have decided for themselves or the government pressured this notion through propaganda, the people thrive off of the pride and national identity that their hermit-like existence brings. The people also perform grand ceremonies to celebrate their leader and cry in the streets when he dies. This is all a big show but it's hard to tell if it's really all shallow or means something to the North Koreans.

The interviews with Kim and visits to North Korea reveal little if anything about the conditions in North Korea. Interviewers had only Kim's favorite hobbies, fashion sense, and drink of choice to report on. These are the shallowest observations and reveal absolutely nothing about the real North Korea. I think we all know this already. The thing that bothers me is that at the time, the visits of Jimmy Carter and Madeline Albright seemed like progress in relations with North Korea. And yet, they returned with news of nothing. How did that happen? The best guess I have is that Kim paid them off or offered free nuclear arms trade or promised to never release nuclear power on the U.S. What did they really see and why aren't they telling us the truth?

The country is impossible to get into so there is little known about what the people actually live like and thus no way to tell if the nuclear threat is something for us to worry about. The documentary confused me even more than it gave me knowledge about North Korea. It's no wonder the U.S. has no idea what it will do with the situation. On one hand, peace with the nation would be ideal but on the other hand, they seem not to want to concede anything to the U.S. or even talk. The U.S. needs to make great concession as well, especially with regards to nuclear power aimed back at Korea and troops stationed in South Korea ready to strike at the north. So, with so much at stake for each side and no one ready to budge first, will anything ever get done?

Sexual Labor and Security???

"Sex Among Allies: Military Prostitution in U.S.-Korea Relations

The article by Katherine H. S. Moon portrays a very innovative way of looking at the sex trade industry in South Korea as a product of and essential component to South Korea's security, specifically the security provided by U.S. forces.

To summarize the issue, essentially Moon explains the history of sex trade in Korea. It began in WWII with comfort women for the Japanese forces in Korea. This was a forced business for Korean women under the oppression of the Japanese soldiers. Then, it continued all the way through the Korean War when American forces established clubs and bars for servicemen to pick up women and meet their needs. The industry is still going even today.

The Korean economy was so bad at the time that most women did not have employment and needed some means for providing for themselves and their families. This is how the relationship started. Then, as time went along, it became a staple for troops in Korea and the women who needed work. They each depend upon the industry of sex, or at the very least expect it. This is an interesting, yet disturbing situation.

On one hand, allowing sexual labor greatly threatens the security of the Korean people, especially the women who work, on a personal, health, and cultural scale. These women are not safe in daily life (my simple definition of security) because their health is at risk, they can become depressed from the work, and society shuns them for violating deep-rooted, ancient cultural norms (such as racial purity and sexual purity). This is a security crisis for an old, priceless nation of people.

On the other hand, taking away the sex trade industry also threatens security. Sexual labor brings economic security to the women who work, the clubs who own them, and the bartenders who serve them and servicemen drinks. The sex trade industry is also being portrayed by Moon and other scholars as a key ingredient in maintaining U.S. troops to protect South Korea from North Korea, China, and other outside nations (actors) that threaten their security as a nation. The availability of sexual partners on a whim, for cheap, is seen as a desirable part of a soldier's stay in Korea and necessary to keep troops coming back.

However, as Moon also sees, I do not think this is the case any longer. Korean people are seeing the terrible effects of such a relationship. They could once overlook these because of the military-based security benefits reaped from sex trade. However, the definition of security has changed and so have the climate.

People now see security as not just militarily based but culturally, economically, and socially. The climate now involves a pan-Korean nationalist movement to reunite North and South Korea, thereby eliminating an enemy and the need for the U.S. troops that fuel the sex trade. Thus, the sex trade threatens security in today's world moreso than it protects security. With reunification becoming a topic of conversation and possibly a movement, I believe there is no longer room for sex trade and that the women who's personal security is threatened by it have the chance for a safer, better life someday.

FLEFF on Security in China

Zone of Initial Dilution

Through our class on security politics in East Asia, we have discussed and studied various security issues. We revisited an issue prevalent in China by viewing a foreign documentary on the points of destruction, displacement of persons, and pollution caused by the building of the "Three Gorges Dam" and other dams on the Yangzte River. The movie was, in fact, slow and only grazed the surface of the problem. However, it did put some visuals to the pages of articles we read throughout the class.

The thing I took away from the film was that there is a huge environmental crisis occurring as a result of the bridge's construction. However, two images served to show that even those sick and in danger of dying from the pollution and displacement see the benefit of the dams.

The first image was a billboard with a shining display of the words "Three Gorges Dam." The billboard was striking because of its placement among gray and decaying buildings and landscape. The sign was not vandalized, dirty, or anything of the like. This can be taken as the people living near the dam support the dam for what it can mean to China: more energy, renewable resources, and a boost to their expanding economy and place in the world. For them, it's a worthwhile sacrifice of their personal security for the security of China as a state and Chinese as a people. Or maybe it's cultural submission. The movie did not address this, but I believe it is one way to see the issue.

The second image was the still image of a rock and then the visitors center for the "TGD" (Three Gorges Dam). This shows that the government and the wealthier population of China also sees the benefits of the dams. This is a huge achievement and investment for China's future with regards to economy, an expanding population, and future environmental security issues. I think the movie shows that the dam can go either way. It can be a huge loss of human life that is unacceptable and China should find another way to provide clean energy for billions of people. Or.... the dam makes a big mess now to allow for a clean, happy tomorrow.

I think this is a horrible way to pave the way for future Chinese. The images of the documentary are destruction, poverty, and disregard for the peasant population of China. I think the upper class regards those displaced by the dams as disposable and stupid, as supported by many of the comments in a previously viewed film, China Blue. There are social, economic, and cultural forces at play here with regards to security and they are on the wrong side of human rights and moral issues.

To Military or Not to Military

The Effects of Korean Unification on the US Military Presence in Northeast Asia (and vice-versa....)

The author of the article clearly holds the view that security is comprised mainly of military presence and action. He proves several good points concerning a continued presence of the US military in a unified Korea for Korea:

1) When Germany reunited, the US kept troops stationed in order to keep stability as the power transition occured. He believed this will prove the same for a reunified Korea. However, Haselden fails to prove that the US presence actually caused unified Germany to keep stability or merely accompanied it.
2) Keeping military presence in Korea will keep the historically invasive Japan out of Korea.

He attempts to provide even more reason for US military presence in unified Korea for the US:

1)We can still monitor Japan's military and China/Korea's nuclear build-up
2) We deserve to be there because so many of our men risked their lives for their security during the Korean War. However, as the previous articles mentioned... this may have actually been a self-serving endeavor that led to an unnecessary rupture between the Koreas and unnecessary Korean deaths.

Haselden does attempt to focus security on more non-traditional topics and actors as well. He successfully emphasizes the importance of a focus on transnational issues such as terrorism, piracy, drug trafficking, and disease, which require actions from sources other than the military and actors other than just states. However, this topic is short-lived in the article.

He mainly focuses on how the military can shrink in size and numbers in order to still maintain a presence without raising suspicion or anger by Korea. He believes the East Asia relations will collapse without the military to monitor.... a sentiment heavily repeated by many top US politicians. This is a very authority-centric and self-righteous attitude famous of the U.S. What I want to know is why we feel we are better at protecting their people with our military than they are with peaceful means?

Post-Cold War Koreas: Pan-nationalism, Anti-Great Power-ism

Pan-Korean Nationalism, Anti-Great Power-ism and U.S.-South Korea Relations

Kim has come up with some very creative and enlightening theories and terms to describe the political and social shifts in South Korea today. The first is anti-Great Power-ism. This is the notion that South Korea is angry over external control over the relationship between N. and S. Korea. The younger generations are proponents in this school of thinking because they believe they no longer have to be exploited and made victims by the U.S. As Jager also states in his article, S. Korea has finally realized that they are not beneficiaries of U.S. protection against nuclear N. Korea but rather the victims of brain-washing by power-hungry post-imperialists. While this seems a little scary to me, I do believe S. Korea has sufficient evidence to believe this as true. The U.S.'s constant military presence in S. Korea and condemnation of N. Korea shows that the American government is aggressive with their military.

Kim also explains the concept of pan-Korea nationalism. This is the formation of internal pride and alliances between N. and S. Korea against all external state actors. The forces of globalization and anti-Great Power-ism have combined to open the Koreas to new ideas and thus close them off to aggressive foreign cultures and religions.

Former Pres. and pan-Korean nationalist Roh staunchly believes that the meddling of the U.S. thwarted any hopes of N. and S. Korea reunification. The famine and war and lack of self-determination that has plagued S. Korea can all be traced back to the actions and ideas of the U.S. in the Korean and Cold Wars and thus has caused N. and S. Korea to turn inward. This changes security in the Koreas. S. Korea used to view security as defending themselves from the nuclear threat of its norther communist neighbor but now sees a threat of security from the U.S.'s external and foreign intervention. Security involves national actors and military defense against another national actor and its complementary military aggression.

This leads to a third term called Anti-Great Power-ism. Coined by Kim, this is the idea that Great Power has always threatened the Koreas and thus should be feared. From the Opium Wars when Japan started to move in on Korea to the U.S.'s involvement in the Korean War to Japan's 2005 attempt to bring a previously Korean island in the East Sea under its control, Korea's history is riddled with oppression and bullying. It makes sense that by now they are sick of it.

57.2% of Koreans saw Japan as a military threat while only 6.2% of the Japanese felt that way about South Korea.

However, we need to be cautious of this notion. What it's proponents believe is that only foreign nations are capable of committing th Great-Power sins. However, they fail to recognize that internal regimes, such as dictatorships, can also commit the oppression and threats to security the "Great Powers" have in history. The danger here is that those who fall into this way of thinking may forget to check up on internal threats to security and fall into the same trap under the domestic sector.

Kim also notes that other conditions in the Koreas are ripe for reunification and this change in security and alliances. The political conditions are now more stable and the leaders of the nations are instituting programs to inspire confidence in a reunited, prosperous Korea. They are fighting the history of hatred of fear of N. Korea to a history of oppression and misuse of S. Korea as a pawn in the Great Power's evil scheme. This may prove detrimental to relations between the Koreas and everyone else but will greatly improve the feeling the two actors have towards each other.

Kim tries to see the other, sunny side for the U.S. and China He believes that the U.S. will still be able to monitor the military and government of Asia with bases in Japan and China even though a reunification of N. and S. Korea would surely push the U.S. out of S. Korea. I am a little confused on how this helps China, as Kim tried to articulate in the end. However, what I infer is that a reunited Korea helps China by taking military out of the region.

While this seems sensible, I do believe that the reunification of Korea will cause them to close off from the world. I also believe this is not necessarily a bad thing because national soverignty is important. I think the first step is giving Korea back to the Koreans and the second step is to figure out how to relate to them in the world.

Re-writing the Past/ Re-Claiming the Future: Nationalism and the Politics of Anti-Americanism in South Korea

Jager provides a stunning discovery in her article regarding the change of Korean thoughts and values. It was recently discovered that the Korean War was begun with not one, as originally thought, but two massacres. In reality, North Korea was attacked by South Korean forces and then North Korea retaliated in what became known as the Taejon Massacre. However, the only massacre left to memory is the one in which North Korea is the aggressor and "bad guy." Now with the discovery of evidence to the contrary, no one is really sure what to think.

One of the most impressive aspects of this discovery is that it's even being allowed. Years ago during and just after the Cold War, information of this nature would never have been released. It seems as though freedom of information and opinion is greatly improving it the region.

This is one reason history is being wrestled in Korea. Another is that the end of the Cold War meant North Korea no longer has its major ally, Russia. This allowed South Korea to see that North Korea was and is not a threat to their security. Rather, N. Korea was the pawn under greater communist forces that has been freed (this is the basis of Kim's anti-Great Powerism theory). This also allows S. Korea to excuse the build up of nuclear weapons by the North as simple a defensive measure against further aggression from anti-Communist nations (i.e. the U.S.). The notion of history and security in the Koreas has undergone a shift from suspicion of one another to a suspicion of all forces who have sought military presence in the region. While security is still viewed as military security against other national actors, it has transformed from anti-N. Korea to anti-America.

Another force driving a rewriting of history and future in the Koreas is the shift in generations. The people alive during and after the Korean Wars and the Cold War are being replaced by post-Cold War voices that are now speaking up. Younger South Koreans are discovering that the U.S. and other larger actors used Koreas as pawns in their conflict, effectively pinning the two groups against each other in order to divide, and thus, weaken them enough to be taken over. What was once regarded as an alliance between the U.S. and S. Korea, is now being seen as an abusive relationship with S. Korea is the masochist position. The pan-nationalists (the idea of North and South Korea united) also believe the U.S.'s aggression against N. Korea is current evidence of this notion. The idea here is that the two countries can unite under a common enemy (the U.S) and reunite to strengthen their defenses against U.S. nuclear threats. It makes sense for S. Korea who is angry that the U.S. used them and for N. Korea who is angry that Bush calls them the Axis of Evil for simply building arms as a defensive measure against what they perceive as initial aggression from the U.S.

The means in which the idea of unification has spread is through schools. The S. Korean government has developed propaganda depicting the U.S. as an enemy that used the 38th parallel to divide N. from S. Along with the recent killing of two young S. Korea girls by U.S. army tanks running them over, S. Korean pan-nationalists have a great deal of means for encouraging the people to unite against the U.S. who has and is using and killing their people for American interests. And according to the author, it's working. Elites, government officials, policymakers, middle class, and younger people have found a commonality between them unlike ever before. Rather than be divided among class and social interets, they are all anti-American and pro-reunification. Honestly, I can understand that this makes the U.S. government nervous about aggression from the Koreas. The U.S. sees a build up of anti-American sentiment and is scared S. Korea will join and strengthen N. Korea in plans to attack. However, I believe that this is a case of the chicken and the egg; no one really knows for sure anymore who started it and everyone is on the defense.

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.

China's Environmental Problems Are Not Just China's Problems

The Great Leap Backward?; The Costs of China's Environmental Crisis

In this article, Elizabeth Economy believes that China's recent economic progress is causing a massive environmental decline that may reverse all of China's success and cause the Communist party to lose everything it has gained. She blames local people for wasting resources, local governments for being corrupt and not enforcing laws, factories for ignoring reforms, MNCs for inefficiency and lack of concern, the Chinese government for withholding information while not providing incentives to be more environmentally friendly, and, finally, the International community for both placing too much pressure on China to perform economic miracles and not providing a model of environmental reform for the nation to follow. There are a whole list of problems and consequences with few solutions and the Communist government may lose out whether they do or they don't.

Bottom Up Approach

This is an absolutely necessary approach to turning around China's environmental sins. Economy emphasizes that the government can impose restrictions and offer incentives but it must be NGOs, local governments, factories, and the people that call for the reforms. Local businesses have some of the worst emissions rates and need incentives to stop. As it is right now, it is cheaper to violate environmental laws and pay fines than spend the money to fix their factories.

It is only the bottom that can enforce environmental change. These people are NGOs who can educate a broader population more effectively than the government or international agencies can. These groups, along with the population, see the damage being caused to China and the consequences of pollution so they know better than anyone what needs to happen and how it can happen.

What is going on over there?

This is just a brief, succinct list of all problems in China:

1) Consumed 2.4 billion tons of coal in 2006 (the number is rising)
2) China has 16 of 20 most polluted cities in the world
3) 14,000 new cars hit the road every day in China (more gas emissions)
4) Urbanization, the inefficient way buildings are being constructed, and the increase in electronic appliance use because of this
5) Deforestation from timber needs, soil contamination from acid rain, loss of biodiversity, and desertification
6) Climate change
7) Water shortages from leaky pipes, agricultural needs, polluted water, less rain

And the list of environmental problems this causes:

1) Acid rain in China, Japan, Korea and pollutants in U.S.
2) Pollution in Pacific Ocean
3) Loss of seafood supply
4) Largest CO2 emitter in the world
5) Deforestation in other areas of the world from illegal timber consumption

And the list of economic problems this causes:

1) 8-12% of GPD spent on environmental problems
2) Provinces are producing oil and paying costs for environmental and health damage
3) Health costs
-19-23% rise in cancer
-750,000 respitory illness related deaths
-190 million people sick from contaminated water
-Disease, lukemia

And the list of social costs:

1) 51,000 protests in one year
2) Peaceful protests have turned violent and subsequently shut down by government
3) Videos and websites on the Internet expose the social unrest in China to the world
4) Communist party worries its stability is at stake

What Will China Do?

In the past China has had problems and attempted (or at least claim to have attempted) solutions. So far, they have pledged to reduce energy inefficency, increase renewable energy sources, and other goals and already have they reduced such goals. Even in the face of the Olympics, they have made some changes (planting trees, outlawing many cars) and cut back some goals because they are unrealistic or too costly to their economic progress.

SEPA, China's equivalent to the EPA, is trying a grassroots approach to making such changes. While this may be the only way to affect change, it's not working. SEPA lacks authority with local governments. They are trying to make assessments of environmental damage and issuing laws to correct them but barely 10% of such laws get enforced.

The problem is SEPA lacks the ability to give incentives for compliance. This is where the government comes in. They must be more transparent with information and allow the extent of the environmental damage to be released to the public. Then, they must raise fines for breaking laws and stop corrupt officials from taking bribes to let factories slip past laws. They must also stop pressuring the Chinese to quadruple its economy by 400%! The biggest detriment to the environmental crisis is pressure to be as efficient and profitable as possible and many times this means being environmentally unsustainable. In the end, the cost will far outweigh the savings and growth China is experiencing now.

Who's to blame?

1)MNCs are being blamed by the Chinese government for pressuring Chinese factories to produce too much. They are not operating with sustainable practices. They are not calling for reform because it would be too costly. They are contributing, as the previous article also supports, to pollution with e-waste. MNCs do not remove business if they find out a factory is polluting too much and they need to be.

2)Domestic Factories and People MNCs claim that it is the local factories and local population that contribute even more greatly to pollution.

3)Chinese Government for cracking down on activists. They allow small protests but shut down anything they feel is threatening the party. They are not enforcing laws and even the laws they enforce do not fine enough to give incentive to change. The government is also not transparent enough about the extent of the environmental crisis. They are pressuring businesses too hard to achieve huge economic gains.

4)Foreign Governments The Chinese pollution is affecting the entire world. However, U.S. and other nations that are calling for China to stop its pollution also need to make domestic reforms. In order to be an authority to China on climate change and environmental change, the U.S. must reform itself, too.

So what's the problem

The environment is at risk. However, the cost to start environmental reform and restructure businesses to be more sustainable is too much up front. It's hard for China to realize the potential future savings and they are not willing to take an economic hit for it.

Also, the Communist system is at risk. The government does not want to be democratized and they feel the conditions needed for environmental change (transparency, media access, and more power to NGOs) will undermine Communist ideals.

The only way for China to turn this around is to start from the bottom up. Factories need to call for incentives to slow CO2 emissions and pollution. Media needs to call for more freedom and transparency of information. MNCs and foreign companies need to realize the importance of the environment and take an economic hit. They need to slow demand for goods and provide a model for change by changing their own practices abroad. NGOs need to gain more power, educate the masses, and provide resources for changing.

I feel that without slow and steady, grassroots progress, China's water source will diminish, forests will turn to desert, the air quality will make many regions unlivable, and China's reputation will be forever tarnished. China may think they are securing their future by growing economically, but they are actually ensuring failure by ignoring its environmental concerns.

Toxic Toys Topple Tiny Tots and Trendy Teens

China: Lead Toxins Take a Global Round Trip

The article by Fairclough takes over from last weeks readings sighting poor conditions and laws in China as part of the blame for toxic materials in Chinese exports. However, Fairclough sights another problem as even more cause for concern. That problem is e-waste recycling from the U.S.

There is a global issue at hand in which a cycle causes China to manufacture items with lead, the U.S. to send the recycled remnants of such products back to China, and China to reuse their materials in new items destined to be shipped back to the U.S. all over again.

Jewelry is a huge export from China, making up 70% of the $4.5 billion industry and 6.7 billion pieces of such exports were recalled in 2007. This is huge both for China and the U.S. This means a great deal of U.S. imports are toxic and China is paying the price for recalling them.

Another item caught in this mess is e-waste, such as computers and cell phones. 50 millions tons of the stuff is tossed every year in the U.S. and sent back to China to be reused. Much of the materials are put into new electronics, the jewelry mentioned above, and toys while much of it is simply dumped in various places in China. This means more poisoning in exports and poisoning of the Chinese environment. None of this cycle is regulated by the U.S. or Chinese environmental protection bureaus. Both China and the U.S. stand to lose health and environment battles in this case.

Why is lead so bad? It causes brain damage and death from exposure or, more harmfully, from ingestion. This harms U.S. children, teens, and others who use the goods and also harms the workers that make them. The lack of labor laws in China allow workers to touch and inhale toxins from the materials as they manufacture them into products. Again, China and U.S. citizens are putting their health at risk and increasing medicals costs when resulting conditions need to be treated.

Ok, another question. Why is this being allowed to happen? The answer is, as usual, money. Lead alloy is way cheaper than other materials, more abundant, and more pliable. U.S. and other major customers of China want the lowest cost.

'It's too costly to make lead-free products,' says owner Wang Quijuan. 'Chinese products have to be sold cheaply in foreign markets, or they are not competitve.'

It's clear, here, that the blame is to, like labor issues, be blamed on foreign companies for pressuring China to be too cheap. I can see it that way but China should also be taking care of its products and its people.

Is there another way? Yes. Many companies claim to offer their customers the choice of lead-free products but most decline because of the cost. Then, companies fight back saying they are not aware of the lead content in the products they contract from Chinese factories. Who's right and who's not?

So, the last question for now... What can and is being done about it? The U.S. has decided to begin researching the global scope of the lead poisoning problem but this is no easy task. For now, consumers simply need to be informed that, while recycling is good in most cases, it may be putting more chemicals back into both China and the U.S. than once thought. Oh bother.

Is it possible that the U.S. is actually more to blame than China for labor abuse???

U.S. Senate testimony regarding commerce, science, and transportation

We read the testimony by Charles Kernaghan, the Director of National Labor Committee. This plea to the Senate essentially reinforces the hardships and lack of justice we observed in the documentary on Lifeng.

Violating Workers' Rights

Laborers are forced into temporary contracts so that they do not have any rights with the company. They are paid hundreds of percentages below China's legal minimum wage and work hundreds of percentages of hours more than legally allowed in the nation. Workers are docked pay for unfair reasons and shortchanged their earned pay for absolutely no reason. The labor board director emphasizes over and over again that factories all over China are guilty of the exact same violations, just on greater or lesser scales.

The Apparent Solution

The hugest injustice is that at least the problem of pay could be resolved with little effect felt throughout major corporations. Kernaghan states that,

Mattel's 'Barbie Hug N' Heal Pet Doctor' set costs just $9.00 to make in China, yet- even on sale- it retails for $29.99 in the U.S. This means that the price of the Mattel toy is being marked up an astonishing $20.99- or 233 percent... Mattel spends $3.45 to advertise the Barbie Pet Doctor toy- more than 18 times the 19 cents they pay the workers in China to make it... It is clear that Mattel could afford to assure respect for workers rights in China and pay the workers a fair wage so they could climb out of misery and at least into poverty.

This is an astonishing perspective to finally see and I hope that it is true. However, one must also think that if Mattel did not advertise with such fervor and pay its leaders so well, would it be competitive and profitable enough to even stay in business nationally? Is the economic price worth the moral price?

All of this, it can be argued, is magnified, if not caused by U.S. corporations. Like the doc. showed, Kernaghan is serious about placing a lot of blame on American and European brands for pressuring China to lower prices and increase outputs at the cost of Chinese workers' rights.

As late as 2005, Mattel sought ands won special 'waivers' so they could pay their workers less than the already-below-subsistence legal minimum wage.

Clearly, the Chinese government is seeking to offer its own people some form of protection but Mattel, fearing a loss in revenue, has pressed them to make an exception in their case.

Another example of how we can sense that foreign investors are to blame for the labor crisis is the fact that most corporations refuse to publish the names and addresses of the factories they obtain supplies from in China. Clearly, something is being hidden here or the companies are simply ashamed.

The injustices are mounting here, they are real, and there seems to be no way out unless this testimony is well-received and governments start to take action. This is interesting, however, because the documentary seems to try and blame both the consumer and business for such harmful actions and this memo blames U.S. and European companies way more.

Relating to Health of U.S. Citizens May Spark Support

Keranghan also pulls the issue of toy and sporting goods safety into the issue. He states that the same actions of increasing what foreign companies pay Chinese factories per good and giving workers rights will also help to lessen the occurrence of poisoning in toys because conditions in factories will be much better. In the instance, it seems he is trying to make giving help to China's workers a win-win situation for the U.S. My only wish is that he proved how the two correlated better.

Labor Rights in China

It comes of no surprise that Tim Costello, Brenden Smith, and Jeremy Brecher have all come to understand the same point that Kernanghan was trying to make. There are Chinese laws for workers' rights and corporations are outright refusing to follow them citing economic interests as the reason.

Oh, Wal-Mart

Ok, so it's not just Wal-Mart but it figures they would be a part of this, too. Many companies, like Mattel, are not allowing China to pass more strict labor laws that would significantly help the treatment, health, safety, and renumeration of workers because such laws would "reduce employment opportunities for PRC workers," (I'm sorry, is that a threat? I thought these laws would significantly increase human welfare for PRC workers!) and also reduce China's competitive edge against other sweatshop nations, such as Mexico, with slightly higher wages for workers.

How can corporations make such threats? Easy, they are the number one reason China is even where it is in the world economy today.

65% of the tripling of Chinese exports... is traceable to outsourcing by Chinese subsidiaries of multinational corporations (MNCs) and joint ventures.

Essentially, do what we say or we will ruin your entire economy and you'll be even worse off than you are now.

Again, Relating the Problem Back to the U.S. Will Draw Support

If only U.S workers knew that the wages and state of labor in China indirectly created the wages and conditions in the U.S. and other labor markets throughout the whole world. The crazy thing is, they do. Because companies can get cheaper wages from Chinese workers, they are either moving their business to Asia or using this as leverage to get U.S. workers to accept lower pay as well.

The logic behind the phenomenon is this: China has increased the world labor market by 50% without contributing as must in capital. There are more workers in need of employment and wages than there is living-wage equivalent capital to go around. Thus, when one loses so does the other.

The point is, again, it's up to U.S. and European governments to make good on their commitments. They have all said their MNCs would stand to protect labor and so far they have done the exact opposite. This hurts China's workers and the U.S.'s workers and places economic values about ethical and moral values. In what world does this make sense?

Labor in China

Elite, Middle Class, and the Poor

In his article regarding the distinct classes in China, T. Cheek explores the characteristics and problems of each and why the government will never be able to satisfy everyone under the current system.

The Elite

This group is the wealthiest and has little to worry about. They drive luxury cars and live for money. This group fears an upprising from the poor and seek to keep the government and economy working in their favor. This is also the group that China shows off to the world to prove they are doing very well and their people are happy. It's good PR for them but unethical behavior at its greatest.

The Middle Class

People in this group gain the most from being conservative and maintaining the status quo. Middle class work hard and pay no attention to government workings (this is also the case in other Asian nations, such as the people I talked with while in Singapore). Middle class people live in a basic nuclear family and pride themselves on living without grandparents and extended family while nuturing their children to become productive members of society.

The Working Class

Here is the most dangerous group for communism, surprisingly since communism was founded to ensure the working class was happy and equal. These people work hard but do not have job stability. The problem with working class is they can easily be replaced at work and are often deprived of basic rights. However, they can fight back and often do. Those who protest on a local scale are given concessions to keep their movement local. Those that try to organize regionally and nationally, considered the greatest threat to communism, are stopped, brutally. This class is the one with the most problems that also has the greatest chance to change their situations.

The Underclass

Chinese people in this class have it worst. They must travel always to find jobs and rarely are paid or treated well when they can find work. Here, no one enjoys any rights and must work in sweatshops. Even though they have the hardest lives, their lack of shelter and identity in China stops them from every trying to protest for more rights.

Essentially, China can never stop fearing unrest because it can never satisfy all the competing interests of these groups.

Lipeng Blue Jeans Factory Documentary

This documentary made me cry, but I still don't think I'm going to be up in arms tomorrow when I wake up. It's terrifying and completely unjust but the documentary, while it paints a vivid picture of conditions for both workers and factory owners in China, does not outline ways for people or even international groups to fight to change the situation.

From a worker's point of view

The story of Jasmine, the 17 year old who left her family at home in order to support her family, really taps into the heart of the lower class plight. She first must find work on her own in a big city that she could never even have begun to imagine. Her motivation for sacrificing her own life is repaying her family for being born female. She says that she knows her family was disappointed when they gave birth to her, a daughter, and hopes her earnings will make them happy to have had her. Her situation is a bleak one in which everyone she works with is as young as or younger than her and a girl. This seems to be what happens to the females in China. This is an example of gender and human rights violations. The security of China's young girls is being threatened. They do not have the freedom to listen to music and go to school like other young girls and to grow. They are, however, aware of the corruption and harm being done to them. They discuss it but just say there's nothing they can do. It's a sad situation where only external forces can help them.

Looking at it from industry's point of view

Even factory owners see their situation as being taken advantage of. They praise Deng Xiopeng for his economic reforms that allowed them to move up in social class, but this is such a small percentage of the population. These elite class believe that the lower class are where they are because they are uneducated and incapable of learning work ethics. The factory owner in the story even says that he needs to control these lower people and they deserve to be told what to do. Then he goes on to complain that even his life is hard. He must work hard and gets taken advantage of by international labels who get paid way more than even he does. However, this does not excuse his behavior towards his workers.

Some factory workers from another factory spoke on camera, something they can be fined and jailed for, about their conditions and how factory owners manipulate them to appease U.S. labor inspectors. One even claims,

He gave us a memo to teach the workers what to say.

Thus, the lower class continues to be exploited, the U.S. thinks the workers are happy, and the factory gets to operate at its usual efficiency.

It seems like we can hate the factory owners, then. But it's hard to when you think about the U.S. labels that order from them. The price international companies demand from factories is so low that even if the owners did want to treat and pay workers more fairly, they could not afford do. Thus, one might see fit to blame U.S. companies even more than the Chinese government for encouraging the abuse of these workers. One could even go as far to say that U.S. labels are in fact even more to blame than the Chinese government because all the government does is allow it but, unlike the companies, does not actively encourage and desire it. So, when the Lipeng factory owner says,

Meeting shipping deadlines is our number one concern,

instead of listing "our workers" as such, it's easy to hate him. But, we need to remember that he is under close scrutiny from the companies that purchase from him and he needs to do whatever it takes to make it for his own well-being just as much as the workers must.

Either way, this situation is a bleak one. It's so sad and so alarming that I have no idea where I could even begin to help. How can one start when an end seems impossible to achieve? How can we bring security and peace to these young girls who are so far away physically and culturally from us? Like Cheek's article outlines, this is the most troubled class of all but the one posing the least threat because they can have no voice. So, if we have no voice and they have no voice, then there is no hope for them, is there?

Killing Democracy Softly in China

The Communists' New Strategy

The article by Kurlantzick brings up a lot of very disturbing events occuring in China right now. He writes about how the Communists are still appeasing its people by providing economic freedom while simultaneously taking away their political freedoms. The real problem is that the Chinese people do not fully grasp this because the government is using subtle tactics to repress people and is extensively censoring the media that happens to catch on to their plans.

Instead of publicly suppressing all religious organizations, political dissidents, or ethnic minorities, Beijing has begun playing groups off each other, sanctioning a few mainstream organizations while quietly but harshly repressing those that challenge the state authority.

Subtle Repression

The situation in China was not always this way. In the 1990s, political activism was openly and severely punished. However, because the new leadership was afraid of repressing free speech and dealing with more dissent, the media was not censored. This allowed domestic and internation news groups to disseminate the information about human rights abuse throughout the world and hurt foreign investment in China's manufacturing industry. The Chinese knew it had to change this or risk falling behind in the the world economy. This is why their current tactics are so bad. They are continuing to fight against the most extremely political dissident groups but allowing more docile ones to flourish, giving China a good reputation without consequences to its current political and human rights situation. China is still just a repressive but no one knows the full extent of it.

Another really harmful issue is using minorities against each other. The government has been using spies in Muslim and evangelical groups in certain regions to report any dissident activities. This keeps the groups in check while increasing the number of watchdogs. Essentially, this is a horrible situation because these minorities could be working together in order to gain more rights and freedoms in China, but instead they are working to thwart each other and essentially helping the govenment to continue to repress them.

Censoring the Media

The Internet has proven to be a big headache for Communists in China. Since this medium allows people to obtain information regarding new ways of thinking and have access to news from all over the world, it has hurt the Chinese Communists' ability to use propaganda on its people. That is, until it was able to censor its nation's Internet and close down cafes where the Internet can be accessed. Thousands of Internet Cafes have been closed recently by the government throughout all of China, so now the Chinese cannot even access it.

Those priviledged enough to have access do not even have full access. The government, working in conjunction with U.S. Intenet search engines and security companies, has devised a way to censor what websites Chinese people can access and what images they are exposed to.

China has the most extensive Internet censorship in the world, with the government regularly denying access to over 19,000 websites.

But the problems continue

This creates a really volatile environment in China where the people are anything but stable:

1)At least 150 million peasants in China have lost their job in the past decade
2)Per capita annual income is only $266 in rural areas
3)Farmlands are being confiscated for housing
4)Labor disputes have been on the rise since 1992

Problems are likely to increase as protests are more frequent and intense. The government, again, is employing a subtle way of taking care of this. Leave the small protests alone and make an example of long-term protests.

West is Key to Repression

The worst part of all is that the outside world knows about these abuses but either have not or cannot do anything about it. Several U.S. companies have been cited to support the government's repression in exchange for business contracts and immunities in China. This is incredibly effective in obtaining foreign investment while allowing the government to continue its corrupt practices. China now has no reason to even try to change its human rights violations because it can have its cake (repression) and eat it too (money).

I honestly think China has moved backwards since Tiananmen. Like we saw in the documentary, any progress made in the past has been erased by the government's censure of media. They are cracking down harder on dissent but portraying themselves as more democratic by covering up with support for state-controlled minority groups that they have under control. China is in trouble and many do not even know it.

I'm a Tank Man, I'm a Tank Tank Man, Yes I'm a Tank Man.....

The Tank Man

This is one of the coolest and most powerful stories from China's post-Mao protest era. An unidentified, common man threw himself in front of Chinese tanks in order to stop them from coming into the city of Beijing. Witnesses and historians speculated that all he wanted was peace for the people of the city. He has never been officially identified and no one knows what became of him after that day.

The 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre was filled with other stories of heroism similar to this one. Students protested for days, often running right into open fire and losing life and limb for their beliefs. The real threat the government felt, however, from the protests was not in Tiananmen Square but in areas surrounding the city where the ordinary person had joined in the fight. Up until this point, only students and college communities were protesting from political freedom but this particular movement inspired and motivated working class citizens to join in. This aspect opened the resistance to communism to millions and millions more people. The government realized this day that they had a real situation on their hands and the only way to kill it would be to censor the rest of China and the world from the events and photos from 1989's massacre. They all but wiped out every image and story about Tank Man and others and the movement was squashed. Life went about as normal for the unblissfully ignorant Chinese population as Deng's economic progress continued to move forward.

The Two Chinas

Deng Xioping's economic reform vision continued to be carried out and China grew more quickly than any other industrialized nation in the world. They are a superpower with a rising economy in the world. But that's only one China.

China A- Big Business
Modern, urbanized, rise of criminalization, health system overload, poor education

China B- Underdeveloped, rural
Poor, no growth (growth is in the city), poor water resources, no education

There is a huge inequality here. China B's young people are moving into China A in order to be able to feed and educate theird children, leaving behind parents, their kids, and their China just to survive. It's a difficult situation in which they must surrender or fall behind China A's progress.

I think even China's inequality is wider than the U.S.'s. It's true our top 10% make more than the bottom 50% of the nation, but everyone still pretty much lives in the same world in the U.S. In China, the China A lives in space age while China B appears to live in ancient China with farms and fires everywhere. These people are still not satisfied with life because they are either dirt poor or overworked in dirty factories in China A. It's no wonder they are still uneasy even with ecnomic freedom.

The crazy thing is that protests still happen in China. But, the story of the Tank Man is not one passed on from revolutionary to revolutionary. No one is old enough to have been there or have heard of it. So, the inspiration that could be drawn from it and used as fuel is gone from today's protesters. It was evident from an interview featured in PBS's Frontline presentation on the Tank Man where four young people could not even identify what the picture of the Tank Man was from. It's sad. Even Google and Yahoo have wiped the photos from their Chinese search engines but not their U.S. databases. Clearly, there is a system at work here where economic interests top the rights of the people.

Opening the floodgates of democracy in China

"Prospects for Democracy."

In reading the second excerpt from Guthrie, it really shows that communism in China is vulnerable to collapse. There are several forces from past and present situations that have lead to this unstable state of politics.

Guthrie continues to assert that Deng's push for economic reform and freedom in China is a huge reason that political freedom is increasingly being called for. With private enterprises forming in China, more jobs opened up for young people to take up. These jobs, unlike government jobs, would allow them to express their opinions without fear of losing their job, career, or freedom. Additionally, if college students decide to express support for democracy in their clubs and scholastic life, they still have numerous business-related companies willing and happy to hire them. This type of climate encourages young Chinese to think however they desire.

Then Tiananmen Square protests and subsequent military intervention occured in 1989. This movement seems important for democracy in China for a number of reasons. First of all, students opened the movement to ordinary, less educated citizens in a way it was never available to them before. All of a sudden, a different, much larger population felt power to change their status. Second, the violence taken against the students really showed how oppressive the government was. The pictures and stories spread by the international media also helped to show both internal and external parties that communist forces were using violence to squash something other societies in the world feel is a human right, freedom of expression.

After this pivotal event, free enterprise in China really took off. This lead to another group that erodes the communist hold in China: entrepreneurs and private business owners. These people have security in their businesses and money and this are not fearful of the starvation and loss of jobs that can occur when someone fights the government. Thus, this group is not afraid to fight for democratic practices that would further benefit economy and autonomy for their industries in China.

A final factor in creating an environment for democracy in China is the currently evolving free-flow of information evident not only in China but also the whole world. Journalists in China have more choice in opinion after Tiananmen allowed them to showcase the human rights issues. And now, the Internet has allowed internal journalists to communicate with the world and the world to communicate with China about political issues. Thus, with current technology, people in China are more aware of what other political systems exist in the world.

It makes sense that China is on a path to be more open and grass-roots centered. The people have more choice between communism and other ways and feel less fear that going against the grain will ruin the rest of their lives. The evidence is clear in the dissident blogs scattered all over the Internet.

One such site I visited is . The site is interesting because it not only lists current issues important to non-party members, but it also has a special section devoted to current political prisoners. This can be accessed through Beijing Olympics 2008 Take Action Now! link and selecting one of the photos listed. It provides a face to the human rights violation previously abstract to both the Chinese people and more importantly the rest of the world. A picture of the prisoner featured this month is above. He is one of the brave faces of the new, less cautious Chinese people.

Deng Didn't Downright Democratize, Duh.

Balancing Development with Democracy

Shaohua Hu explored Deng's policies and politics in this article. Essentially Deng wanted a communist government, like Mao, but saw a lot wrong in the system. He wanted to lead the government and the people in a different way but not with a different way.

Deng's leadership differed in a number of ways:

1) He focused on economic reform. Unlike Mao, Deng thought that as long as people were fed, had jobs, had money, they would be happier than having, say, the right to vote

“It does not take Marx of Maslow to understand why a piece of bread serves a hungry person better than a piece of ballot-paper.”

2)Deng took the focus off of the class-based struggle Mao enhanced. This meant that people would no longer resent the rich but rather work for everyone's good

3)Deng rehabilitated Mao's counter-revolutionary opponents. Mao had failed to get riud of his opposition effectively. This was something Deng made sure to do.

4.) Deng made communists less ideological and more practical. He helped the party members realize that the design and structure of every system was not the most important facet as long as it did what it was supposed to.

5.) Deng opened China up to foreign investment and the world. He knew this would be necessary if China was to emerge as an economic world power. Mao feared this.

Essentially, Deng found a way to make communism meet people's needs the way Mao's communism didn't. Mao made everyone focus on an illusion communism as equaling everyone but Deng showed people that this was not reality. He combated this by making economic reforms that put more control in local and private hands where the individual and the market could make or break a person's prosperity. This allowed people to be happy with their own efforts in the economy while not worrying about their involvement and freedom in politics.

It should not be said that Deng made no political reforms. He did make elections more free locally and reformed the judicial system to be more fair. He knew stability of politics was necessary for the economy to maintain its stability. He did not believe that political reform was necessary in order to bring about social and human rights reforms. He famously stated

"Change in the system. Not change of the system."

This worked for a while until Tiananmen Square happened in 1989. Students and intellectuals demanded rights for themselves and more rights within the current systems. Even still they were not demanding a change to democracy. This movement was squashed as they left peasants out of it and allowed Deng to show the rest of China how wrong the protesters were.

The result was that people unconditionally accepted Deng's communism as long as their economic interests continued to be protected. However, this was doomed to be a short-lived success. As political thinkers have studied in the past, once economic reforms take hold and people become stable with basic needs, they begin to look for more freedoms elsewhere. Because the poor were now fed, the has the energy to realize something else was missing.

This leads us to the protesting of human rights and other ideas happening in Pei's China. People have all the economic growth in the world but feel the government is still treating them bad. Deng may have worked his entire reign to make communist China stand with economic freedom but his intended efforts will lead to an unintended end.

Mao Money, Mao Problems

"Setting the Stage"

The article by Doug Guthrie outlines how Mao Zedong started the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949. The leader created a communist government where the state controls almost every facet of life and every person, industry, job, everything is organized, sorted, and distributed the way the government saw fit.

A few key factors defined Mao's China. First, the government encouraged its people to protest and challenge certain conditions existing in China. Mao told the Chinese people to fight against unfair employers, foreign invasion, and anti-communists. He informed them of what was good for them and then encouraged dissent against these institutions. Thus, Mao set the stage for social unrest.

Second, Mao's government controlled production and industry. Factories and agriculture were put under state control and forced to reach production quotas. This enabled Mao to exert control over the supply and demand of the country in 5 year plans.

Finally, China under Mao was organized into collective communities of 30-50 households. The people in each community produced goods and services for the whole to pool resources. However, the goods were distributed according to each home's contribution so the wealthy still received more than the poor. Another cause of social unrest.

Mao Zedong is the father of the conditions Pei stated in the article from my previous entry. He told the Chinese to protest and riot against employment, foreigners, and other evils. Essentially, the climate for social unrest was implanted into Chinese society. The lesson here for the Chinese was that if you don't like something, rise up and change it. We can see this today in China, except now the people are protesting for their own idea of acceptable life.

"But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao... you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow."

Deng Changes a Few Things

Guthrie goes on, in this article, to explain how the fall of Mao and his ideas spurred a new way under leader Deng. Deng's plan was to slowly change industry and agriculture from a state-controlled entity to locally owned and monitored one. He also encouraged more foreign investment, and a legal system to ensure corruption would always be stopped. The key here for Deng's success was slow changes. This transformed the environment in China greatly and their economy is the 6th largest in the world to date. However, some problems started under Mao continue to plague China and, again, this can be seen in the conditions of today's China under Jintao.

China's Progressing while Regressing

"China is Paying the Price of Social Unrest"

The author of this article, Pei, brings up a very interesting and paradoxical point regarding China's transformation in recent decades. China, yes, has definitely grown economically, industrially, and technologically. However, I honestly believe this was something the state desired and instituted.
My basis for this assumption comes from Pei's article. He states that the number of social uprisings has shown staggering increases in recent years.

The number of so-called "mass incidents" (sit-ins, riots, strikes, and demonstrations) reached 74,000 is 2004, an all-time high, and involved about 3.7m individuals. In 1994, by comparison, there were about 10,000 such incidents, with 730,000 participants.

Pei also notes that the triggers for these incidents are social and economic policies, such as high tax and land seizures, that help to facilitate the economic and industrial growth of China. Chinese people may not agree with how their country is changing and be angry that they must pay the price regardless.

This could be avoided with social care of people but such a climate is not present. China does not care for its poor, aging, or other interest groups and so the Chinese people feel they are taken from without being given anything. It's no wonder they are acting out more and more each year.

China wants to fix this so they can have a good reputation with the rest of the world. However, this is not a good reason as this, too, is a corrupt endeavor. The government is corrupt and just wants band-aids for the problems that can easily save face but do not fix the problems (i.e. publicly punish a select few officials while letting other continue their corrupt ways). If this continues, then the protests will, too.

How China and the U.S. view the "China Threat"

Reving up the China Threat

In Klare's article regarding how the U.S. defines and is reacting to the rise of China as a superpower, he asks the great question of is China a threat just to the economy of the U.S. and its current position of dominance or does China threaten the security of the U.S. as a state? Also interesting to note is that he separates the two. This leads me to believe that the article focuses on the traditional and dominant discourse of security as solely focusing on military action. However, he also notes that the U.S. will react to economic threats with military force, thus alluding to the idea that security threats can now come from sources other than military action but cannot be resolved in such means yet.

Currently, the U.S. has a system for deciding if another nation-state is posing a threat to security. The criteria are whether the state is becoming a "new rival," is capable of world power, resembles the likes of the Soviet Union, during the Cold War, and is taking in resources and supplies to prepare for military action.

This leads Klare to believe that the U.S. is labeling the Chinese state as a threat to U.S. security. The basis for placing this label rests of a few key issues. First of all, China has been cited as building up its missile and weapon reserves and increasing the missile range around its state. A report filed annually by the government shows that China is growing its missile program. China has begun to purchase submarines, fighter planes, and destroyers. Also, the U.S. claims that the missiles are being aimed at the U.S.'s allies. China has recently been able to afford missiles from Russia capable of reaching Japan and Taiwan.

A good point, to which I agree, that officials in Beijing make for taking such action to build a military defense is just that. It's for China's defense. Klare notes that China is afraid it is being contained and threatened by the bases the U.S. has built around then and the missiles being constantly being pointed at them. This has caused China to be insecure in its own security and has naturally began to take measures to protect themselves. Of course, as Klare also notes,

But any nation, when confronted with a major military buildup by a potential adversary off its shores, is bound to feel threatened and will act accordingly.

Simply put, the reason for China having a missile program is the U.S. started it and the Chinese are just reacting.

Finally, the U.S. is worried because China has tried to buy out a small California-based oil company and is threatening to change the flow of oil distribution throughout the whole world. It is well-known that oil is not an infinite resource and is the most demanded raw material in the world. This makes the good a source of life and power in the world. Since China has grown, it has increased its oil consumption tremendously without the prospect of more oil being created in the world. Now, the U.S. is feeling threatened that China will take away the oil America needs and, thus, shift its position of power to below China. This shows that the actors remain the two states (China vs. U.S.) but the issue of security now moves into new, economic, territory. To the U.S., if China starts to ally with Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich, yet troubled nations, this will threaten the economic and military power the U.S. has had in the past.

However, it is interesting to note here that even though the security issue here is not over a military threat, the U.S.'s solution is still to use military force. Klare goes on to note that U.S. will kill the threat by placing more bases around China and maintain its superiority in military technology. The feeling I get from the article is that the U.S.'s notion of China as a threat still pits state against state and focuses on both military and economic threats. What the U.S. leaves out that should be prominent in the modern notion of security is including oil businesses, individuals, and MNCs as actors and using means other than military to react the the threat perceive from China.

Discourses of Security in China: Towards a critical turn?

After reviewing how the U.S. perceives security regarding China, I looked at how China views the notion of security of itself against others. Clearly, China's notion matches the U.S. in that it believes security lies solely in protecting one's state against the threat of another state, although this is not openly stated in Zhang;s article.

China is a very insecure nation for the reasons Klare states in his article. China is seen as a global threat by other nations for the fact that China is a rising power, and non-democratic at that. Thus, China's view on security is forced to be a reactionary one. China knows that the global economy and identity can impact their security but officials in Beijing have to focus on military because it seems to be the most immediate and dangerous threat at this time.

It's important to look at the history and environment of China to correctly understand their view on security. China was never a wealthy nation but is becoming one. Also, China knows we are in a post-Cold War era and its identity as a communist nation automatically labels it a threat to liberal, democratic nations of the world. So, the view from state actors is that China is being looked at even more closely that any other nation.

Chinese scholars have not put much work into the field of security yet, so all of their notions are based on security of past eras. However, new discourses are emerging and China is waiting to see where this leaves them. There is a possibility, as Zhang states, of superpowers falling to a level where multiple powers can emerge and be on a more level field. This multi-polarity will change the actors of security (perhaps make room for more individual and community actors) and also what security entails (protection of resources, economy, etc. will be included). Or, will security only expand to other areas but not other actors?

Security in China is very complex and still unknown. Currently, China is in reactionary mode to the rest of the world's disdain for non-democratic ideals. However, if China's economic power grows and it is able to become an even player on the global stage, this notion may change and security will then start to encompass ideas other than military and actors other than states.

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.