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?
Monday, April 14, 2008
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
