"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.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
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?
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?
Saturday, March 22, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
