Week 14: Films

Unfortunately I was unable to watch the films today, but I will tomorrow, and I will post then.

Week 14: Ota

I apologize for posting after 8pm; we didn't arrive from DC until about an hour ago, so I'm only now getting a chance to post.

Before I get to my Ota response, I wanted to post a link to an Al-Jazeera article about the rape on Okinawa by the US Marine recently: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9B671CEC-33BD-442D-8884-120E4557259C.htm

Sorry for not posting this last night, I completely forgot to put in my response when I got back to my house, because I'd posted the first part in the library before finishing the reading.

More than anything else what I found intriguing was the conflict between the traditional peacefulness of the Okinawans and the complete destruction of that way fo life by the Japanese, followed by the war and consequential Peace Constitution that seems to have left out Okinawa. Despite the promise to stop using violence as a means of dealing with international conflict, it seems that the Japanese, with the assistance of the US military presence, have make Okinawa a focal point for continued militarism and violence as manifested through Japanese discrimination, US military operations and their side effects, and through actual acts of violence perpetrated by the US troops against Okinawans.

Ota writes about the Japanese aggression towards the islanders, as well as their lack of representation in the Diet, and it makes me wonder to what extent Hawaiian's feel taken advatage of by their inclusion in the USA. Being even further from the continental US and culturally very different from the mainland, I know there remains at least a small contingency of Hawaiians who oppose Hawaiian statehood, but I don't know how widespread this ideology is. It leads me to wonder about the initial colonization of Hawaii and it's induction into the USA, and the history surrounding US-Hawaiian relations, or, for that matter, US relations with any of its Island territories in the Atlantic and Pacific.

It saddens me that Okinawans have so little political power to call for action to be taken towards reducing US military presence on their island, and I worry that it is a situation with little hope of change in the near future, but I hope to be proven wrong on Wednesday as we get further into the situation and any possible developments. US military presence seems so permeating there, as if change would be not only difficult but almost impossible to put into place. I hate to actual believe such cynical thoughts, but I do not know enough about the situation and I suppose I have too little faith in the US military machine to have hope for their withdrawl anywhere these days.

Moving away from the reading, I wanted to share the notes I took away from my conversation with my Grandfather on his experiences on and around Okinawa in the Pacific in 1945:

He was a quartermaster on an LST ship that made amphibious landings and carried the smaller amphibian vehicles. Some of his duties included monitoring and controlling radio communications, including attemoted interception of Japanese relys, as well as keeping distances and supervising ship operations.

He began by sharing that, as distance keeper, it was his job to guarantee that their LST was at least 150 yds behind the one in front. One day, as with most days, they could see the Japanese kamikazes coming in towards the various US ships and bases, etc. but this time one hit the LST in front of his and they watched from 150 yds as the LST and its passengers blew up as the plane hit.

He also recounted their "fake" landing on Okinawa on April 1, 1945, which was based on their knowledge that the Japanese had figured out when the Americans typically made amphibious landings.

Once they were in the midst of the conflict on Okinawa, he recalled a time when they were taking their ships down a river or a channel where the Japanese were floating mines towards the US ships to blow them up in the water. Sometimes, he said, kamikaze missions would be deployed in this way, so Japanese swimmers would attach explosives to themselves to blow up when they reached the ships. In light of this, the Navy were charged with gunning down any person or mine in the water. On day, they heard that the quartermaster from the ship in front of them had gone overboard, and to hold fire, but the call came to late and the quartermaster was killed by friendly fire. My grandfather recalled being relieved for the second time that he was the quartermaster on the second ship in each close call.

At one point there was a cease fire that was called due to a typhoon, and all the ships had to head out to sea, and he remembers being below deck and having their ship end up almost perpendicular to the water with the entire motor out of the water because the LSTs have the motor in back where it lies deeper in the water. Below decks, they could all see the waves lifting them up and water covering the hole that usually were above sea level, and having to wait it out and hope for the best.

On the island he told me that the Japanese had laid out a massive system of caves, tunnels, and deep wells of sorts. The wells were made inside deep dugouts where US troops would throw grenades, and the grenades would fall down the wells and blow up underground instead of hitting the Japanese troops in the dugout. Japanese soldiers would also wait in the tunnels and caves and could see out and bide their time and fight the ambibious landings from there, so as to lengthen the battle over time and avoid face to face beach combat. That way the main island of Japan could be refortified while they held out on Okinawa. As I said before, the Japanese had caught on to the timing of US amphibious landings, which my Grandfather said were generally around 8am, and the kamikazes would come down at that time to try to hit before they could embark. To combat this strategy, the US ships had what my Gradfather called "smoke pots" and they would send out all their lfieboats to circle around the ships with smoke pots that let out smoke to create an imitation clound cover so kamikazes couldn't see where the ship target were from the sky.

One of the most interesting things he told me was that on one of the small neighboring islands they were charged with storming, there were fake buildings set up to trick the US military into thinking the island had inhabitants, so they spent the typical length of time going throught their lengthy amphibious landing only to find that the island was completely devoid of humans and was covered in cardboard-like cutouts of housing structures designed to waste their time and resources. Similarly he recalled hearing that, in San Diego a huge net had been laid out above the city, because they feared potential US land battles, and a network of fake farms had been designed and put on top of the net so that if a Japanese plane made it into the airspace the city would look like farmland. I had never known about this tactic and found it fascinating.

I know that information does not relate directly to the continued US presence in Okinawa, but it was amazing hearing these stories first hand and it helped me to have a background for the initial US invasion of Okinawa that turned into such an extended stay.

Week 13: Japan War Memories

Note on China: I watched an interesting documentary that could be useful to future classes called "Concrete Revolution" about China's construction and urbanization as well as its liberalization. The filmmaker is a Chinese woman who went in and tried to get candid responses from Chinese workers without government managers around, and actually has moments where the filming is interrupted or when she explains that she had to stop filming because of the government. It was very interesting to see, and I recommend it, though the translation is a bit slow to catch up to the speaking. Overall it was worth seeing. It's in the library at IC (though right now it's in my living room).

Selden:

Selden poses the following questions early on in his work, and I found them compelling as well.
"What explains the fact that Japanese denial and refusal to provide compensation to victims has long been the subject of sharp domestic and international contention, while there has been relatively little analysis of United States atrocities, less criticism or recrimination for that nation’s commission and denial of atrocities, and still less demand for reparations? What are the consequences of this difference for the two nations and the contemporary international relations of the Asia Pacific?" (Selden 1)

My Response to the reading:

I thought it was interesting to hear that there are historians who recognized that the massacre began en route to Nanjing, because the use of force is a continual aspect of any conflict, regardless of whether a confrontation is occuring in any one area. To some extent I've realized that even I can fall prey to a sense of confusion when I realize that war is as messy as it actually is. Even knowing what we do about warfare, I thinkk there is a tendency among people who have not been embedded in these conflicts to view war in an almost medeival sense, with two opposing sides fighting one another openly. Obviously this is no longer the case, but so often we hear of specific locations where extreme violence has taken place in war and in a world where warfare has changed so drastically this rarely, if ever, still looks like fatal football.

I was immediately reminded of our own government's denial of the Geneva Conventions with regard to GITMO and extraordinary rendition as soon as I read,

"In the absence of a declaration of war, as Utsumi Aiko notes, the Japanese high command held that it was under no obligation to treat captured Chinese soldiers as POWs or observe other international principles of warfare that Japan had scrupulously adhered to in the 1904-05 Russo-Japanese War, such as the protection of the rights of civilians. " (Selden)

In comparing the two nations - Japan and the USA - their shared penchant for denying the validity of international agreements is certainly worth noting; however, since 1952 the USA has continued on this trend alone. Selden referred to US exceptionalism in his first question set, and it leads me to note the occurence of this sense of being above the law that the US practices with regard to situations around the world.

Yet, gloabally the US has an horrendous reputation and certainly there are people who harbor lingering and current antagonism toward the USA. Japan stands out as a strange instance, in my opinion, of such resentment being negligible. To my rationale Japan has a much greater reason to harbor a grudge than other nations, and yet it is almost as if their economic prosperity since 1952 has made it possible for them to move beyond the past and be more oriented to the future. In contrast, China, from what little I understand, seems to be more tied to the past in many respects, in large part because of the role and power of the Party. In a country like Japan the citizens have greater access to political and social freedoms, as well as wider acess to information. Chinese citizens, as we are seeing in the case of Tibet, and as we saw with the Tank Man, are spoon fed government approved news. For many Chinese, the war with Japan was the last time Chinese citizens were very much involved in atrocities that were made public and were used to rally the people. Since the war, many of the atrocities committed against Chinese citizens have come from their own government, a government whom they have little control over. Thus,Chinese resentment and aggression remain, with Japan as an easy, and certainly not faultless, target of their repressed anger. Of course, I could be completely off base, I'm just hypothesizig here.

Japan and China's Unforgotten War:
"If, at age 83, she [Jong] can put the past behind her, why is this younger generation reviving history?" (Chinese-American Filmmaker) Such a fantastic question, and one that I think is prevalent around the world. Perhaps it has more to do with age and wisdom than with any sort of historical impetus.

"In China this is an anniversary of victory as much as it is an anniversary of war." (Chinese-American Filmmaker) Just an interesting point, I found it to be a well stated point that I may not otherwise have thought of.

"We're often accused of living in a peace stupor." (Japanese filmmaker) It's strage, but after she said this, I began to think about my own impressions of Japan, andit's true that I tend to think of World War II and then only ever as a manufacturing center that is overpopulated but fairly neutral as an international body. To be sure, this is too simplistic and sculpted by ignorance, but as I learn more, I am relieved to gain a slightly more nuanced perception.

It is always so interesting to hear about, read, or see another perspective on war. I was reminded of my own subtle patriotism when I heard the Japanese Law student speak of the need to honor the dead soldiers. "We can't disregard respect for the people who fought to protect the country, to protect their family, to protect their friends." (Law Student) My own Grandfather was at the Bay of Pigs, and was at Okinawa, and though I disagree strongly with those actions as commanded by the American government, I am quick to honor those who fought as American soldiers because I feel a sense of duty to respect people, like my grandfather, who felt their own duty to the American government or the American people to protect something they believed in, though what they believed in then and what they believe in now continue to elude my own sense of ethics. Still, it seems wrong not to honor the dead, though I am quick to honor the dead around the world who have fallen prey to conflict, and so I hesitate somewhat in my defense of the soldiers because it is less a defense and more a sense that the soldiers are really pawns in a chess game that I don't approve of.

Week 12/13: McCormack

Somehow I had never realized the extent of US-Japan relations. For instance, I had no idea the two were so closely linked, or that, as Marahatu described in the reading, Japan was like a zokkoku, or vassal state, to the US (3).

Another interesting point I found was when McCormack writes, "[Junichiro and Shinzo's] aims were so far-reaching as to be seen best as revolution rather than reform - though from above rather than below." (3) I myself wonder to what extent revolution can come from above, or if it muct be called something different if this is the locus of change.

Week 12: Kim, Feffer, and Klinger

What most struck me about the Kim/Feffer reading was the intelligence on DPRK's nuclear program versus the perceived extent of their nuclear capabilities and testing. As an American media consumer, I admit that I came into this course with a prescribed view of DPRK, but even I didn't realize the extent to which that view was misguided in many ways. Now, to see that I was missing so many nuances in the US-DPRK situation is embarassing, to say the least. Further, it is infuriating to know that, once again, our media and government have done a sufficient job of covering up the disparity between our intelligence reports and the lines we are fed. To read in the article that, from relations with Syria, to the estimated extent of DPRK's nuclear goals, we have been misinformed and led astray is downright unnerving. How many other countries do we have ridiculously skewed perceptions about? The number I know of is already too high, and I would not be surprised to learn that the reports we are fed about most countries in the world are throughly distorted to serve the "American" global agenda. How are we as citizens who do become informed about these issues deal with the problem of disseminating correct information? On a personal level, how do I go into this field of politics and international relations knowing that there is such a disconnect between what government officials must know and what citizens are told? How could an individual within the system ever hope to change that pattern? Could principled foreign policy ever be conceivable in a system where the media and government are so infused with cover-ups? This entire Korea unit seems like an example of very typical US foreign policy, probably because, as we've discussed in class, it is a case of the US viewing the DPRK with a Cold War security mentality, and this mentality has, unfortunately, been applied to many countries regardless of the security needs of each particular case. Before taking this course I never thought I'd be one to want to study security. In fact, I was one of those quasi-hippies who think about studying peace. But now it seems that security studies are more valuable in understanding how to remedy our misguided foreign policy, and are a better means of understanding geo-politics in general. As someone very interested in working with transitional democarcies, I am seeing how valuable a background in security studies could be to navigating the field of foreign policy.

Week 10: FLEFF

I intended to write earlier about the Monday readings, but I ended up going this evening to see the FLEFF film "4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days," and am completely absorbed in the movie even hours later, so I feel compelled to write about it.

Though it dealt with a completely different part of the world, Romania, I was struck by the similarities of life in an authoritarian state. The young woman, a friend who is assisting her roommate in obtaining an abortion, is so compelling; as a young woman at university coming from the countryside, she is faced with the complex issue of the abortion and how it affects her relationship with a boyfriend who hails from a more privileged household, and also how it affects her personally as she is brought into a web of deceit and danger. Willing to sacrifice her body to the man performing the abortion as a form of payment, she demonstrates the utmost loyalty and evidences the difficulty of either choice. Had she not given in to the double rape - he forced both she and the young woman receiving the abortion to pay in this way in addition to a large sum of money - she would have had to assist her friend through the pregnancy, most likely, and it would have posed an entirely different set of problems, not to mention the effort she put into helping collect money and make contacts and arrangements for the friend.

In terms of security issues, I was interested in the way that the state permeated all the decisions made, domestically, as we see in the dinner scence where she joins her boyfriend's family, to the weighing of decisions related to the abortion, and even to travelling. ID cards are required everywhere, and not having one could cause problems, or, as in the case of the young woman, can be a source of suspicion if the ID shows one to be a permanent resident and not a citizen.

In terms of the abortion itself, everything is taken care of under the table, and every action is illegal and could endanger their lives and put them behind bars for years. For instance, the young woman receiving the abortion admits that she is 4 months along, and the abortioner tells her that, if caught, she could be imprisoned for murder with a 5-10 year sentence.

Cigarettes are a continual theme in the film, and are notably more expensive than a hotel room for a night, because they are contraband and must be paid for on the black market since they are imported. To the smallest detail, the state is present.

Though almost no backstory exists within the film, in the review I read, it explains what I'd guessed: that it occurs in Soviet Romania, under Ceausescu, when state control was everywhere, and abortions were illegal, yet commonplace, crude, and dangerous. As a film, it was brilliant in the camera work and the direction, and the dialogue was minimal, which aided the storyline and the impact well. I went with two other young women, and each of us were so overwhelmed in the end that we remained, unmoved, in our seats for minutes after the film concluded.

It is the shared humanity and sympathy that also strike me about such a film. As women, each of us came away from the film wondering how we would respond in such a situation, and yet we knew that our location made the entire conversation different in a number of ways. However, considering the time, 4 months, it is one that could apply following the Supreme Court ruling last year on late-term abortions. Still, I found myself thinking of Korea, and the authoritarian government, and of China and how many young women there must face situations not so dissimilar, especially considering the disaffection for baby girls and the One Child policy. For both I wondered about the state control permeating the lives of the people, and how invasive that must be, but also I began to wonder about the point one may reach when that state control becomes so normalized, as we were speaking about on Monday. It seems probable that, after enough time living that way, one would be accustomed to the quotidien. Yet, also as we spoke of on Monday, I don't believe that accpetance or resignation or ingorance are excuses for those of us who are external to the situation and feel compassion towards those people, and I don't think it means that the people living in such a state are unaware of the inequities or the repressive nature of the government, merely that I would imagine a sort of hopelessness and defeatist attitude could potentially come from living like that for so long. Not to mention, such states have perfected the method of deterrence and setting examples of dissidents, which only furthers such helpless ennui.

In the end, the movie broke my heart, but it also left me with so much to contemplate, many of which I cannot even begin to formulate reactions to because I am still processing the movie. I am sorry that this was not focused on Korea or the documentary for tomorrow, but as I said, I felt compelled to share my thoughts.

Week 10: FLEFF and Grassroots

Firstly, my apologies for falling behind on my blogging these past two weeks, I have been extremely preoccupied, but I will be incorporating those I have missed into Wednesday's blog, since I'm late with this one and am short on time.

I wanted to speak briefly about the film we saw last Thursday as part of the "Unnartural Causes" series. It was interesting to see how permeating the American military presence is in the Marshall Islands. I have never been all that interested in health issues, I'll admit I'm a bit squirmy about such matters, and my childhood was filled with doctors appointments and hospital visits for kidney infections that disappeared on their own as I got older, so I harbor some resentment towards the medical profession. However, whenever I hear about the spread of infectious disease due to external influences and the widespread inequalities perpretuated by militarization and globalization, I sit up and pay attention. I do not have the necessary knowledge to deal with the health matters themselves, but the root causes and the agents of change - in this case, negative - are the reason I went into this field, but they are also the reason this field can be so frustrating. Too often the sinister influence of American military and cultural imperialism can wear down the best of us, rendering us helpless against the awesome power of Western hegemons. But when we have access to films like this one, and to the resources - including people - who have experience dealing with these issues on the ground and in policy, I am reminded of the kind of positive role we could potentially play. When Dana, one of the attendees, spoke, I found myself looking at her askance, but her voice is one I have heard many times before: I care, but what can I do, that's the way the world is. It is balance. I disagree. It is the inbalance that I see permeating every nook and cranny of this planet, and perhaps balance is needed, but it certainly does not exist in the military bases on the Marshall Islands, or among immigrants fighting TB here as well after the effects of nuclear testing left Islanders with weakened immune systems, or in the country clubs that only Americans can attend on the Island that neighbors some of the poorest Marshallese. If that is balance, then my terminology is all off. But I doubt that.

So what do we do with this knowledge? I do not plan on conducting nuclear testing on any inhabited - or uninhabited - islands any time soon. I do not plan on employing immigrants in the near future, certainly not at unlivable wages, and I am unlikely to ever even visit the Marshall Islands. I do not have friends in power in Washington DC nor do I know how to maneuver through the stock market or convinve shareholders to stop supporting investment in countries like Sudan. I do not know how to bring the "information age" to the average Chinese citizens. I cannot end the war in Iraq, and I do not know how to mediate between Israel and Palestine.

In light of my apparent ineptness at changing the world, I have been asked on a number of occasions why I bother to try, and it was this insinuation in Dana's speech that was the hardest to combat. I do not know how to convince another human being that all human beings are worth the effort. I do not know how to make someone want to give more time or energy when I myself become worn down by "compassion exhaustion" as one friend called it. I do not know how to make it clear that I do not have an ulterior motive, I do not see how I gain except in that I would prefer to live in a world where there is greater equality and freedom and where humans treated each other with respect for one another's basic dignity and where human rights were more than an idea. I watch films like those shown in FLEFF and I am unsure how people can remain unmoved by the suffering of others. Yet I understand the deisre to assume powerlessness in that such a stance can allow individuals to pursue their own basic happiness. I cannot do that, and I am glad to watch films such as these because, though there will always be Dana's in the audience, there are also those who held the camera, who found the story, who felt it was worth telling, and those who are inspired by it. So here is to hope, and to grassroots activism, may we find strength in one another's dedication to the well being of humanity.

Can we say "idealistic"? I don't know what got into me today, but I guess that's my post for now.