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.

Link to Korea Article

I found this article, from AlJazeera, and it fits this week's topic well.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B2AC77A7-8A70-43D8-8307-9799670A2C48.htm

Week 9

I completely forgot to write a post last night, but one is forthcoming...

Week 9: Kim and Jager

In the Jager article, I was intrigued by the story Park Geun-byung teaches his students that depicts the USA as a dragon keeping the lovers on either side of the river from meeting. It is so interesting to learn about the way different countries educate students about their own, and other's, history. Honestly, the Korean War and Korean history were all but ignored in my schooling. However, from what I was taught, and most of what mainstream press has espoused, I was under the impression that the relations between ROK and DPRK were far more antagonistic and fragle than Jager's article suggests. I am then driven to wonder about the benefits to US foreign policy and military strategy that such a depiction may result in. I suppose a strong and dangerous DPRK and a weak, helpless ROK support the US power plays in the region, and allows for stronger rhetoric against nuclear development in DPRK and anti-communist sentiment. I am deeply disturbed by these likely possibilites, and by the foreign policy strategy they suggest, and how that US strategy functions around the globe, not just in relation to Korea. The state-centered security and military theory as is applies to US-Korean relations seems to be a distortion of reality, and I am bothered by learning of yet another instance where what I always believed to be true is only a version of reality, and one that promotes a sincerely "American" agenda.

Week 7: Haque

The interstate tensions were a new aspect that we have not covered as thoroughly, and one that I am especially interested in, so perhaps it is because I have kept these ideas in the back of my mind that I was not especially cognizant of their sudden predominance in the Haque reading. I am especially interested in the international/universal ideas of security, and how international relations, international bodies, and international policies are affected by the state centered security paradigm.

In Haque's article, the most pressing aspects I noted were from page 220 on, when he begins to dive into the interstate conflict and the need for reevaluation of policies and reform measures, including a revised international relations perspective concerning the idea of security. By incorporating poverty and small arms as well as industrial expansion and the indirect environmental consequences of economic growth and consumerism, Haque lays out a strong argument for changing the status quo concerning security in East Asia. Especially notable is the need, that we have already discussed, for these states to consider the conflict of interest between many new ideas of security, such as alleviation of poverty and provisions for basic needs, with their focus on economic growth and traditional responses to security threats with militarism.

The emphasis on the complex historical relationships that complicate contemporary regional efforts at cooperation is an important emphasis on Haque's part, and it is one we have not spoken of as much, and I hope as we explore the other countries more, we will begin to find more grounds for having discussions concerning the role of regional cooperation, and the complications of international alleigances and antagonisms.

I am, however, even more invested in understanding how we can reform security theory to reflect the changing ideas of what constitutes security, especially noting Haque's call to academics in the end. Today, it seems necessary for states to be central to the shift from state-centered security ideas to more multilateral ideas of security that would include micro/internal issues all the way up to international macro issues, and yet it is states that are most dedicated to national sovereignty, making it difficult to imagine a way for these ideas to truly shift. I think such a change will require a real ideological shift of immense proportions, and such a change seems almost impossible to come by in the face of such a long standing and entrenched notion of security.

Week 7: Economy and Fairclough

I had no idea that lead in toys and jewelry was from recycling electronics here in the US. It saddens me to think that we are not only extraordinarily wasteful, but when we try to recycle products that are otherwise very wasteful we are actually doing more good than harm in cases like these. It is frustrating to see that it is yet another area where the easiest and cheapest way out is the most dangerous, and China is embroilled in it because of the role it has come to occupy as world producer with the cheapest efficient labor. "It's too costly to make lead-free products," says owner Wang Qinjuan. "Chinese products have to be sold cheaply in foreign markets, or they are not competitive." I hate that Qinjuan is right, and it is a frustrating problem in that it seems not to have a solution, or at least not one that could be implemented soon. Where does one start when faced with problems that are threefold, such as this, and which are so international in their scope? The entire process is cyclical, which is infuriating, because there does not appear to be a beginning or end, only a constant, and how is one to work with that kind of continual downward spiral?

Week 6: China Blue and Cheek

Cheek describes China's classes in much the same way as I would describe our own, which is interesting considering how differently the USA and China are viewed and portrayed. I noticed at one point that Cheek referred to the kind of crackdown v. acceptance two-prong strategy Kurlantzick discussed when he was describing the Working Class, and also the Underclass, to some extent.

In watching China Blue I was struck by the similarities between migrant workers in China and migrant, especially immigrant, workers here. I was deeply saddened by how complicit we in the USA and other Western nations are in contributing to the poor labor standards in China, and the abuses of workers. It forces me to question to what extent the different forces and actors influence the conditions of workers there. Consideration must be given to Western CEOs, shareholders, managers, and consumers, as well as to governments and the laws set forth concerning labor laws, tariffs, international trade, etc., and perhaps lastly, the responsibility falls on the managers and CEOs in China who control the day-to-day mistreatment of workers. I am frustrated by how multifaceted the problem is, because it makes it seem far too complex and ingrained to be remedied. How can I assist Little Jasmine? Already I almost never buy a new pair of jeans, but I know I purchase a good deal of products from China which are produced under similar conditions. But I my family is not like most of the students' at Ithaca College, and coming here for school limits my purchasing choices further. I cannot afford to by only fair trade products, though I try to do so as often as possible. Yet as I said, the problem is so much larger than myself. my buying fair trade goods does next to nothing for Little Jasmine or workers like her, and in some ways by diverting my money to more expensive but ethically more sound products only brings the demand down on "free trade" goods, causing prices to fall in order to avoid a surplus, which in turn would further lower Jasmine's wages. So how do we respond to this crisis? It is not only in China where we see it, though it is certainly widespread there. However, it is visible here, among immigrants and migrant workers, and it is a serious problem no matter where it arises, and no matter what laws govern the nations in question. Yet, I am curious about the note in China Blue that mentioned labor movements being illegal, along with unionization. I am curious about this, and will be incorporating these ideas into my part of out Wednesday issue report.

Interesting News Article

I was reading this story because I studied in Ghana and thought it was interesting to see how Bush was received there, and towards the end there is a section on competition with China to set up African military bases, which I found interesting and thought i would share.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1D97988F-6FFB-4BD0-8C43-C3F8420F79B1.htm

Week 5: Tank Man

First off, let me say how much I enjoy Frontline. They always do an excellent job, and this docmentary was no exception.

I was struck by the images from Tiananmen Square; I had never before realized the extent of the massacre there in June of 1989. However, what astounded me more was the resilience of the students and workers in the movement, and their willingness to risk their lives continuously in the face of violence out of true sincerity to their cause. That kind of determination seems rare, though it may be that it is simplay all too often repressed around the wordl wherever it arises.

The two Chinas that have developed lead me back to the Kurlantzick article, and my feeling that the Communist government has abandoned communist ideology for the sake of economic progress, while simultaneously weeding out any dissent towards the Communist state, despite the fact that the capitalist drive coupled with political oppression has created an authoritarian kind of state that seems to be doing very little in the way of representing the needs of the proletariat, and the masses, while promoting the unequal distribution of wealth and the spread of greed. It seems counterintuitive, but I feel like I must be missing something, there must be more to it that what I am interpreting. Still, it is strange to see workers suffer so greatly under a Communist state, while wealthy businessmen and corrupt officials reign. It perturbs me.

It is interesting how an identity has been created for this Tank Man, whether people believe it or not. The idea that mystery and solitary definance are what make the story so enticing is fascinating. I suppose it is our (human?) obsession with hope, and rather than grab onto the plethora of clips and photographs that show the massive uprising and widespread violence and resistance, people are generally more drawn to the single man against the tank. Perhaps it is the fact that, despite the vast numbers of protesters, the struggle between the people and the state can be captured in the idea of a David and a Goliath, a small and insignifican tank man up against the giant military machine. This imagery suits the purposes of the actual power struggle with greater accuracy, it seems. Yet in China, David did not triumph over Goliath, a truth that has been marred by the economic growth, but exacerbated by the concurrent growth in quieter dissent, which has been consistently silenced by the Government - not for the people, but against them - and aided by Western profit-seeking corporations like Yahoo!

I am ashamed to have a Yahoo! mail account when I read information such as this, and yet it further reminds me that my life is made much simpler by my buying into these corporations, and therein lies the dilemna: for those of us, from China to the US, who wish to fight the dominant paradigm, we must make sacrifices, some small, others massive, to do so. It is its own market with risks and opportunity costs to consider. Whether I use Yahoo! is not really the question, but whether I choose to express my dissent is, and the form of such dissent is important. In China, huge sacrifices may have to be made by people who choose to hack into censored material, on Yahoo! or elsewhere. I am beyond privileged to be able to live without such considerations facing me daily. I can easliy decide not to use Yahoo! mail, and to instead research which companies do not have any (known) links to repressive censorship or corruption, and the only way I am affected is that my address book will have to be informed of my decision.

I try to live without taking things for granted, but I willingly admit that the Internet and the freedoms I enjoy in utilizing it is something I have taken for granted, and when confronted with cnesorship of the kind imposed in China, I am deeply ashamed of my dependence and expectant attitude toward the "freedom of information." Could I ever make the kind of sacrifices so many do in China in order to get access to half of the sources which are availale to me? Would I ever be brave enough to try to stop a tank? To run towards soldiers with guns rather than away from them out of sheer desperation and determination? While I crave the sort of passion those acts require, I am frightened by the notion that I would ever face anything like that. My naivete is unvelied, and I am shamefully aware of my privilege, in a way that only has been clear to me once before, in Ghana. There are parts of me which are conflicted by this story of the Tank Man, and in this study of China in general, and I am unsure how to reconcile my thoughts.

Week 5: Kurlantzick

"Indeed, Beijing seems to want it both ways: to appear to be more tolerant
even while relentlessly suppressing dissent." (3)

Truly this is the case, especially as China prepares in earnest for the summer Olympic Games. The two-pronged strategy Kurlantzick describes, as well as China's two-faced approach to the world - an internal face and an external one - seem to be all too effective at getting the Chinese government what it wants: more global economic markets and less attention paid to its domestic problems.

I am in a unique position, because all too often I realize how much more I am made aware of by being president of Amnesty at Ithaca College, which opens my eyes up to the human rights abuses perpetrated by China and other countries around the world, to an extent that I would never be privy to otherwise. Certainly I am glad of this in some ways, but when I read articles like Kurlantzick's I am sadly familiar with the subject matter, so much so that I am rarely surprised but often saddened.

What I could really appreciate in Kurlantzick's article was his elaboration of the methods pursued by the government as a means of quelling dissent, especially in regard to the priority of economy over people. In regard to the Internet, for example, he writes, "Beijing not only allows its citizens to view financial reports, stock quotes, and other business-related material on the Internet, but has adopted policies designed to help Internet companies survive." (5) Yet personal Internet use faces massive crack-downs, and a number of prominent dissident bloggers have been arrested, including a recent case that made the front page of the New York Times (more press than many of China's human rights abuses recieve). What I am most struck by is how, in my opinion, this hierarchy of priorities seems contrary to socialist ideology. When a country that touted Communism as the best ideology for the people becomes engrossed in repressing its people for the sake of economic growth and capital flows, something is utterly wrong. Even as China attempts to crush religious movements and social organizations for being in contradiction to the ideology of the state, the government does everything in its power to ensure economic growth and a competitve edge, working to showcase its riches and material success to the rest of the, predominantly capitalist, world.

I can only hope that the numerous dissidents voices grow louder, and that human rights groups, perhaps especially as we come upon the Olymics, put greater pressure on the Chinese goverment, as well as on governements and multinational corportations who do business with China. As Kurlantzick states, there are some Chinese civilians who are not about to give up any of the freedoms they fought for or gained in the early 1990s, and more groups are becoming confrontational or are seeking support outside of China to stand in solidarity with their various causes. From Falun Dafa to the Free Tibet movement, there are media sources and activist networks all over the world that people outside of China are joining, raising their own voices with those of the dissidents. It will be interesting to see how China deals with growing concern over their human rights record in the coming months, even as they crack down on dissenters and activists within their borders, and bulldoze housing projects and build on rural lands, potentially provoking even greater unrest.

Week 4: Falun Dafa

According to the Falun Dafa (Falun Gong) website,

"Falun Dafa practitioners cultivate themselves while living normally in the
complex environment of secular society. People of all nationalities, races,
socio-economic backgrounds, gender, ages, occupations, and different faiths are
welcome to practice, and do so entirely of their own free will, at their own
pace, and for as long as they choose. "(falundafa.org)

How is it that such a peaceful organization, dedicated to living spiritually in secular society, could pose such a threat to the Chinese government that they would want to persecute practitioners, even executing some, selling their organs on the black market, torturing them, and imprisoning them?

These tactics are beyond extreme, in any instance, but they seem all the more horrendous when up against a movement that promotes peace and soundness of mind, body and spirit. I suppose it has much to do with the fact that by 1998, only six years after it was first taught publicly in China, Falun Dafa had over 70 million Chinese followers. That is no small feat, even in a country of 1.3 Billion, and I suppose such sheer numbers could provoke fear in the authorities, whose legitimacy is dependent on the loyalty of citizens to the secular party ideology.

Still, such repressive violence disgusts me, as it does others, and Falun Dafa is widely supported around the world by organizations like Amnesty, where I first heard about their struggle against the Chinese government, to Human Rights Watch. Yet still, even as late as November of 2007, Amnesty publishd the following quote by Zhou Yongkang, Minister of Public Security in China,

"We must make efforts to create a harmonious society and a good social
environment for successfully holding the 17th Communist Party Congress and the
Beijing Olympic Games [...] We must strike hard at hostile forces at home and
abroad, such as ethnic separatists, religious extremists, violent terrorists and
'heretical organizations' like the Falun Gong who carry out destabilizing
activities." (http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGASA170522007)

These "destabilizing activities" are the threat, and it is an ideological threat, a threat to the Communist and Socialist reputation and to state authority and secularism, and to the repressive government. It is the alleged "leaking" of state secrets, and the assemblies on state grounds. It is the mere existence after 7 years of a banned spiritual organization in an authoritative state. It is extraordinarily sad.

Week 3: Pei, Guthrie, and Hu

It was helpful to read these articles, as I feel much more informed about the resons behind China's current economic and political situation. I especially enjoyed Hu's piece, and his clear breakdown of the various ideological and practical issues facing Deng as his reforms were implemented and decided upon. I have always felt ignorant when it came to Chinese history, and it is the era from 1949 on that I have long wanted to have a better understanding of.

The human rights arguments Hu laid out were interesting, concerning the various trade-offs that governments may consider when working to implement reform and deciding upon what will eb best for the most people, based on these trade-off priorities. Furthermore, I was intrigued when he stated that there were three ruling principles regarding China's view of human rights: 1) Human Rights are within national sovereignty, 2) Human Rights vary by nation-state, and 3) Survival, or Subsistence, is the number one human rights priority in China. As an individual who is very invested in human rights work and ideology, these ideas drew my curiosity, and I look forward to looking later this week and next at the dissidents websites and at the Amnesty International article. It makes sense with Deng's focus on economic reform, as laid out by both Guthrie and Hu, that subsistence would be #1, because it is evident that economic rights seems to tump both social and political rights in China, as a result of the way the political and economic reforms went, and the ensuing potential for chaos and the threats against Communist and Socialist legitimacy which human rights pose.

I found it interesting in Guthrie's article when he noted the differences between China's reputation and its reality, on pages 38 and 39. It is true that I, at least, often thought of China as an authoritarian state with horrendous human rights violations a daily occurence, in part due to excessive corruption. It was helpful to me when Guthrie made clear that this view is skewed and undermines the advances that have been made, in large part because of Deng's economic and liberal reforms. It now seems obvious that China could not be the major player it is today if all of my ignorance had proven truthful in so many ways.

In reading all three articles, I thought it was interesting that such emphasis was placed on the way that increased liberalization and freedom can actually lead to more dissent and demand for greater reform and guarantee of rights. Hu explicitly points this out on page 74, as well as at other points in his article, and it immediately made me think of Pei's article in which he argues that the increased social unrest has come, in part, because of the economic growth and reforms China has experienced. I am interested in considering this idea futher, and discussing it with other members of the class. Whether or not this argument is true, I believe it is always preferable to have increased freedom, human rights, and democracy, however, that may indeed threated security and stability, so what are the costs of granting greater freedoms and rights, and what are the costs of authoritarian control, and what are the benefits of each, at least in regards to sceurity and stability. These are the ultimate questions I came away with, and I may end up trying to find a way to make these ideas the focus of my final report.

Week 2: Klare and Zhang

I was frustrated with the Klare reading, because I fond many of the points made to be almost hypocritical when speaking about China's military and economic progress. Whether this was coming from Klare himself of from his analysis of references, I am unsure, but his wording troubled me in some places. For instance, his talk of building up the military to counter China's seems to be to be both presumptuous and unduly aggressive. Later he quotes Fallon as saying, "It's certainly cause for concern to see this continuing buildup [by China]...It seems to me to be more than might e required for their defense. We're certainly watching it very closely, [and] we're looking at how we match up against these capabilities." Obviously the US matches up, because the US itself has unnecessary military buildup that could easily - and often does - appear as a threat to other nations. I find this argument to be dripping in ethnocentric ideas of superiority, which bothers me. Further, Klare states in the middle that China has moved into the number two spot - behind the US - for use of oil, and speaks as though this is preposterous. What I find preposterous, however, is that the US is still ahead of China in energy usage, and that any American could have the audacity to argue that CHINA is using too much energy for its 1.5 Billion people, while 300 Million Americans use more than most of the rest of the world combined. It is that kind of arrogance that makes the US appear a threat to the rest of the world. Not to mention, the US is often a threat to the rest of the world, and not even China wouldl be presumptuous enough to imagine that it could currently compete militarily with US technology, so the enitre issue of China as a threat seems to me to be a non-issue promoted by the conservative right to avoid focus on areas where their positions have garnered criticism. China as a threat is a thinly veiled scare tactic in my opinion, and Klare's article only strengthened my feelings on this.

Week 2: Cha and Beeson

Q1: Note the issues - negative and positive - regarding China that seem to be coming to the fore around the Olympics.

Q2: Make note of the regional issues mentioned. What does Cha say about Japan? What does he say about Korea?

Q3:How does Beeson's excerpt help to make sense of references to Japan and Korea from Cha's piece, including key historical moments, developments, and trends as well as East Asian regional relations?

Q4: What other items of note does Beeson mention in this historical overview?

A: In the Cha reading from the Washington Post, China is first put forth as an "ancient and celebrated" (1) civilization, as from this point Cha goes on to elaborate on the innovations and reforms being implemented in the face of the impending games. Cha also points out how sport diplomacy has played a role in the regional relationships in East Asia, bringing in political undertones to sports from ping-pong to the Olympics. Furthermore, the fact that China is holding the Olympics only after Japan and Korea both did is telling. It also shows how time has altered the world view of power and economic might in East Asia. Japan hosted the Olympics in 1964, serving as a reminder of its leading role in Asia up to World War II and even after as it worked to reassert its legitimacy as an Asian leader in the developed world.

Cha argues that China is using the Olympics as a stage on which to showcase their economic growth and prosperity, demonstrating the importance of their emergence as what many perceive to be the leading Asian nation, not to mention its role as a power on an international level. Renovations and massive reforms are demonstrative of an attempt to revitalize Beijing and usher in a new and modern era for the Chinese, as its eminence is established in the global market, economically, politically and militarily.

Yet China's role is not taken for granted by all, and is highly scrutinized by some. The government is facing political pressure from human rights activists, internal dissidents, journalists, and NGOs, not to mention from other nations at the UN. China must open itself up ideologically if it wishes to appease the vociferous appeals for respect of human dignity and liberty. Steps have been taken by the Chinese government in response to the growing criticism concerning both internal and external human rights abuses that China is accused of perpetrating and condoning, but to what extent the attempts are genuine cannot be known. With regard to Darfur, where China has been criticised for dealing in arms with the genocidal regime, there has been progress at the UN as China has chosen not to veto Security Council resolutions dealing with the conflict. Still, the New York Times recently published an article dealing with arrests and repression of active dissidents within China which leads some to believe that the goodwill internationally could well be a short-lived facade of humanity and humility. Only time will tell. Still, South Korea was pressured when it hosted the Olympics in 1988, and what followed was increased democratization where there had been authoritarianism, so pressure could prove great enough to enact real change with time.

Week 1: Krause and Williams

As a starting off point, I will set up this first blog as a series of replies to the study questions posed for the week, since I found that to be a helpful format for organizing my reading an analysis of the piece. I will give more time to certain questions, as I see fit, and I will skip those questions which I feel I have given time to in other responses.

Introduction

Q1: How has security garnered attention since the end of the Cold War?
A1: Optimists have newly focused on cooperation through global capitalism and liberal democracy while pessimists became concerned with growing ethnic conflict and fear "an anarchic future" (Krause 33). These people, as well as those who remain neutral in their outlook, tend to agree that the post-Cold War era is one with increased focus on economic and environmental issues, as well as one with more voices clamoring to be heard concerning human rights, labor struggles, minority and indigenous rights, and more. As the world moves further away from the East-West divide, issues are no longer perceived as black and white. Questions concerning the fractionalization of the USSR, especially with regard to the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and growing conflict in Georgia and Chechnya, became matters of concern as ethnic and cultural loyalties became the focal point rather than the natin-state. Around the world the topic of nuclear proliferation came to the fore as talks began among nations to settle agreements concerning demilitarization and the dismantling of nuclear weapons facilities. Beyond issues of military concern there were many whose voices were raised concerning growing environmental awareness and the threat of global warming and with it increased emphasis on carbon emissions. Environmenal concerns also have begun to play a role in the realm of humanitarian work with a growing focus on sanitation and environmental standards to attempt prevention of health problems among people without access to clean water or to sewage treatment systems, among other problems. Human rights in general have grown in scope, and movements and struggles around the world have utilized technology to promote worldwide awareness, communication, and solidarity on issues from the genocide in Darfur to oppression of Falun Gong practitioners in China. Increased technology, the fractionalizing of the USSR, and growing environmental and human rights advocacy have all played a role in the changing face of security studies and of matters of security since the end of the Cold War.

Q2: To what extent is there a consensus on the definition of security?
A2: There is little consensus on the definition of security; however, traditionally, "security studies" have been concerned primarily with the nation-state and militarism. However, as mentioned above, from about 1990 on the scope of "security" has broadened to incorporate more individualized, as well as more "universal" ideas about what is needed to ensure security.

Q5: What is the central conventional argument against incorporating broader questions into "security studies"?
A5: Dorff argues that "problems" are not solid enough to constitute security threats, and thus should not be up for policy consideration. "Problems," as Dorff sees them, are economic, social, and ecological issues not directly related to mililtary concerns. Yet, Krause and Williams hold that claiming that "problems" are outside of current security concepts is a means of avoiding reform and reconceptualization without providing a strong argument against the potential benefits that such restructuring could result in.

Unpacking the traditional Conception of Security: The Evolution of Disciplinary Authority

Q1: What do they mean by "security, after all, is a historically variable condition"?
A1: Ideas of security depend on contemporary politics and are determined by historical specificity in this way. Different pressures and threats, the actors involved, the science, technology and communication - these factors will all depend on the period of history one is referring to, and will then be reflected in the security concerns and definitions of that era.

States are the Subjects: Anarchy is the Condition; Contractarianism is the Solution

Q2: a. In conventional security studies, states are the locus/source of security. From this perspective, what is the assumption made about the security of citizens? b. What does it assume about the realtionships between citizens of different countries?

A2: a. Conventional theory assumes that there cannot be security for the individual without the state because rational beings will live in a natural state of competition unless they can agree to live by a social contract, as argued by Hobbes. Further, Krause and Williams argue on page 41 that, "The declaration that the state is the subject of security, and anarchy the eternal condition of international relations, is premised not on objective facts but is grounded in a deeper set of claims about the autonomous nature of subjectivity and its relationship to sovereignty. This underlying methodological individualist premise is shared by neorealist and neoliberal approaches."
b. Citizens are thus obligated to one another within a states, but will maintain competition with non-citizens, as they are not obligated by the state to coexist under any sort of contract or authority, as they do within their own state. Strategically, this implies that nations, too, will exist in a constant state of competition and stalemate, and it further implies conditions of rationality and objectivity are possible with the assistance of science - a position that those who oppose the traditional conceptions of security are apt to critique, beleiving that even science cannot be objective because rationality does not presuppose objectivity.

Challenges to the Tradtional Conception: Individuals as Persons, Citizens, and Humanity

Q1: Give an example of a type of individual security and how the focus on the individual (rather than the state) highlights the potential conflict with state security.

A1: Threats to individuals as citizens: In this case the state may mitigate the insecurity of citizens, however, it depends on where the treat is coming from. In some cases, the state itself acts against the security of parts of its citizenry, arbitrarily or systematically, which can lead to major human rights violations which often cause problems on an international level with regard to state sovereignty. On the other hand, these threats may come from another state or from a non-state actor, wich poses its own challenges to the state in terms of how the state could defend its citizens against these problems. For instance, in some cases multinational corporations will use threats and violence to crush union organizing, or will refuse to comply with environmental regulations or labor standards. In such cases, they may exploit their role in developing nations where there are fewer regulations in place, and thus are targeting citizens in developing nations or those who work in export processing zones (EPZ) over citizens in industrialized nations where labor standards are higher and where jurisprudence carries more weight. Alternately, we have the very specific case in the USA of the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, which were acts of violence taken by non-state actors against citizens, and these cases are common around the world today, unfortunately, from sucide bombers to larger premeditated acts of violence near embassies and in public areas. These new threats from non-state actors challenge traditional security theory and demand attention and policy reform to protect citizens.

Security, Community, and Identity

Q1: How have security studies that focus on communal identity and culture (as a way to understand security) challenged the idea if state as the source of security?
A1: Competitng claims to national sovereignty put national security into question. For instance, as with the fragmentation of the former Societ Union, and especially with the decentralization of the former Yugoslavia into a number of smaller, ethnically homogneous, states.