Okinawa

There are many reasons that the author suggests that US military presence in Okinawa is necessary, but most obviously are security reasons. The United States is there to not only further its own agenda in having military in the area, but Japan does not have a working military force, rather just a "self-defense force." The United States is there to help Japan, and since Okinawa is a colonial province of Japan, it serves as the pawn. As military forces were downsized on the mainland, they were added to Okinawa because the people were under Japanese law. Though, for the people of Okinawa, the bases are becoming more and more of a burden. The bases, which used to employ thousands upon thousands of Okinawans, now employ less than 10,000 of the native people. The military personnel on the bases also are angering the Okinawans. There have been reports of mischief and other crimes done by the military personnel on bases that have negatively affected their image to the people of Okinawa. American forces also occupy nearly all of the island with the amount of bases it holds. This has angered the Okinawans because the United States has previously cut back on forces on the mainland of Japan. The people no longer see the bases as necessary especially with the amount of bases there are and with the destruction they cause to the island.

Japanese and American War Atrocities

The US criticized the bombing war tactics because the country believed that killing noncombatant civilains was unnecessary. However, this changed once its allies began to use this type of warfare because if the United States continued to refuse to use such tactics, these tactics could be used against them and the US would not have a way of retaliation if it did not develop the intelligence to do so. Also, in wars such as Vietnam where citizens were part of the opposition group Vietcong, destroying entire villages, seemingly of all citizens, was not the case. Japan attacked the Chinese capital at the time without direction from the "person in charge." They continued to destroy villages in and around the capital as well as take prisoners without actually declaring them POWs, rather killing them or treating them brutally. The Japanese attacked civilians mostly during this war. In the case of the US against the Japanese in WWII, the US attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atom bombs, which mostly killed civilians. The difference however is that the attack on China was, from what the author states, unprovoked. The attacks on Japan were not necessarily justified, however they were retaliation from the attacks on Pearl Harbor.

The war memories in Germany were one of the first attacks by the US on an area that was made up of noncombatant citizens. The attack was on Dresden, Germany during World War II, which left the city devastated and nearly completely destroyed. However, the United States never formally apologized for the attacks or made reparations.
The author, throughout the text tries to draw comparisons between the Japanese conflict in China and the Iraq War in reference to how civilians were treated. He states that the US focuses on the more positive aspects, not really telling its citizens about the atrocities taking place. I think this is a common wartime practice, and the author criticizes it too closely. It is obvious that if a current administration attacks a country or something inside a country unjustifiably that they mostly likely are not going to apologize. International law is not set in stone, its just there to be abided by but when rules are broken, there are no serious consequences. Especially in war time, when such atrocities are committed, proceeding administrations may apologize and offer reparations (particularly in the US) but even so is not always the case. The fact that Japan is going off this, and not apologizing for its actions does reflect how the United States conducts itself, and while the author makes a valid point, Japan is using the US's actions as an example to justify its own.

Hardliners Target/A New National Sense

The first article talks about how North Korea has agreed to dismantle it's nuclear program, however refuses to comply with the terms set by the international community. The country does not allow random testing to be done to conclude that the country has acquiesced to the demands made on them. Though recently, the Bush administration has opened up, critics say that they should continue on their path of isolationism because they doubt that NK will ever be truly honest about their nuclear intentions. Though North Korea claims that it had announced all the nuclear weapons it possessed, the U.S. is skeptical. The United States is also not sure about the connection that North Korea currently holds with Syria. Basically, this article outlines the skepticism that the United States holds on North Korea's actions and believes that the US needs to be more investigative before continuing to act hospitably towards the country.

The second article talks mostly about the South Korean-North Korean relationship with the United States since the election of the new president. The US has been pressuring South Korea to disclose its intentions on how it plans to interact with North Korea and what the policy towards the country will include. The US government is basically looking towards advancing its own agenda through South Korea. Because the US does not want its troops to leave South Korea, if the two countries (NK and SK) become more intertwined, the US may be worried that South Korea will no longer want US troops in the country to appease its Northern counterpart.

Frontline Documentary

The documentary only basically touches upon the famine that North Koreans are suffering under, and it states that it is a result of the government allocating most of its money to Military expenditures. Also, according to another article I had read, foreign nations tried to give aid to the impoverished North Korean people. Though it seemed it would be a successful venture, the government insisted on distributing the goods to the people rather than direct distribution. The government then gave the aid to the people it favored, and ignored the rural people who actually needed it. As a result these foreign groups abandoned their efforts, as their help wasn't truly aiding the people that needed it.
The documentary on the United States relationship with North Korea was extremely interesting. It started off discussing how the Clinton administration had built a relationship with both North and South Korea. They tried to dismantle North Korea's nuclear weapons program, and were successful, however, at the expense of being "blackmailed." The steps that the administration took however are criticized for giving in too much to the North Korean demands, at the time, and even today. The Clinton Administration also supported the South Korean sunshine policy towards North Korea in an attempt to further hospitable relations. However, after Clinton left office, the attitude of the United States changed. The Bush Administration, at first stated they would continue the amicable relationship, however actions proved this was not true. The Bush Administration halted talks with South Korea, and as a result the relationship with North Korea completely diminished. The administration went even further to include the country in what he called the axis of evil. After learning of this, I can not comprehend why the Bush administration would dismantle all the work that the previous administration had strived for. Clinton had worked, though it was criticized to help the relations greatly, and upon leaving office there was a bright horizon for the relations to continue to improve. Instead, the relations were completely broken, and even today, it does not seem prospective for relations to improve.

Enloe

Enloe suggests that there is an underestimation of power in the study of international relations because those who are considered "big powers" underestimate the power of "little powers." This means that larger countries, such as the United States disregard the wants and needs of other countries that do not oppose them. The power that if often underestimated is the ones that are "marginally silent." Power should be looked at on the margins because other groups within the state, not just the state itself may become a security threat. This may be present not only to the country but to other countries outside its borders as well. I think that it is important to look past the state because in order to secure all aspects of our security, all aspects need to be analyzed. When looking at other forms of power, within seemingly powerless people, when they overcome their restraints, it is the exception not the rule. While "silent" people sometimes "speak" it does not always happen, and for the most part cannot be predicted.

When Feffer uses the term "people power" he is referring to how people influence decisions and dictatorships. However, people power does not go hand in hand with democracy, as it can be applied to any type of government differently. Referring to US relations with East Asian countries, Feffer supports his argument with how deterioration of US-ROK relations has increased since the ROK has become more sympathetic to North Korea. He also cites the potential military coup in North Korea and its relations with its own military power.

I think that the Ahn article explains the situation of the South Korean farmers, but it only shows one point of view. Though, this point is harsh showing that the US military along with the Korean military plans to do anything within its power to do what it deems necessary, no matter how it affects the local people. This instance does not necessarily explain the security arrangements because it only explains a tiny part of it. Sadly, and ultimately, these people are going to be removed from their homes despite their toughest opposition. It relates mostly to the first article of marginal silence, though these people aren't silent, they will be silenced.

Sex among allies

This is not completely relevant to our topic, however I was looking on the right column and it had this blog up and I thought it was interesting that this organization would have a blog.
http://www.tsa.gov/blog/

When thinking about international relations between countries, we often turn to foreign policy, social relations, tensions, etc. Rarely, are relations though to be sexual and if they are, it is not thought that they play into the "real" relations between the countries. However, in Moon's article, she challenges this notion. She believes that the sexual relations between Korean women and American soldiers actually helps relieve strains between the two countries and plays a vital role. She acknowledges the fact that international policy is important, which includes legislation and aid, however these sexual relationships between the two countries are just as important as any legislation passed. However, though this practice is supported by both the Korean and American governments, the women involved are looked down by all in Korean society. In the beginning of the Moon article, it discusses how there are "two types" of women, and how she is not to be the certain type, which is obviously the prostitute. The women who participate in this are usually those who are considered lower in society. With little opportunity readily available to them, this type of "work" is seen as easy to get into and an easy way to make money. The other article supports this because it states that these women are undereducation, and not only school-wise by sexual wise as well. These women are usually ones that have been produced by prior Korean-American relations. As a result, they are deeply psychologically affected and is most likely the cause to their taking up prostitution.

The Effects of Korean Unification on US Military Presence in Northeast Asia

Hendelson's main argument in the piece is that he agrees in order to maintain order and stability, at least for the next 10, 15 or so years, it is necessary to maintain US military forces throughout East Asia. It is important, not only in the ROK to help protect South Korea from the threat of nuclear weapons, but to protect Japan as well. Also, it is partly to make sure the North Korea is not including themselves in activities not condoned by the US Military forces in the area, such as the continuation of building and storing nuclear weapons within the country. Also, the US is remaining in the area selfishly as well, to maintain our national interests. However, all the reasons stated in the article are mostly legitimate. The US presence allows for protection from security threats of the NKPA as well as using the military to fufill the needs of our country too. Some of the threats that are cited in the article include, most obviously, a threat that all countries have post September 11th, is the threat of attack by international terrorists. Also, if Korea were to unite once again, some other threats would be posed by other East Asian countries, China and Japan. Japan can be seen as a potential threat with the technology is has and the warfare it is capable of waging, though Japan has not acted on the defensive since their defeat in World War II. Though the author believes that it could be a possibility from the wearing down of US-Japan relations in recent years. It would be necessary for the US to maintain itself in the country even if it were to reunite because of the problems reunification would pose. The US is important to the ROK for many reasons, including the military forces it provides. The United States would be able to help defend the ROK against the NKPA hostile forces if any conflict were to arise. Also, reunification would significantly affect the economy of the ROK, as well as be costly to the nation. The United States could be there to help lessen the effects on the South Korean economy while possibly helping with the costs. Reunification could significantly improve the countries' relations without outside forces. If the country was unified, the relations could significantly improve with China, however could possibly be detrimental to the Korean-Japanese relations.
The article states that the United States has focused on maintaining bi-lateral relations with Asian nations but trying to open up multilateral nations among those same nations. It is important for the United States to do so because the relationship it holds with countries such as North Korea, and South Korea differ greatly. The US views North Korea as a security threat, while holds mostly amicable relations with its southern counterpart. This is important because if the three countries were connected through multilateral nations, the relationship would be complicated, with could potentially hurt relations between North and South Korea as well.
The author concedes that at the current moment, it is necessary to maintain US forces within Asian nations, however if the countries were reunified and stabilized, potentially the forces could be removed. Though it would not be immediate as to not damage the nation but help it suceed as one. Though the author does say if one country, such as South Korea wants US troops out, it could potentially cause Japan to make US forces leave the country as well, which would be damaging to the US's own self interest. The author states that the US military needs to find new ways to maintaining forces in the area without necessarily being in a foreign nation.
The articles that we read for monday are contrasting with this particular article because they make it seem that Koreans no longer want the US military in the country, while this article makes it seem that US forces are necessary. Also, the part about if South Korea asking the military to leave, that Japan would do the same, or vice versa, when supposedly South Koreans harbor a great dislike for Japan.

Pan-Korean Nationalismm, Anti-Great Power-ism, Anti-Americanism

When the author uses the term “pan-Korean nationalism” he is referring to a feeling that had developed at the end of the Cold War that erupted in highly altered forms of nationalism throughout East Asia. This developed because such forms of nationalism had previously been repressed in years during and pre-Cold War. These types of feelings have altered countries, such as South Korea’s, relationship with the United States and other foreign nations outside of East Asia. When the author uses the term “Anti-Great Power-ism” he is referring to the desire that Koreans hold to escape exploitation and victimization that South Koreans have experienced by countries such as the United States. These feelings began after World War II, and are present in recent times. Both terms are closely associated with Koreans changing their beliefs on identity and nationalism within their country. These notions resulted in a significant change in political interest and power within South Korea. The generation gap between the old and the young cause the two groups to feel differently about both notions. The young think of the Cold War in a different context, that of which the situation on the Korean Peninsula is as a result of the post-Cold War situation. The main conflict is the young view North Korea without feelings of dislike in the same manner that the old do, as a result of the differentiating views the two hold on the outcome of the Korean War. The struggle over history that the author could be referring to is not so much a struggle over historical events, but how the two conflicting groups view such events. These two groups, the old and the young, see their pasts in different contexts. Such differences cause the struggle as they do not hold the same viewpoints on the outcome or causes of external conflicts, for instance the Cold War, or even internal conflicts, such as the Korean War.
I think one of the most memorable events of our time that shape the way we view the future is the events of September 11th. As a result of that day, we entered a war, which at the current time, Americans can’t seem to remember the reason why we did so. Though, when it occurred, there was basically an outcry for war that was heard all across the country. Now, there is a lot of opposition to the war, and the American people are looking to end the conflict. The issue of the war seems to be the basis of the presidential debates, and of the presidential election of 2008. This is similar to that of the Korean problem, though there aren’t two separate groups, there are two opposite feelings among one group, Americans as a whole, that changed within a matter of a few years.
The cleansing that is referred to is the South Korean national assembly looking at historical issues and debating what actions to take as a result. However, the issues that are being examined are issues relating to Japan, rather than relating to the United States. South Korea is trying to enflame the nationalism felt by the people even more by defending its actions in the past and demeaning those taken by other countries. The United States currently has troops in the area as a result of the nuclear weapons that South and North Korea are supposedly creating. The United States feels threatened by these countries making such weapons and feels the need to make sure that their production is ceased and all nuclear weapons in existence confiscated and/or destroyed. The American betrayals that the Koreans refer to are mostly that of the United States actions with other East Asian countries. If the United States visits another East Asian country, Koreans are usually offended. This also refers to, more recently, the actions that the Bush administration has taken towards Korea. When Clinton was in office, he was more accepting towards Koreans with his foreign policy, however Bush has halted the progress that Clinton had made for a more anti-Korean attitude he has taken on since assuming the presidency. The feelings of “anti-great power-ism” the Koreans hold, for the most part are feelings of Anti-Americanism. Koreans, more recently have begun to dislike the United States mostly as a result of the Bush Administrations stance on the country. Though, this can also be related to the countries relationship with Japan as well. For the most part, Koreans hold a deep dislike and distrust for the country, however the feeling is not mutual. Koreans, as a result of past actions taken by Japan holds deep distaste felt by a majority of those in the country, though when looking at polls, the same feelings do not hold true for Japan-Korean relations. These feelings of dislike by Koreans of Japan is as a result of the Todko/Takeshima conflict. The article does not talk a lot about Koreans relationship with China but it does cite it as a major player in the Korean War. The US is said to be important in the reunification of North and South Korea because as a result of past US action, the country was colonized and split into two.
One way in which the country is reassessing its history is as a result of new information discovered since the conflict. The Korean War is not all that it had once seemed to be, rather than one conflict, it may have been two. The war, which had once been seen to be fought against communism, is now seen as something very different from recent interpretations. The Anti-American sentiment now is focused on the actions that the United States took during the Korean War, as it is been reassessed. The anti-us sentiment is now felt by almost all people within the country. The core of the US-ROK relationship is that the US sees North Korea as a threat. Though, this threat no longer seems credible to the younger generations in South Korea, which may affect the relations between the US and Korea very greatly. Relations between North and South Korea have changed in recent years following the Cold War. Though the relations are perfect, South Korea has more recently “warmed up” to North Korea, seemingly as a result of mutual feelings of Anti-Americanism felt by both countries.

Major Forms of Environmental Insecurity

The most obvious environmental problem China is facing is extreme pollution throughout the entire country as a result of industrialization. Oil pollution has increasingly become a problem, as well as air pollution with the rising emission of sulfur dioxide. Also with the record amounts of coal China utilizes each year, they emit large amounts of carbon dioxide as well. Deforestation is also a problem in East Asia. Deforestation causes environmental problems such as toxic pollution and acid rain and is responsible for biodiversity loss. There are also adverse affects of deforestation to humans. For the most part, the problems in East Asia are brought on by human activity such as urbanization and industrialization, as well as fluctuation of the economy. Environmental problems can cause interstate tensions because it is impossible to keep such problems within the borders of a single country. This has become a problem between China Japan and South Korea as a result of the air pollution China has produced in recent years. Another problem that affects China the most is the resource scarcity that the people experience which causes migration from areas in China to surrounding countries which has been the cause of some apprehension. The problems are being addressed with state institutions throughout East Asia. For the most part, environmental problems are not linked with security issues because they are not seen as a security issue. Generally and Traditionally, environmental "safety" is not seen as a security problem.

Labor Rights in China

Kernaghan explains to the Senate the work conditions that laborers in China work in, as well as the pay the receive. The conditions described are appalling, working in "sauna" -like atmospheres, and sadly these conditions are similar in all the situations presented. The pay structure for the factory workers is similar as well. For the most part, these people are getting paid under the minimum wage required by law in China. Also, they do not receive overtime for the overtime that they work, which is a constant thing. Though Kernaghan did go to Congress with all this information, giving light to these conditions in China, I don't think much will be done to correct this. I think that maybe it will be publicized a little more, however I highly doubt that action will be taken. I think the Senate knows that without these workers companies will falter and no longer be able to produce the way they are now. Though I do not agree with this, I do think it will be the reality of the outcome of the situation.

As a result of the situation China is in regarding the labor situation, it is sadly benefitting the world economy as a whole. The actors described in this situation are all the countries who allow outsourcing of labor to China. They are helping the economy in China, however they are allowing the laborers there to be exploited. Surprisingly however, it is the Chinese government that is looking to rectify the situation, though the plans they have to go about doing so do not seem like they will help much, if any.

Living with reform.../Documentary

The main classes in China are the elite class, the middle class, and the poor. The elite class enjoy lots of luxuries, which don't include working in a factory. For the most part, these are people of the party, or the children of people of the party. The middle class is the biggest class of people in China, and while they aren't as rich as the elite class, they still have many luxuries afforded to them, and they live a life that the working class strive for. The poor are those living in the countryside, who come to work in cities to make wages, more than they would make where they are from. The working class has it the hardest as they are poor and they are the ones, as seen in the documentary, that work in the awful factories.

There are no questions for the documentary, so i'll just respond to it.

I have to say, I thought this documentary was so interesting. It was very eye opening to the labor abuse in China, more than any piece of literature I could ever read. Seeing a first hand account of how a girl, who is just a year younger than I am, working and living on her own is interesting, and at the same time sad. I also think that it is unbelievable that nothing is being done about the violation of labor laws in China. The inspections made by foreign businessmen are ridiculous and when they showed an account of it, it was unbelievable how those people rarely found anything wrong. For the most part, I think this goes without saying that they don't want to find anything wrong because then they can't buy from this cheap source. It's also unbelievable how little these people get paid for how much work they do, and how employers get away with it. But the thing is because there are no regulations in China for workers, and they can't have unions, legally employers can get away with it. I can't seem to undersstand how this can go on without regulation from the government, but also why they would ever make strikes and unions illegal?.. It seems absurd.
Also, in the film, the girls said they paid for their food and dorm, but it was ridiculous how much they paid for how little they got in return, and the idea of a midnight snack being free because they worked overtime.. was ridiculous.

The Dragon Still has Teeth

In the movie we watched last week in class, I do not believe that leaders can halt or reverse what they have started to reform. Once reform in an area is started, there are other uncontrollable factors leading to its continuance. Some of those factors can be from the government, but if the people accept the reform and it's ideas, it'd be too difficult to stop such reform. China does not simply rule through the communist ideology these days, as some of the actions taken by the Chinese government are not part of the communist ideology. During the Tienanman movement, the government allowed the students to protest in the beginning. They eventually stopped the protest after they thought it was getting out of control, but not as soon as the uprising started. Which seems contradictory in a communist state.

Beijing's two-pronged strategy is " a softer line toward docile civil society organizations and a harder line toward those who challenge the state." In the article, it became obvious of this. For example, the Chinese government allowed Muslims to practice their religion in a certain part of China, if they attended government-led Muslim activities. As these people practiced their religion and were not harmful to the existence to the state, the government simply regulated it and let it occur. Though in the article, it states that the government "smashes" and religious group it does not control. As an example for those who "challenge the state" the Chinese media is one of the largest groups. Though it is not necessarily the media, but the access to information. The government does not want the Chinese people to be able to access all the information they would like, so it is censored. This practice has become increasingly strict, as they have even begun to monitor the sites citizens visit. If a citizen repeatedly tries to access a blocked site, they could be arrested. If the Chinese government allowed the citizens to access the information available on the internet, I think there would be more of a push towards democratization. Though the Chinese people only have rumor and the insignificant amount of information provided to them by the government. Though because the government is becoming more lenient, I think that it is leaning towards democracy, even slightly as it is.

Multinational corporations should be held responsible in ensuring that they are not violating human rights, but because for the most part the regulation is so out of date, or non existent, a corporation can not be expected to do so without such regulation. Though, morally it is wrong, if the company is not regulated by the government to do so, they can not be expected to. Those corporations should be expected to follow the local laws, however since for the most part the local governments do not inforce such laws, the corporations do not follow them.

Tienanman

Though the Tienanman Square Movement is considered a student movement, I think the government decided to respond to the people so violently was because they believed without doing so, they were allowing the people more freedom than they had ever intended to give them. Ten years before the movement, an act like this would be quickly subdued and all who followed it would be severly government. But around the time when the movement happened, the government had become more lax in enforcing the laws. The government also had realized that the information about the movement was reaching other nations, and they didn't want this to happen. They wanted to control the media and their international image seen by other countries. The other threat that the Chinese Government felt was because so many people joined the movement. The movement began as student led, however many regular citizens had joined after seeing the students actions. The movement had begun to threaten the Communist party, and they felt it was time to subdue it.

The reforms did not stop altogether after the movement. Deng had decided to appease the people minimally by stopping the political reforms within the country, however he refused to halt the economic reforms within China.

There are "two Chinas" in existence according to the film. One is a richer, more modern China which those who belong to this group benefit greatly. The other China is a more poor, "disenfranchized" China, in which the peasant groups are constantly rebelling against the government, but seemingly to no avail.

Prospects for Democracy

The Tiananmen Square incident is an incredible incident in China's history. Not incredible in it being 'awesome', but that it seemed to have a significant impact around the turning point of their economic status. They were an authoritarian government, but it was obvious that the government had become increasingly lax with their strict rules, especially for such an event to occur. The fact that it was the younger population that started the incident, suggests that something was different about the education that they were recieving in relation to that of older generations. Though one of the most interesting parts about the incident is that the young Chinese citizens wanted to remember the previous ruler, even though he would be considered as an authoritarian ruler. I think that this incident complicates the meaning of security as the people acted in defiance, but the government did not act right away. It took them nearly a month to do so, but when they did, their actions were horrifying. For the most part, when people think about security, they can list what they think of, and when they think of how they will get this security, as in who will protect them, most think it is in the hands of their government. Yet, when the government acts maliciously, and against the people, where do they seek security then? The government is the highest agency in the land, and if they aren't protecting the people, then there is no protection for them. It is a terrifying thought to have, but during this incident, I'm sure it was even more terrifying to the Chinese people. I think looking back on this incident, it is memorable, but not a highlight of the history of China because of all the violence that the government took in response to the people.

Pei/Guthrie/Hu

In the Pei article, China has had social unrest, yet has economically grown as the Chinese government has exercised essentially anything goes policy. By imposing large taxes on the Chinese people, they are making more revenue for the government, in turn angering the people to extreme discontent.

Under the radical rule of Mao, the Chinese people experienced a long bout of unrest. The government had instituted a policy of nearly complete isolationism, and those who interacted with foreigners were usually punished, or kept under close watch. The communist government also instituted nearly complete socialist control. Deng chose to lead the country in the opposite direction as a direct result of the unhappiness of the people. His control was completely opposite from that of Mao. There was no longer only government controlled facilities but privatization was being phased in. Interaction with foreign countries for trade was encouraged. Deng first decided to elimate Mao's "cult" rule over the Chinese people. Deng was especially advocating foreign relations as his made many international trips throughout his rule. Part of the reason why Deng was not completely successful was because of his unwillingness to embrace democracy, and strict loyalty to socialism. With the evolving economy, and changing social society, the shift was more towards a democratic state than a socialist one, however, Deng would not let China become a known democracy. Although, Deng did work to end some social unrest. Instead of all the power being centralized in the federal government, it was diffused into local authorities to be more responsive to the needs of the individual people. Though, his rule was hypocratic. Most of his ideals and the way he had begun to shape the government were not that of the regular communist rule. With these contradictions, the economy began to fail as an indirect result.

The Pei article confirms the economic problems within China, as these problems are still in existence.

Revving up the China Threat/Discourses of Security in China

Regarding the "Revving up the China Threat" I had a question on the first event discussed in the document. I was unsure of what it was meant by the "resolution of issues concerning the Taiwan Strait" and was wondering if you'd be able to clear that up for me? Thank you.

Upon first reading the Revving up the China threat article, my reaction is that I see the points that are being made, but I don't really see any evidence backing up those points. What is being constituted as a threat can be seen as legitimate however, because why would a country amp up its military without preparing for some action. It would be seemingly pointless to do so. Though this can also be seen as an overraction by the United States Government in constituting China as a threat for those reasons. In the part about Rumsfield I see him simply telling why the US thinks China is a threat, but without solid evidence provided. In a part of the article, it states that the US should supress any country that is seemingly a threat to become a global power, which can seem a bit ridiculous. But if looked at from the other side, it can be seen as simply protecting the country from a threat becoming reality. When you first read the article, the first ideas list why China is a threat, without sufficient reasoning but as you go on, the author gives several reasons. First, China's weaponry in the past was completely obsolete, but recently they have purchased new weapons from Russia that make them more of a military threat than they had ever been. Also, China has struck deals with numerous countries for petroleum imports, which also poses a threat to the the US. Not only because the US relies on petroleum heavily, but the Chinese could be using this for it's military. Though in the beginning I think it is a bit ridiculous to assume no countries threaten China because as the US is strengthening it's forces, it can be seen as a threat. I think that US leaders are acting conventionally as they are looking for the best interest in protecting the country, by trying to appeal to the people and making the China situation known as well as taking security to the next level.

Zhang acknowledges that China not only had recognized the traditional aspects of how security is handled, but also the non-traditional. However, he also recognizes that China has become a security threat for other countries for quite some time now. Now because China wants to be linked in the global market, other countries have increasingly noticed this threat. Though America sees China as a threat, elitists in China have been analyzing how the US has become a threat to them in the sense of global power.

The second article was much more difficult to understand than the first, however I found it interesting, I'm finding it difficult answering the questions provided.

The Countdown to Beijing

The first article, "The Countdown to Beijing" discusses what the government of Beijing is doing to prepare for the 2008 Olympics. The ideas they have to cut down on air pollution are seemingly good, such as planting trees to absorb the CO2 and banning cars from operating to cut down on emissions. However, this seems like short term solutions to the air pollution problems they are experiencing. I think that the Chinese government should not be looking towards temporarily fixing the problem, but rather finding a long term solution, or the problem is just going to keep coming back. I also think that this should be more regulated, though I'm not too sure how it would be done to make sure that the Chinese government has come into compliance. It can be done because the Olympics is going to be held there, but there should also be some regulation on the air pollution in China after the 2008 Olympics have ended. In this essay Cha states that when a country holds such a big event as the Olympics, they are going to come out a changed nation. He specifically referenced Japan stating it took them out of warfare, and says that once the Olympics are over in China, it will be recognized as a technologically advanced country. The change in Korea was the type of government in which is switched over to after the Olympics were held. What once had been an authoritarian government became increasingly democratic in the years following the 1988 Olympics. I think that if a country holds something so widely known, such as the Olympics, they may come out changed as they will become more widely recognized as a result of the tourism that takes place in the country that would not happen on such a widespread scale without such an event.

In "the Weight of History" Beeson discusses the events that led up to the success of Japan as a nation. The article mainly discusses that battles that Japan went through to be recognized as the nation that they are. Japan experienced a bout of isolationism to protect their culture until the mid 19th century.