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.