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.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
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.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)