Several Western news resources like to announce in their titles that China or that Japan has raised their military budget again. They make it sound as if these countries would be getting ready for war (it is always left open with whom). But this is a mistaken impression they create. The news are not fake: usually the data is in the articles. However, the tone of titles and their wording is obviously misleading. And the data is usually not presented in comparison with relevant trends and info, so it looks scarier than it is.
So, some basic numbers. Most of the following come from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) which is nicely compiled on wikipedia, and also links to the original.
Biggest spenders
At the moment the biggest spender is the US, the second is China, third Saudi Arabia, followed by Russia in the fourth place. Then we have India, the UK, France, and Japan in the 8th place. Germany and South Korea make up the top ten.
GDP relative spending
In terms of GDP the US and China are the biggest economies in the world. Japan follows in the third place, Germany fourth. So Japan and Germany place much further back, they spend much less relative to what they have, than many other countries.
To look at some numbers
the US spends 3.1% of its GDP
China 1.9%
Saudi Arabia 10%
Russia 4.3%
India 2.5%
UK 1.8%
Japan 0.9%
Germany 1.2%
This indicates which countries place a huge emphasis on developing and maintaining their military strength.
It is of course influenced
1) by how risky the country's environment is (but then Japan's should be much higher of course),
2) by how big the country's GDP is (the UK's 1.8% is just a bit bigger than Japan's 0.9% for example), and
3) by local prices (China can pay much less for most military personnel and products because labour costs are lower and many corporations are fully or partially state owned).
Political factors
In some cases the spending is just defense oriented, in some cases it is upkeep and development oriented, and in some cases it is potentially (or very likely) aggression oriented.
For example much of Germany's spending simply goes to upkeep. Japan is developing a good deal this year, but this is mostly defense oriented: since China and Russia, its giant neighbours, are upgrading and developing their military very fast Japan needs to spend on defense. The USA, China, Russia and Saudi Arabia are developing attacking capabilities, spending great amounts on research and new weapons (both development and purchasing).
Of course all countries look at their own safety, but with some we also know that they have territorial ambitions (China has asserted its claim to Taiwan and the South-China sea, so its preparing to fight if others don't simply allow it to capture those territories).
Real terms
It is also important to look at spending in real terms. That is, how much actual money has been spent. The top three are the US, China and Saudi Arabia.
The US has spent 610 billion US dollars (same for all others: billion USD)
China 228
Saudi Arabia 69.4
Russia 66.3
India 66.9
France 57.8
UK 47.2
Japan 45.4
Germany 44.3
South Korea 39.2
In this light we can see that the US surpasses by far all of the others. However its forces are spread out all over the world. China's and Russia forces, although seemingly cheaper, are much more concentrated which might mean that they are stronger in some locations.
It is also telling that the three biggest Europeans don't spend together as much as China.
Japan doesn't spend much more than South-Korea and already that is controversial with voters and opposition politicians. Both Japan and South-Korea have US forces stationed within their borders and could - hopefully, but who knows with Trump - count on the US's support in case of aggression. Still, one wonders whether they shouldn't build up their own, homegrown industry more in the current climate of an expansionist China, and an assertive Russia.
Rise in budgets year on year
This is important because it shows how much need the countries see there is for development. This can reflect worries about their neighbours or rivals, as well as intentions to turn to the offensive.
I didn't look that much into the data on this front but the numbers on the US, China and Japan have been much commented on, so it is easy to have. Again, it is characteristic of reporting that the enormous raise in the US budget is discussed, but usually in fairly realistic terms. I think this is fair, given that the US is in a competition for hegemony in many areas with Russia, China, in West-Asia, in the Arctic, and increasingly also in Africa. This might be morally wrong - as most military building is - but strategically necessary - because if the US would behave better that wouldn't mean the two other superpowers would stop misbehaving.
Anyway, the reported number is 10%, which is "huge" as one guy likes to say.
The reporting on China and Japan has, as usual, been much more alarmist. The funny thing is that both follow trends and both could be anticipated, so, shouldn't be very surprising. Also, from a strategic point of view maybe the Japanese budget doesn't make that much sense - why don't they increase a lot more!? - but the political situation and Japan's foreign policy makes sense of this too - Japan places emphasis on international law, economic relations and rejects employing offensive weapon system, despite all the panic and fear mongering to the contrary that we saw in the Chinese and US media. (The Guardian published a refreshingly well-contextualised short piece on this one.)
China's spending is now officially around 175 billion USD but expert estimate it to be around 225-230b USD actually. Sadly their budget is notoriously secretive. Not even citizens can access it.
This means a raise of 8.1% from last year's spending.
China likes to point out that in terms of GDP their spending has been decreasing. This is just smokescreening of course: its true, but the real numbers, the actual amount has still been rising fast, since the economy grew so much in the last 30 years.
This is in line with their enormous military capability build up. We see that China is getting bolder and bolder. Earlier its goal was just to have sufficient defense against its immediate neighbours (India, Russia). Recently it also tries to dominate its smaller neighbours (Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Nepal, Thailand) and threaten seriously Japan and South-Korea. It also asserted that it claims Taiwan and the South-China Sea, so, it needs to be able to deny access to these areas to the US military stationed in East- and South-East Asia, and it also needs to be able to counter a possible reclaiming attack. The numbers make sense in this light. Of course that they make sense doesn't mean that they are morally or politically encouraging. China is on the road to aggression under Xi's leadership, and this should worry all of us. Maybe a leadership change would help.
Japan's spending was raised by 2.5%. Yup, this is what the big excitement is about. (Up next! Another RECORD setting 2.1% raise is in line! Notice that almost all the titles use the word 'record. I know its a hard fight out there for readers but this is just ridiculous.) This is in line with their policy to pursue diplomacy and rely on the international legal tools and organizations rather than military pressure. Japan has been following this policy coherently since the end of WWII, so for more than 70 years. Abe is possibly the most hawkish and influential prime minister since the 1960s and still, Japan didn't turn into an aggressor, no matter how much the Chinese media would like to portray him like that. And of course the Japanese spending is still eminently transparent, as it should be in a democracy.
So, think a bit, look into the context and don't judge too quickly when you see a title and a few numbers. Yes, there are rising tensions, yes there is a buildup. But no, no one is going to jump against the others' throat in the next year or two, and no, Japan is not turning into an imperialist superpower again. China is still a long way from contesting US dominance on a global scale, but it can do this already in the local theatre of operations (or war, if there will be one). Russia maintains high spending, Saudi Arabia is building up like crazy, and Europe is maintaining a sensible apparatus.
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Sunday, 2 September 2018
Thursday, 23 August 2018
Interesting developments in Turkey and Europe
The Turkey-Trump brawl might have a good outcome for the EU
Turkey got into a huge trade brawl with the US (or rather: with Trump). It is seeing some bad consequences of this at the moment. However it is a big and robust economy so this might not stick.
Behind Trump's warlike attitude to trade there is another reason for him to target Turkey. In the Middle-East/West-Asian region Saudi Arabia is the most powerful ally and proxy of the US (besides Israel), Iran is the key partner of Russia. Turkey is a regional competitor for the Saudis, Israel, and Iran. And it has several conflicts of interests with Russia. Trump coordinates several of his movements with Russia now. One of Trump's aims is to weaken the EU. He is afraid of a strong and well-coordinated EU policy that he can't push around easily so he is trying to weaken the bloc in every way he can (that's the same strategy that Putin and Xi Jinping are pursuing).
Attacking Turkey, which is usually aligning with the EU on global scale issues is one way of doing this. Turkey is now in a difficult position. The president, Erdogan has made several political, legal, economic, and military moves which make the EU distrustful of him. The population of the EU in general has a strongly negative opinion of him and his government. So, he is in a hard position when needs help and financial support. In the long run of course it is not in the EU's interest to lose one of their key allies in the region, or to see them destabilised.
However, Trump's push might also come in handy for the EU. Challenging Erdogan proved to be a hard task so far since Turkey is big enough and Erdogan popular enough not to have to rely on the EU too much in the short run. The joint US-Russian pressure on Turkey might weaken it enough to prompt Erdogan seek EU favour and support and to be willing to give up some of his prerogatives. The EU shouldn't give in at that point. If Erdogan becomes unpopular enough and he can be removed so much the better for Turkey and for the EU. In the long run this could get Erdogan out of the way and enable transition to a more democratic, transparent legal governance in Turkey. That would be a wonderful result. Trump inadvertently might enable this.
Turkey got into a huge trade brawl with the US (or rather: with Trump). It is seeing some bad consequences of this at the moment. However it is a big and robust economy so this might not stick.
Behind Trump's warlike attitude to trade there is another reason for him to target Turkey. In the Middle-East/West-Asian region Saudi Arabia is the most powerful ally and proxy of the US (besides Israel), Iran is the key partner of Russia. Turkey is a regional competitor for the Saudis, Israel, and Iran. And it has several conflicts of interests with Russia. Trump coordinates several of his movements with Russia now. One of Trump's aims is to weaken the EU. He is afraid of a strong and well-coordinated EU policy that he can't push around easily so he is trying to weaken the bloc in every way he can (that's the same strategy that Putin and Xi Jinping are pursuing).
Attacking Turkey, which is usually aligning with the EU on global scale issues is one way of doing this. Turkey is now in a difficult position. The president, Erdogan has made several political, legal, economic, and military moves which make the EU distrustful of him. The population of the EU in general has a strongly negative opinion of him and his government. So, he is in a hard position when needs help and financial support. In the long run of course it is not in the EU's interest to lose one of their key allies in the region, or to see them destabilised.
However, Trump's push might also come in handy for the EU. Challenging Erdogan proved to be a hard task so far since Turkey is big enough and Erdogan popular enough not to have to rely on the EU too much in the short run. The joint US-Russian pressure on Turkey might weaken it enough to prompt Erdogan seek EU favour and support and to be willing to give up some of his prerogatives. The EU shouldn't give in at that point. If Erdogan becomes unpopular enough and he can be removed so much the better for Turkey and for the EU. In the long run this could get Erdogan out of the way and enable transition to a more democratic, transparent legal governance in Turkey. That would be a wonderful result. Trump inadvertently might enable this.
Tuesday, 21 August 2018
Good explanation of why Trump's North-Korea posturing was inefficient
Trump tried to appear as if he would call the cards in the issues around North-Korea. But of course anyone worth their salt knows that the two Koreas, China, Russia and Japan are the main players on this one. In fact, mostly the two Koreas and China. The question is whether South-Korea is willing to change long-term strategy and integrate more into the East-Asian order, and accept the lead of China, in exchange for peace and more cooperation or even unification with North-Korea.
See this detailed, readable and clear analysis in Paste Magazine for more.
See this detailed, readable and clear analysis in Paste Magazine for more.
Tuesday, 14 August 2018
Our new feudal realms - part 1
Two years ago I wrote a post that showed how we are lapsing back into feudalism. Extremely wealthy elites of professional, life-long reigning politicians and born-rich business and land owners have an enormous influence. They decide what happens in politics. These people are not members of a single nation. There are rather interests groups of them who work together. There are a few such groups in the US, in China, in the EU, in Russia and in most countries.
These people have figured out how to exploit democratic institutions for their own purposes. They rely on expert PR teams, lobbyists, spin doctors, rich supporters who own media outlets and links with the military. Most of these folks are motivated by money, or by ambition, or by a belief that they are the best for the world. Or a mixture of these. None of these delusions are true.
Some evidence would be nice you say?
China made Xi Jinping lifelong head of the party and the country. This is tragic. China was in a chaotic and exploited situation at the end of the imperial system around 1910. The abolishing of the old system was followed by almost 40 years of bloody civil wars between local warlords, strongmen, the communists, and the republicans. The British, the French, the Americans, the Russians, German, Dutch, and the Japanese all used this upheaval to push their influence on the country.
Maybe China went then the right way, maybe it didn't. But at least it abolished the single-person rule system, it became a strong free state, and had decent, stable government. The lack of human rights, of free speech, of accountability and transparency is tragic and horrible, as is police and party brutality. Add to this military aggression. Still, for the average Chinese citizen things were better than before.
This period is over. The country is back to the old system. Communism effectively was turned into a one-person lad dictatorship again. A sad, tragic story for a great country and people.
Turkey's democracy got gutted by Erdogan and his cronies. This process took place in front of our eyes, it is well documented and understood. Again, a sad end to a promising path to a country that was a much freer state 20 years ago than it is today.
Putin holds Russia firmly in his hands and showed in several state orchestrated cases against influential business and media actors that he is not afraid to use the whole state machinery to take anyone down opposing his circles.
Trump said several times that he is looking up to Putin and Xi as successful, respectable leaders.
And Orban in Hungary is the prime example of someone deconstructing the democratic state at light speed in order to establish himself and his family at the centre of the state permanently. Other anti-democratic leaders or would be leaders in the EU are dreaming of the same - most notably in Poland - but have been kept in check so far by the other countries and their own population. It seems that only the Hungarians, who have suffered from a semi-feudal monarchic systems inequalities until WWII - are foolish enough to choose returning to the old system, instead of trying to make democracy work.
We will soon find ourselves again as peasants and servants. In a world run by aristocrats and kings.
These people have figured out how to exploit democratic institutions for their own purposes. They rely on expert PR teams, lobbyists, spin doctors, rich supporters who own media outlets and links with the military. Most of these folks are motivated by money, or by ambition, or by a belief that they are the best for the world. Or a mixture of these. None of these delusions are true.
Some evidence would be nice you say?
China made Xi Jinping lifelong head of the party and the country. This is tragic. China was in a chaotic and exploited situation at the end of the imperial system around 1910. The abolishing of the old system was followed by almost 40 years of bloody civil wars between local warlords, strongmen, the communists, and the republicans. The British, the French, the Americans, the Russians, German, Dutch, and the Japanese all used this upheaval to push their influence on the country.
Maybe China went then the right way, maybe it didn't. But at least it abolished the single-person rule system, it became a strong free state, and had decent, stable government. The lack of human rights, of free speech, of accountability and transparency is tragic and horrible, as is police and party brutality. Add to this military aggression. Still, for the average Chinese citizen things were better than before.
This period is over. The country is back to the old system. Communism effectively was turned into a one-person lad dictatorship again. A sad, tragic story for a great country and people.
Turkey's democracy got gutted by Erdogan and his cronies. This process took place in front of our eyes, it is well documented and understood. Again, a sad end to a promising path to a country that was a much freer state 20 years ago than it is today.
Putin holds Russia firmly in his hands and showed in several state orchestrated cases against influential business and media actors that he is not afraid to use the whole state machinery to take anyone down opposing his circles.
Trump said several times that he is looking up to Putin and Xi as successful, respectable leaders.
And Orban in Hungary is the prime example of someone deconstructing the democratic state at light speed in order to establish himself and his family at the centre of the state permanently. Other anti-democratic leaders or would be leaders in the EU are dreaming of the same - most notably in Poland - but have been kept in check so far by the other countries and their own population. It seems that only the Hungarians, who have suffered from a semi-feudal monarchic systems inequalities until WWII - are foolish enough to choose returning to the old system, instead of trying to make democracy work.
We will soon find ourselves again as peasants and servants. In a world run by aristocrats and kings.
Vincent Van Gogh, Femme semant/Peasant Woman Sowing with a Basket (1881)
Monday, 13 August 2018
Tensions between the US, Japan, and China
Trump is pushing ahead with his extremely aggressive trade attacks. He is indiscriminate: he attacks rival China, which has an economy of the same size as the US, but also long standing allies Japan, South-Korea and Germany. It is obvious that what Trump can gain are mostly short term small wins, insignificant in real, long term economy. But that's enough for a celebrity who wants to get rich quick and then be out of the game. That this policy ruins trust between allies, undermines the international trade treaty system and institutions is of no concern to him.
How he treats Japan is also a good example of his arrogance and neglect for long term goals. The US has a policy of being present militarily in all regions which it perceives as important to its defense. Since its coastline is open to the Pacific, East-Asia is such a region. That is why it was important to the US to stop Japan from becoming a large power during WWII (not out of humanitarian concern for the Chinese or anyone else).
The US used the defeat of Japan to keep it under control. This is even so today. Its stationing a large part of its Asian military force in Japan. Every time Japan is doing well or would gain any advantage over the US in terms of technology or trade the US is using the 'we defend you' card, meaning: our military is in your country, and if you don't cooperate 1 we won't defend you, even though we have restricted your military development for 70+ years, and 2 we can attack you easily.
This has already happened, most notably during the 'trade wars' of the 1980s. This period saw large troubles in the US economy. Rather than addressing the microeconomic issues at home, US politicians bashed Japan and other trading partners with made-up claims of unfairness, etc., and used their military and political weight to force these countries to open their markets to US products. This happened for example with Microsoft, Intel and other companies. They entered Japan, and with heavy state backing killed off the local rivals. Meanwhile the US only opened its market to Japanese products partly and typically avoided purchasing the products of Japanese companies if possible (this is what happened to Fuji, Hitachi and other tech companies in the late 1980s/early 1990s). All these, to put it mildly, unfair actions were justified by aggressive, sometimes downright hateful propaganda by US politicians and corporate lobbyists.
The US is now doing the same. Trump is not a genius who is shaking up the US economy. He is just an opportunist who is using old tricks to gain short term advantages. His threat to increase tariffs on Japanese cars by 25% could cause huge losses for Japan, which is a much smaller economy dependent on exports. It is also an ally of the US, hosting its military bases, and often supporting the US's interests.
What Trump doesn't seem to grasp is that many Japanese voters, many foreigners, and many Japanese politicians are fed up with the current situation. If he keeps pushing policies in this direction Japan will lose its incentives to cooperate with the US in the future. If it aligns itself more with China or carves out a more independent position that would be a huge diplomatic, political, credibility and economic loss for the US. It could of course retaliate financially, but the many competitors of the US who would be happy about this could offset much of the losses of Japan, and a political-military realignment could lead the country to a much more independent or at least less directly threatened position.
A realignment for Japan might be the good idea then. If the US is not only an unreliable business partner, but it also cannot be trusted to keep its and its partners' long term defense interests in mind, then why stay close to it? China is closer, its economy is already in some measures larger than the US and a market of 1.4 billion buyers will have more potential as it develops than a 330 million market. Militarily, if the US is pursuing such an opportunist, short term strategy as it is doing under Trump, its presence in East-Asia can be reasonably doubted.
The Chinese government is already putting enormous pressure on Taiwan politically and militarily, while integrating with investment and joint ventures as much of its economy as possible. The US supports Taiwan on paper and sells its weapons, however it doesn't recognise the country formally. It is, as in many cases, not making a clear commitment and is balancing between two interests.
The Chinese leadership would of course love nothing more than having Japan on its side. This is after all how things were for most of the history: the two countries existed relatively peacefully, trading and exchanging diplomatic missions since 500AD. We might be headed back to those times. Trump is just hastening the dawn of US influence in the region by undermining his country's credibility.
How he treats Japan is also a good example of his arrogance and neglect for long term goals. The US has a policy of being present militarily in all regions which it perceives as important to its defense. Since its coastline is open to the Pacific, East-Asia is such a region. That is why it was important to the US to stop Japan from becoming a large power during WWII (not out of humanitarian concern for the Chinese or anyone else).
The US used the defeat of Japan to keep it under control. This is even so today. Its stationing a large part of its Asian military force in Japan. Every time Japan is doing well or would gain any advantage over the US in terms of technology or trade the US is using the 'we defend you' card, meaning: our military is in your country, and if you don't cooperate 1 we won't defend you, even though we have restricted your military development for 70+ years, and 2 we can attack you easily.
This has already happened, most notably during the 'trade wars' of the 1980s. This period saw large troubles in the US economy. Rather than addressing the microeconomic issues at home, US politicians bashed Japan and other trading partners with made-up claims of unfairness, etc., and used their military and political weight to force these countries to open their markets to US products. This happened for example with Microsoft, Intel and other companies. They entered Japan, and with heavy state backing killed off the local rivals. Meanwhile the US only opened its market to Japanese products partly and typically avoided purchasing the products of Japanese companies if possible (this is what happened to Fuji, Hitachi and other tech companies in the late 1980s/early 1990s). All these, to put it mildly, unfair actions were justified by aggressive, sometimes downright hateful propaganda by US politicians and corporate lobbyists.
The US is now doing the same. Trump is not a genius who is shaking up the US economy. He is just an opportunist who is using old tricks to gain short term advantages. His threat to increase tariffs on Japanese cars by 25% could cause huge losses for Japan, which is a much smaller economy dependent on exports. It is also an ally of the US, hosting its military bases, and often supporting the US's interests.
What Trump doesn't seem to grasp is that many Japanese voters, many foreigners, and many Japanese politicians are fed up with the current situation. If he keeps pushing policies in this direction Japan will lose its incentives to cooperate with the US in the future. If it aligns itself more with China or carves out a more independent position that would be a huge diplomatic, political, credibility and economic loss for the US. It could of course retaliate financially, but the many competitors of the US who would be happy about this could offset much of the losses of Japan, and a political-military realignment could lead the country to a much more independent or at least less directly threatened position.
A realignment for Japan might be the good idea then. If the US is not only an unreliable business partner, but it also cannot be trusted to keep its and its partners' long term defense interests in mind, then why stay close to it? China is closer, its economy is already in some measures larger than the US and a market of 1.4 billion buyers will have more potential as it develops than a 330 million market. Militarily, if the US is pursuing such an opportunist, short term strategy as it is doing under Trump, its presence in East-Asia can be reasonably doubted.
The Chinese government is already putting enormous pressure on Taiwan politically and militarily, while integrating with investment and joint ventures as much of its economy as possible. The US supports Taiwan on paper and sells its weapons, however it doesn't recognise the country formally. It is, as in many cases, not making a clear commitment and is balancing between two interests.
The Chinese leadership would of course love nothing more than having Japan on its side. This is after all how things were for most of the history: the two countries existed relatively peacefully, trading and exchanging diplomatic missions since 500AD. We might be headed back to those times. Trump is just hastening the dawn of US influence in the region by undermining his country's credibility.
Tuesday, 7 August 2018
Why Japan does not need to and should not apologize anymore for WWII deeds
1. No other states - except Germany - do this. The USA, Russia, China, France, the UK, Belgium and several other countries which are or have in the past committed aggression, genocide, civilian killings, colonization and other horrors have never and are never going to apologize
2. Japan has apologized already more than 10 times. See the list here.
3. No matter how many times Japan would apologize other states would find some fault with the apology. China and South-Korea usually claim that the apology isn't honest or bicker about some detail. They don't do this because the governments and foreign ministries of these countries honestly think that the apology is no good. They do this because being able to bash another country is a strong diplomatic tool. These countries - and many other economic rivals of Japan - try to make Japan look bad so that they can use this as a leverage in economic and trade talks, competition, and so on. No matter how many times and how precisely Japan would apologize, politicians who are leading countries that compete with Japan would always find fault with the apology.
4. Japan has more than atoned for its wartime aggression and crimes. It has been firebombed for years by the USA and all its major cities and a large part of its civilian population has been killed. Russia occupied some of its territory, and the US is effectively still in Japan with its military. Both Russia and the US often use this to pressure the Japanese government to this day. Japan has paid large amounts in compensation to most states it has formerly occupied and assisted them with technology and training (this is something that even the Chinese government has admitted).
5. China, the US, Russia, France, the UK, and several other states are or have waged many aggressive wars since the end of WWII. China has occupied other countries, Russia went to war with Georgia (Gruzia), Chechnya, Afghanistan, and has occupied - through the Soviet Union - the larger part of East- and Central-Europe for a good 45 years, the US is constantly waging war in West-Asia and the Middle-East, and has interfered countless times in Central- and South-America, not to mention Southeast-Asia. In contrast since WWII Japan doesn't have attacking forces, only self-defense forces with limited attacking capabilities. It hasn't engaged in aggression against any country.
6. There is no intention on Japan's part for any aggression. While it is obvious that several countries - China, the US, Russia, and others - are planning or preparing for further aggression, there is no evidence of any such intent on Japan's part. Some alarmists and propaganda journalists are yelling because Japan is developing its military capabilities now. The fact is that Japan's military spending is still far below that of its neighbours. Its military today is far smaller and weaker than that of China, Russia or the US. Japan is perfectly justified in developing its military for defense purposes because its sitting geographically between the three largest and most aggressive political and military powers of the world. In fact, in my opinion, they would be mad not to do so. Any military improvement today occurs in an entirely different political and military environment from the early 20th century.
7. The Japanese who were the leaders of the country before and during WWII are long dead. More than 900 of them were executed after WWII and tens of thousands imprisoned and banned from public life. The two generations of Japanese since then are very openly peaceful, have several times resisted even mild military improvements, and are committed to keeping Japan a peaceful country.
8. Contrary to popular international propaganda most people in Japan do know and study about war crimes committed by the Japanese army. Journalists and other Japan-bashers love to highlight that there are textbooks which downplay these events or only mention them in the passing. There are three major problems with this A) They never compare whether they own country's textbooks discuss any of the atrocities committed in their histories. B) They never mention that in Japan schools and teachers can decide which textbook they want to use and there is a market with at least 7-9 approved titles. The majority of students use books which discuss these events, include photographs and explanations. (See Akiko Hashimoto's The Long Defeat for a good overview. While her presentation of the material is excellent, she sadly draws mistaken conclusions from it, because she doesn't take the competitive political and military environment of the region into account.) C) These critics think that because the Japanese media and people in general don't discuss things in the manner in which Americans do - loud talking, lots of emotional debates on news programmes, etc. - people don't think or don't have an opinion about these things. In fact most Japanese do, and they reject very strongly what the Imperial Army did. That is one of the main reasons why for example the Japanese research community is not cooperating with the army, contrary to what we see at the moment in China or the US.
This is all perfectly compatible with keeping in mind and recognizing that the Japanese state and army, and many individuals, committed horrible things during and before WWII. This should be remembered, taught in schools and discussed. But, it should not define Japan's relation with its neighbours, its current reputation, its self-image or its future. At the moment the biggest problems plaguing Japan are the ongoing American meddling and quasi-military influence over it, China's growing aggression both in political, military and economic terms, and internal problems, like population decline and lagging international competitiveness of businesses, as well as inadequate social services support for young families.
Chinese citizens would do well to look at what their government is doing. Whenever any state pushes strong propaganda against another, the chances are good that it is actually only to hide something that they themselves have done. When the Chinese government bashes Japan, there is almost surely something going wrong at home. People need a distraction. China and Japan have a long political relationship which was mostly peaceful during the last 1500 years. Usually China was the stronger and more aggressive power, and Japan was during several periods a tributary of China's. There is no reason why a peaceful existence based on trade, law and cooperation - as Japan currently envisions it - could not work perfectly today. This is the real interest of China too.
2. Japan has apologized already more than 10 times. See the list here.
3. No matter how many times Japan would apologize other states would find some fault with the apology. China and South-Korea usually claim that the apology isn't honest or bicker about some detail. They don't do this because the governments and foreign ministries of these countries honestly think that the apology is no good. They do this because being able to bash another country is a strong diplomatic tool. These countries - and many other economic rivals of Japan - try to make Japan look bad so that they can use this as a leverage in economic and trade talks, competition, and so on. No matter how many times and how precisely Japan would apologize, politicians who are leading countries that compete with Japan would always find fault with the apology.
4. Japan has more than atoned for its wartime aggression and crimes. It has been firebombed for years by the USA and all its major cities and a large part of its civilian population has been killed. Russia occupied some of its territory, and the US is effectively still in Japan with its military. Both Russia and the US often use this to pressure the Japanese government to this day. Japan has paid large amounts in compensation to most states it has formerly occupied and assisted them with technology and training (this is something that even the Chinese government has admitted).
5. China, the US, Russia, France, the UK, and several other states are or have waged many aggressive wars since the end of WWII. China has occupied other countries, Russia went to war with Georgia (Gruzia), Chechnya, Afghanistan, and has occupied - through the Soviet Union - the larger part of East- and Central-Europe for a good 45 years, the US is constantly waging war in West-Asia and the Middle-East, and has interfered countless times in Central- and South-America, not to mention Southeast-Asia. In contrast since WWII Japan doesn't have attacking forces, only self-defense forces with limited attacking capabilities. It hasn't engaged in aggression against any country.
6. There is no intention on Japan's part for any aggression. While it is obvious that several countries - China, the US, Russia, and others - are planning or preparing for further aggression, there is no evidence of any such intent on Japan's part. Some alarmists and propaganda journalists are yelling because Japan is developing its military capabilities now. The fact is that Japan's military spending is still far below that of its neighbours. Its military today is far smaller and weaker than that of China, Russia or the US. Japan is perfectly justified in developing its military for defense purposes because its sitting geographically between the three largest and most aggressive political and military powers of the world. In fact, in my opinion, they would be mad not to do so. Any military improvement today occurs in an entirely different political and military environment from the early 20th century.
7. The Japanese who were the leaders of the country before and during WWII are long dead. More than 900 of them were executed after WWII and tens of thousands imprisoned and banned from public life. The two generations of Japanese since then are very openly peaceful, have several times resisted even mild military improvements, and are committed to keeping Japan a peaceful country.
8. Contrary to popular international propaganda most people in Japan do know and study about war crimes committed by the Japanese army. Journalists and other Japan-bashers love to highlight that there are textbooks which downplay these events or only mention them in the passing. There are three major problems with this A) They never compare whether they own country's textbooks discuss any of the atrocities committed in their histories. B) They never mention that in Japan schools and teachers can decide which textbook they want to use and there is a market with at least 7-9 approved titles. The majority of students use books which discuss these events, include photographs and explanations. (See Akiko Hashimoto's The Long Defeat for a good overview. While her presentation of the material is excellent, she sadly draws mistaken conclusions from it, because she doesn't take the competitive political and military environment of the region into account.) C) These critics think that because the Japanese media and people in general don't discuss things in the manner in which Americans do - loud talking, lots of emotional debates on news programmes, etc. - people don't think or don't have an opinion about these things. In fact most Japanese do, and they reject very strongly what the Imperial Army did. That is one of the main reasons why for example the Japanese research community is not cooperating with the army, contrary to what we see at the moment in China or the US.
This is all perfectly compatible with keeping in mind and recognizing that the Japanese state and army, and many individuals, committed horrible things during and before WWII. This should be remembered, taught in schools and discussed. But, it should not define Japan's relation with its neighbours, its current reputation, its self-image or its future. At the moment the biggest problems plaguing Japan are the ongoing American meddling and quasi-military influence over it, China's growing aggression both in political, military and economic terms, and internal problems, like population decline and lagging international competitiveness of businesses, as well as inadequate social services support for young families.
Chinese citizens would do well to look at what their government is doing. Whenever any state pushes strong propaganda against another, the chances are good that it is actually only to hide something that they themselves have done. When the Chinese government bashes Japan, there is almost surely something going wrong at home. People need a distraction. China and Japan have a long political relationship which was mostly peaceful during the last 1500 years. Usually China was the stronger and more aggressive power, and Japan was during several periods a tributary of China's. There is no reason why a peaceful existence based on trade, law and cooperation - as Japan currently envisions it - could not work perfectly today. This is the real interest of China too.
Monday, 12 December 2016
Inequality, income, and democracy
I've always been committed to the idea that economic growth is important, that the interests of companies and employers had to be taken into account and given due weight in considering policies and in politics in general. Still, what we are witnessing at the moment is similar to what people have witnessed in the second half of the 19th century, and the first decades of the 20th. We are witnessing an enormous inequality between people who own companies, shares in companies, land, and estates. And we see that instead of more fair and and egalitarian re-investment of significant portions of these gigantic amounts of wealth, a few individuals are sitting on them. This is so in the US, West and East Europe, just as much as in Japan, Australia, or in Russia, India and China.
Governments are more and more reluctant to intervene and do their job in running societies well by creating legal and financial environments that are conducive to good societies. And they are more and more inclined to make their members extremely wealthy in exchange of giving the richest even more freedom. These governments are failing the societies which elected them, and know that they do. So they spend large sums on expert marketing and communication, and highlight issues and direct common talk in ways so that people are occupied with questions of nationalism, immigration, belonging and being a member of the community, personal and community identities. Such issues are important, but they should be issues where tolerance reigns, and communities take care of their own identities. People are not imbeciles in need of constant guidance. Especially not from politicians.
However, politicians and their advisory teams know very well that such questions sell, that it is easy to create stifle and tension between people, and they can be distracted from their further exploitation by such topics. What we need to start focusing on is a fight. It is a fight in which we need to engage in. We need to push back on the governments, the political and the business elite, the large owners, and the estate moguls. We need to force them to create the kind of societies we want to live in. We need to do this peacefully, but firmly. No votes for people who don't represent our interest. In fact, no money for them. We need much stronger checks and balances, and much higher levels of civilian engagement. We need to be there, call these people back, and sack them if they are not representing the interests which they should be representing. And we need politicians who are willing and able to stand up against the private players lurking in the backgrounds.
People like Trump, Xun, Putin, May and others won't do this job. They are part of the wealthy class and are very much willing to run their countries so that while stability is ensured, as much money as possible is diverted to their supporting clubs and circles. This is not a global issue, independent or race, nation, colour. It is a moral, political, and a class issue. People who have wealth and influence out of proportion are running the game. And they don't run it fairly.
What we need is to stand up and organize our representation. We desperately need a union that represents all workers in the EU. Not based on nation, not based on cultural background, but on the fact that capitalism does not ensure that workers and employers are in the same position when bargaining for wages. When people are selling their time and energy they are vulnerable, while a class of huge owners could live comfortable lives even if they would never again work. We need to change this. Security, safety, wellbeing are things we all need. And the current system does not ensure that hard work gets you any of this.
Governments are more and more reluctant to intervene and do their job in running societies well by creating legal and financial environments that are conducive to good societies. And they are more and more inclined to make their members extremely wealthy in exchange of giving the richest even more freedom. These governments are failing the societies which elected them, and know that they do. So they spend large sums on expert marketing and communication, and highlight issues and direct common talk in ways so that people are occupied with questions of nationalism, immigration, belonging and being a member of the community, personal and community identities. Such issues are important, but they should be issues where tolerance reigns, and communities take care of their own identities. People are not imbeciles in need of constant guidance. Especially not from politicians.
However, politicians and their advisory teams know very well that such questions sell, that it is easy to create stifle and tension between people, and they can be distracted from their further exploitation by such topics. What we need to start focusing on is a fight. It is a fight in which we need to engage in. We need to push back on the governments, the political and the business elite, the large owners, and the estate moguls. We need to force them to create the kind of societies we want to live in. We need to do this peacefully, but firmly. No votes for people who don't represent our interest. In fact, no money for them. We need much stronger checks and balances, and much higher levels of civilian engagement. We need to be there, call these people back, and sack them if they are not representing the interests which they should be representing. And we need politicians who are willing and able to stand up against the private players lurking in the backgrounds.
People like Trump, Xun, Putin, May and others won't do this job. They are part of the wealthy class and are very much willing to run their countries so that while stability is ensured, as much money as possible is diverted to their supporting clubs and circles. This is not a global issue, independent or race, nation, colour. It is a moral, political, and a class issue. People who have wealth and influence out of proportion are running the game. And they don't run it fairly.
What we need is to stand up and organize our representation. We desperately need a union that represents all workers in the EU. Not based on nation, not based on cultural background, but on the fact that capitalism does not ensure that workers and employers are in the same position when bargaining for wages. When people are selling their time and energy they are vulnerable, while a class of huge owners could live comfortable lives even if they would never again work. We need to change this. Security, safety, wellbeing are things we all need. And the current system does not ensure that hard work gets you any of this.
Saturday, 12 November 2016
On voting and basic knowledge and understanding
"[J]ust having the right to vote is meaningless if a citizen is disenfranchised by illiteracy or semi-literacy. Illiterate and semi-literate Americans are condemned not only to poverty, but also to the powerlessness of incomprehension. Knowing that the do not understand the issues, and feeling prey to manipulative oversimplifications, they do not trust the system of which they are supposed to be the masters. They do not feel themselves to be active participants in our republic, and they often do not turn out to vote. the civic importance of cultural literacy lies in the fact that true enfranchisement depends upon knowledge, knowledge upon literacy, and literacy upon cultural literary. To be truly literate, citizens must be able to grasp the meaning of any piece of writing addressed to the general."
E. D. Hirsch What Every American Needs to Know: Cultural Literacy, p. 12.
The U.S. is a huge country, with a great population, lots of different school providers and standards, and myriads of beliefs and views. However one thing that became obvious lately - as it does during every election campaign - was that there are plenty of voters who are not really able to engage with complex information. Since they cannot do that they cannot form a realistic idea of what the U.S.'s position is like in the world, nor of what is going on in their own country. This led to many fruitless and silly debates. (This isn't just an issue for Trump supporters, although it is a pronounced one for many Trump supporters.)
What Hirsch proposed and argued for in part of his work, was that education should equip people both with the skills and some particular basics of how to handle and deal with knowledge about their nation. That this would be quite useful is now obvious. There is a danger of course that such proposals can be hijacked by the state to push its own agenda and teach students an ideology or a nationalist vision which fosters loyalty even if the governments is doing evil. However, Hirsch's recommendations are fairly particular and interesting, and an updated core knowledge elements might be a welcome and useful tool against technocracy and cultural illiteracy.
Here you can have a look at Hirsch's bio at the site of the Core Knowledge Foundation he set up.
And you can go on reading a bit about cultural literacy and some connected debates in The Atlantic and The Guardian.
E. D. Hirsch What Every American Needs to Know: Cultural Literacy, p. 12.
The U.S. is a huge country, with a great population, lots of different school providers and standards, and myriads of beliefs and views. However one thing that became obvious lately - as it does during every election campaign - was that there are plenty of voters who are not really able to engage with complex information. Since they cannot do that they cannot form a realistic idea of what the U.S.'s position is like in the world, nor of what is going on in their own country. This led to many fruitless and silly debates. (This isn't just an issue for Trump supporters, although it is a pronounced one for many Trump supporters.)
What Hirsch proposed and argued for in part of his work, was that education should equip people both with the skills and some particular basics of how to handle and deal with knowledge about their nation. That this would be quite useful is now obvious. There is a danger of course that such proposals can be hijacked by the state to push its own agenda and teach students an ideology or a nationalist vision which fosters loyalty even if the governments is doing evil. However, Hirsch's recommendations are fairly particular and interesting, and an updated core knowledge elements might be a welcome and useful tool against technocracy and cultural illiteracy.
Here you can have a look at Hirsch's bio at the site of the Core Knowledge Foundation he set up.
And you can go on reading a bit about cultural literacy and some connected debates in The Atlantic and The Guardian.
Wednesday, 9 November 2016
On the Trump presidency
Some articles (like this one in The Independent and this one in The Washington Post) mention two possibilities:
1. That Trump might not be as hot-headed and aggressive as he acted in his campaign, and that
2. a Trump presidency might be better for international military politics, because Trump said that he would be reluctant to wage wars if they are costly, or to defend allies if they don't pay towards their defense.
Both of these ideas are mistaken and there is no reason for hope and optimism.
With concern to 1.: The question is not whether Trump might be more sensible than the way he made himself look in his campaign. The question is if there is any good reason to think that is more sensible. There isn't. He was consistently haphazard, offensive, chaotic, unprepared, and unprofessional.
With concern to 2.: I've read in many places that Trump wants to talk to Putin and that is a good thing. Saying this makes it obvious that many - even intelligent - people believe that the U.S. administration and military is not maintaining constant close discussions on many topics with Russia. This is of course a false idea. Russia and the U.S. don't collide on many issues because they don't communicate.
Also, people who think that when Trump said he would talk with Russia that was a considered, serious thing haven't listened to his other ideas. He is just sputtering populist phrases. Whatever works at the moment. He knows as much about strategy, military issues, and economic competition with Russia as about other topics: next to nothing. As soon as he is seriously briefed and informed, if he even understands what he is being told, which is not sure, he might change his mind.
The same is the case concerning his ideas that the U.S. shouldn't offer defense arrangements for Japan, South-Korea and the Philippines. There are three enormous confusions here:
i) the U.S. does not offer defense. Japan had to accept that the U.S. military is stationed there at the end of the occupation following WWII. South-Korea had to accept the troops after the Korean war. The Philippines used to be a de facto U.S. colony. Also, Japan and South-Korea pay huge amounts towards the maintenance of the bases that the U.S. troops are using and towards the costs of the U.S. military.
Third, it is far from obvious that these countries really wanted the U.S. to station their troops there. That the U.S. is there ensures that these countries collide in their diplomacy with their other neighbours, Russia and China. If the U.S. troops would not be there these countries would have much more space for diplomatic manouvering and for looking out for their own interests. It is however part of the U.S. position that there can't be any powerful opponents on its borders. Canada and Mexico are no threats, across the Atlantic is a bloc of NATO countries, and Japan and South-Korea, as well as the Philippines form a big buffer zone between the U.S. and China. If the U.S. does not want to change its major defense policies it won't give up on these alliances.
Hence, there are no good reasons to be optimistic about Trump's presidency if he goes through with anything he has said.
1. That Trump might not be as hot-headed and aggressive as he acted in his campaign, and that
2. a Trump presidency might be better for international military politics, because Trump said that he would be reluctant to wage wars if they are costly, or to defend allies if they don't pay towards their defense.
Both of these ideas are mistaken and there is no reason for hope and optimism.
With concern to 1.: The question is not whether Trump might be more sensible than the way he made himself look in his campaign. The question is if there is any good reason to think that is more sensible. There isn't. He was consistently haphazard, offensive, chaotic, unprepared, and unprofessional.
With concern to 2.: I've read in many places that Trump wants to talk to Putin and that is a good thing. Saying this makes it obvious that many - even intelligent - people believe that the U.S. administration and military is not maintaining constant close discussions on many topics with Russia. This is of course a false idea. Russia and the U.S. don't collide on many issues because they don't communicate.
Also, people who think that when Trump said he would talk with Russia that was a considered, serious thing haven't listened to his other ideas. He is just sputtering populist phrases. Whatever works at the moment. He knows as much about strategy, military issues, and economic competition with Russia as about other topics: next to nothing. As soon as he is seriously briefed and informed, if he even understands what he is being told, which is not sure, he might change his mind.
The same is the case concerning his ideas that the U.S. shouldn't offer defense arrangements for Japan, South-Korea and the Philippines. There are three enormous confusions here:
i) the U.S. does not offer defense. Japan had to accept that the U.S. military is stationed there at the end of the occupation following WWII. South-Korea had to accept the troops after the Korean war. The Philippines used to be a de facto U.S. colony. Also, Japan and South-Korea pay huge amounts towards the maintenance of the bases that the U.S. troops are using and towards the costs of the U.S. military.
Third, it is far from obvious that these countries really wanted the U.S. to station their troops there. That the U.S. is there ensures that these countries collide in their diplomacy with their other neighbours, Russia and China. If the U.S. troops would not be there these countries would have much more space for diplomatic manouvering and for looking out for their own interests. It is however part of the U.S. position that there can't be any powerful opponents on its borders. Canada and Mexico are no threats, across the Atlantic is a bloc of NATO countries, and Japan and South-Korea, as well as the Philippines form a big buffer zone between the U.S. and China. If the U.S. does not want to change its major defense policies it won't give up on these alliances.
Hence, there are no good reasons to be optimistic about Trump's presidency if he goes through with anything he has said.
Monday, 31 October 2016
On the new FBI investigation of Clinton's emails
The last minute opening of a new investigation into Hillary Clinton's handling of her emails shows three things:
- Trump and his team were convinced that if they don't get some serious mud-throwing done in the last minute they will lose.
- The Republican party has its pants full. Trump has hijacked them, and if Trump loses then not only did a madman tarnish their reputation, he will even lose for them, making them very weak.
- The Republican party and Trump have enough leverage with people at the FBI to force the opening of such an investigation before the election. Gives you an idea where the money that Trump saved on not paying taxes is going.
This is such an outrageous case of corruption that if the Russian government wouldn't be so eager to push its propaganda against the US others would nevertheless say the same things this week.
- Trump and his team were convinced that if they don't get some serious mud-throwing done in the last minute they will lose.
- The Republican party has its pants full. Trump has hijacked them, and if Trump loses then not only did a madman tarnish their reputation, he will even lose for them, making them very weak.
- The Republican party and Trump have enough leverage with people at the FBI to force the opening of such an investigation before the election. Gives you an idea where the money that Trump saved on not paying taxes is going.
This is such an outrageous case of corruption that if the Russian government wouldn't be so eager to push its propaganda against the US others would nevertheless say the same things this week.
Saturday, 22 October 2016
On Akiko Hashimoto's 'The Long Defeat'
Akiko Hashimoto's book offers a very good overview of Japanese attempts both of politicians and civilians to understand their role in the second world war, and since then.
Hashimoto covers the main political debates between pacifists, nationalists, and reconciliationists, as she divides the calls her groupings of the main approaches. These distinctions are someties oversimplified, but there are plenty of details and careful references, so anyone can strike out and make up their own mind about the issues discussed.
The last 30 pages of the book are in many respects the most interesting since Hashimoto reflects briefly on the post 2000 events up to 2014. It is too bad that she doesn't deal on more pages with the effects of Chinese and South-Korean nationalism, and the hatred against Japan stoked by Chinese and Korean (both North and South) governments. This is a phenomenon we have seen more of recently, and is used as a tool by the Chinese and Koreans to direct away attention from internal politics and economic problems, and their own issues with authoritarianism and human rights issues; and of course China uses this as an excuse for its own aggressive military expansion. These factors are becoming more and more important as China and both Koreas grow stronger, and turn many of the earlier fears of nationalist Japanese politicians into actual threats that Japan has to take seriously.
Of course these factors also complicate the picture of how Japan should relate to its own WWII role and validate that it should simply move on. Enough apologies have been offered, restitutions have been paid, and since WWII Japan is more peaceful and democratic than the large majority of its vocal critics, including China, the Koreas, and the US. Chinese and South-Korean politicians are utterly reluctant to admit the strenght of the Japanese peace-movements, the fact that their militaries are stronger or as strong as the Japanese, or that they are employing authoritarian, dictatoric means against their own citizens, as well as that they also have a violent history going back millenias. Until they use the conflicts with Japan for domestic political purposes in this way, the apology-politics should stop, the topic should be dropped, and a more forward looking vision crafted for Japan. Of course the horrible war crimes perpetrated by Japanese soldiers, leaders and sometimes even civilians have to be openly remembered. But they do not constitute the whole history of Japan, nor are they the only and main thing about the country around which its identity should be constructed.
This is perhaps my biggest point of disagreement with Hashimoto, who never challenges whether the relationship to Japan to its WWII role should be a central topic these days, and whether it should really be so important to the nation's identity (if there is such a thing at all). Surely there is more to Japan's history the tragic and guilty war years between, say roughly 1929-1945, and there is definitely more to it more than 70 years down the line. Since then Japan has been supporting other countries in their economic build-up, been a peaceful country, and evolved into a major welfare state conscious of the rights, interests, and wellbeing of its citizens. This cannot be said of the US which waged many wars and where the social network - which was always weak - hasn't developed properly, or China where an authoritarian regime is keeping its people cut off from the internet, occupied tibet, the north-eastern territories, and is punishing by torture, prisoning and force any serious organized dissent. The maniac focus on the issue of Japan's WWII role just seems to serve political interests of nationalist politicians in Japan, and the Chinese, Korean, Russian, and US military and political dilpomacy.
Akiko Hashimoto, The Long Defeat. 2015. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hashimoto covers the main political debates between pacifists, nationalists, and reconciliationists, as she divides the calls her groupings of the main approaches. These distinctions are someties oversimplified, but there are plenty of details and careful references, so anyone can strike out and make up their own mind about the issues discussed.
The last 30 pages of the book are in many respects the most interesting since Hashimoto reflects briefly on the post 2000 events up to 2014. It is too bad that she doesn't deal on more pages with the effects of Chinese and South-Korean nationalism, and the hatred against Japan stoked by Chinese and Korean (both North and South) governments. This is a phenomenon we have seen more of recently, and is used as a tool by the Chinese and Koreans to direct away attention from internal politics and economic problems, and their own issues with authoritarianism and human rights issues; and of course China uses this as an excuse for its own aggressive military expansion. These factors are becoming more and more important as China and both Koreas grow stronger, and turn many of the earlier fears of nationalist Japanese politicians into actual threats that Japan has to take seriously.
Of course these factors also complicate the picture of how Japan should relate to its own WWII role and validate that it should simply move on. Enough apologies have been offered, restitutions have been paid, and since WWII Japan is more peaceful and democratic than the large majority of its vocal critics, including China, the Koreas, and the US. Chinese and South-Korean politicians are utterly reluctant to admit the strenght of the Japanese peace-movements, the fact that their militaries are stronger or as strong as the Japanese, or that they are employing authoritarian, dictatoric means against their own citizens, as well as that they also have a violent history going back millenias. Until they use the conflicts with Japan for domestic political purposes in this way, the apology-politics should stop, the topic should be dropped, and a more forward looking vision crafted for Japan. Of course the horrible war crimes perpetrated by Japanese soldiers, leaders and sometimes even civilians have to be openly remembered. But they do not constitute the whole history of Japan, nor are they the only and main thing about the country around which its identity should be constructed.
This is perhaps my biggest point of disagreement with Hashimoto, who never challenges whether the relationship to Japan to its WWII role should be a central topic these days, and whether it should really be so important to the nation's identity (if there is such a thing at all). Surely there is more to Japan's history the tragic and guilty war years between, say roughly 1929-1945, and there is definitely more to it more than 70 years down the line. Since then Japan has been supporting other countries in their economic build-up, been a peaceful country, and evolved into a major welfare state conscious of the rights, interests, and wellbeing of its citizens. This cannot be said of the US which waged many wars and where the social network - which was always weak - hasn't developed properly, or China where an authoritarian regime is keeping its people cut off from the internet, occupied tibet, the north-eastern territories, and is punishing by torture, prisoning and force any serious organized dissent. The maniac focus on the issue of Japan's WWII role just seems to serve political interests of nationalist politicians in Japan, and the Chinese, Korean, Russian, and US military and political dilpomacy.
Akiko Hashimoto, The Long Defeat. 2015. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sunday, 9 October 2016
On hating other nations
Politicans talk of 'people' and 'nations' often. They do this to achieve an effect. They are talking rubbish. No nation is unified in the sense in which they say it is. No country, not even a village!, has only people who think in the same way, who live in the same way. No country or nation is 'good' or 'bad'. Governments, leaders, individuals, organizations are eveil, bad, heroic, good, decent, average. But countries?
Talk of nations usually engeders an artifical 'them and us' way of thinking. The army and politicians use it to awaken hate and alienation in people towards others living in different countries. They use this hatred when they are justifying wars and other horrors they inflict on others in the name of their countries.
The truth is that people are the same everywhere. Sure, cultures, habits, efficiency, cleanliness, clothes, etc. differ. What does not differ is that there are good and bad and average people everywhere. That the average Jane, or Cuicui, or Sakura, or Johanna does not want war and does not care about other countries. The average John, or Jose, or Maua, or Xun wants to get on with his job, be safe, and have a healthy family. This is what is universal and what would serve as a perfect platform for peaceful global growth. All war and conflict is about the power-games of leaderships who have interests in gaining more money and power. Be that Russia, China, the US, or the European countries, Japan or African or South-American countries, it is always about the might of the elites. Wars are not for and in the interest of the people.
The section quoted below illustrates eminently well how people find out that other countries have normal folks living in them too.
"Yes, I remember that being at war with the Italians was taken as a licence for Americans to defecate all over them. Even though most of us in the base section at Naples had never closed with an Italian in combat. Our argument was that we should treat the Neapolitans as the Neapolitans would have treated our cities presumably if they'd won the war. I watched old ladies of Naples pushed off the sidewalks by drunken GIs and officers. Every Italian girl was fair pray to propositions we wouldn't have made to a streetwalker back home. Those who spoke Italian used the tu on everyone they met. And I remember seeing American MPs beating the driver of a horse and wagon because they were obstructing traffic on Via Roma. I don't think the Germans could have done any better in their concentration camps. I thought that all humanity had gone from the world, and that this war had smothered decency forever.
- These Eyeties, the mess sergeant said, ain't human beins. They're just Gooks, that's all.
- All I know, the corporal said doggedly and worriedly, is that they ain't Americans...They don't see things the way we do.
- They'd steal anything, the mess sergeant said, stuffing a turkey, his mouth crammed with giblet leavings.
I remember that other arguments against the Neapolitans, besides the cardinal one, that they'd declared war on us, were that they stole and were filthy-dirty. I only know that no Neapolitan ever stole anything from me, for I took pains to see that no temptation was put in their way. Though once my wallet was lifted in a New York subway. And for those Neapolitans to whom I sometimes gave an extra bar of soap, I noticed that they used this soap joyfully on themselves, their children, their clothes. I've buried my face in the hair of Neapolitan girls. It was just as sweet as an American girl's if the Napoletana had the wherewithal to wash it.
I remember that in Naples after my heart broke I decided that a stricly American point of view in itself offered no peace or solution for the world. So I began to make friends with the Neapolitans. And it didn't surprise me to find that, like everyone else in the world, they had their good and their bad and their admixtures of both. To know them, I'd been working on my Italian. That lovely supple language was kind to my tongue. The Neapolitans were gracious in helping me with it.
(...)
This forced me to the not original conclusion that the Neapolitans were like everybody else in the world, and in an infinite variety. Because I was an americano the Neapolitans treated me with a strange pudding of respect, dismay, and bewilderment. A few loathed me. But from most Italians I got a decency and kindness that they'd have showered on any other American in Naples who'd made up his mind to treat them like human beings. I'm not bragging. I'm not unique."
From John Horn Burns's The Gallery, in the section appearing as 'My Heart Finally Broke in Naples' in War Stories (eds. Sebastian Faulks and Jörg Hensgen), 2014, London: Vintage, pp. 274-5.
Talk of nations usually engeders an artifical 'them and us' way of thinking. The army and politicians use it to awaken hate and alienation in people towards others living in different countries. They use this hatred when they are justifying wars and other horrors they inflict on others in the name of their countries.
The truth is that people are the same everywhere. Sure, cultures, habits, efficiency, cleanliness, clothes, etc. differ. What does not differ is that there are good and bad and average people everywhere. That the average Jane, or Cuicui, or Sakura, or Johanna does not want war and does not care about other countries. The average John, or Jose, or Maua, or Xun wants to get on with his job, be safe, and have a healthy family. This is what is universal and what would serve as a perfect platform for peaceful global growth. All war and conflict is about the power-games of leaderships who have interests in gaining more money and power. Be that Russia, China, the US, or the European countries, Japan or African or South-American countries, it is always about the might of the elites. Wars are not for and in the interest of the people.
The section quoted below illustrates eminently well how people find out that other countries have normal folks living in them too.
"Yes, I remember that being at war with the Italians was taken as a licence for Americans to defecate all over them. Even though most of us in the base section at Naples had never closed with an Italian in combat. Our argument was that we should treat the Neapolitans as the Neapolitans would have treated our cities presumably if they'd won the war. I watched old ladies of Naples pushed off the sidewalks by drunken GIs and officers. Every Italian girl was fair pray to propositions we wouldn't have made to a streetwalker back home. Those who spoke Italian used the tu on everyone they met. And I remember seeing American MPs beating the driver of a horse and wagon because they were obstructing traffic on Via Roma. I don't think the Germans could have done any better in their concentration camps. I thought that all humanity had gone from the world, and that this war had smothered decency forever.
- These Eyeties, the mess sergeant said, ain't human beins. They're just Gooks, that's all.
- All I know, the corporal said doggedly and worriedly, is that they ain't Americans...They don't see things the way we do.
- They'd steal anything, the mess sergeant said, stuffing a turkey, his mouth crammed with giblet leavings.
I remember that other arguments against the Neapolitans, besides the cardinal one, that they'd declared war on us, were that they stole and were filthy-dirty. I only know that no Neapolitan ever stole anything from me, for I took pains to see that no temptation was put in their way. Though once my wallet was lifted in a New York subway. And for those Neapolitans to whom I sometimes gave an extra bar of soap, I noticed that they used this soap joyfully on themselves, their children, their clothes. I've buried my face in the hair of Neapolitan girls. It was just as sweet as an American girl's if the Napoletana had the wherewithal to wash it.
I remember that in Naples after my heart broke I decided that a stricly American point of view in itself offered no peace or solution for the world. So I began to make friends with the Neapolitans. And it didn't surprise me to find that, like everyone else in the world, they had their good and their bad and their admixtures of both. To know them, I'd been working on my Italian. That lovely supple language was kind to my tongue. The Neapolitans were gracious in helping me with it.
(...)
This forced me to the not original conclusion that the Neapolitans were like everybody else in the world, and in an infinite variety. Because I was an americano the Neapolitans treated me with a strange pudding of respect, dismay, and bewilderment. A few loathed me. But from most Italians I got a decency and kindness that they'd have showered on any other American in Naples who'd made up his mind to treat them like human beings. I'm not bragging. I'm not unique."
From John Horn Burns's The Gallery, in the section appearing as 'My Heart Finally Broke in Naples' in War Stories (eds. Sebastian Faulks and Jörg Hensgen), 2014, London: Vintage, pp. 274-5.
Friday, 7 October 2016
Putin's nuclear threat to the West
It is a well known fact, publicized by Russian newspapers and confirmed by the Russian military, that Russia is regularly exercising and planning for the offensive use of nuclear weapons in Western Europe, as well against the US.
But then of course there are people who publish this and similar stuff on 9GAG and other social sites:
I think what this meme is expresses is perfectly right in one sense: no sane, average civilian wants to nuke any other country. The average Joe, Sara, Teju, or Zoltan wakes up, goes to work, cares and worries for and about her or his family, friends, kids, health, house, hobbies, interests, and job. No normal person wakes up and thinks: 'Oh, gosh, I sure hope today my country's military kills, debilitates, and ruins the lives of tens of thousands of foreigners!'
On the other hand it is not true that no Russian - or for that matter that no Chinese or US - higher ups entertain such ideas. And it is partly our duty as citizens of a given country to oust politicians, administrators, and military leaders who are willing to go down such ways. No other country's civilians can do that instead of us, and if we don't do it we can't blame anyone else. The average, normal people in Russia, China, and the US, and in other countries, have to ensure that their countries work properly. One has to engage with politics, most importantly READ about it serious books and papers not just internet crap, write about it, think about it, talk about it, and if needed go out to the streets, go to the parliament, stage protests, throw eggs at politicians and so on.
Elected people can go berserk, and elections can go wrong. We need to make sure that loonies such as Trump, or tyrants such a Putin, or his pet-wanna-be-dictator Orban don't get into power, and even if they do they don't get the license to do anything their whims drive them to.
UPDATE: This piece on the issue just confirms and supports with more references what I have been saying.
But then of course there are people who publish this and similar stuff on 9GAG and other social sites:
I think what this meme is expresses is perfectly right in one sense: no sane, average civilian wants to nuke any other country. The average Joe, Sara, Teju, or Zoltan wakes up, goes to work, cares and worries for and about her or his family, friends, kids, health, house, hobbies, interests, and job. No normal person wakes up and thinks: 'Oh, gosh, I sure hope today my country's military kills, debilitates, and ruins the lives of tens of thousands of foreigners!'
On the other hand it is not true that no Russian - or for that matter that no Chinese or US - higher ups entertain such ideas. And it is partly our duty as citizens of a given country to oust politicians, administrators, and military leaders who are willing to go down such ways. No other country's civilians can do that instead of us, and if we don't do it we can't blame anyone else. The average, normal people in Russia, China, and the US, and in other countries, have to ensure that their countries work properly. One has to engage with politics, most importantly READ about it serious books and papers not just internet crap, write about it, think about it, talk about it, and if needed go out to the streets, go to the parliament, stage protests, throw eggs at politicians and so on.
Elected people can go berserk, and elections can go wrong. We need to make sure that loonies such as Trump, or tyrants such a Putin, or his pet-wanna-be-dictator Orban don't get into power, and even if they do they don't get the license to do anything their whims drive them to.
UPDATE: This piece on the issue just confirms and supports with more references what I have been saying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)