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 military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military. Show all posts
Sunday, 2 September 2018
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.
Saturday, 8 April 2017
Why Putin and Xi didn't want Hilary Clinton to get elected
During the US presidential campaign Putin praised Trump, favoured Trump, and supported Trump through the use of the Russian intelligence services. They spread false propaganda. Putin also emphasized - and so did Trump - that they can have a good, peaceful relationship.
At the same time Clinton was described very often as hawkish. One of the things that was held against her was that she said that she would use the nuclear option if she would have to. Of course any leader would do that 'if they would have to'.
Why was it convenient to portray Clinton after this sane and average statement as a pro-war agressive person who would be dangerous?
There were three main reasons. For Trump this was good because it discredited Clinton in the eye of some very naive voters who don't understand that nuclear are in a normal case only deterrents, but they can only be deterrents if a leader states that they would use them if they would have to.
For Putin this was good because he has an agressive agenda. In the long term he hopes to destabilize the EU and to extend Russia's sphere of influence over the whole of Ukraine and the Baltic states, as well as possibly Hungary. A US leader like Clinton who is firm and vowes to take action against such agression and stop him was not good for him. He can't afford to go against a firm US leader who could be able to unite with the EU countries and halt him. A weak and confused Trump was much more convenient for Putin. Trump is vain. It appealed to him that such a seasoned veteran of the highest level of international politics like Putin paid him compliments.
For Xi in the background, Clinton's defeat was important for the same reason as for Putin. A capable and talented politician who has a good understanding of international relations and could make use of all that Obama and his team have already established would be able to stop Chinese expansion in the Pacific. For Xi and his Chinese advisors Clinton seemed a much bigger threat than an incompetent newby to politics, like Trump.
This is why all the fake news sites were jumping around emphasizing that Trump is great for being peaceful and having good ties with Russia. It was of course bollocks. The current Russian leadership wants to have good ties with the US only in case they will let them play their game in Europe and West-Asia. If not, they don't care, and Russia will still pursue her goals. This was of course also convenient for the Chinese who coordinate their actions at the moment with the Russians to a very high degree to undermine the stability of NATO, and the US-EU led peace of the current system of international relations.
As it emerges more and more clearly, Clinton would have been a much better choice as president than Trump. She could have won over senior experienced policy makers, she does have normal working relationships with many Republicans (a thing Trump often seems to lack) and she would have been able to stop or foresee many of Putin's and Xi's steps. Her firmness would have been an assett in a climate when two superpowers - China and Russia - are becoming more and more agressive. These countries also happen to be authoritarian states that don't respect human rights, cannot and do not want to provide their citizens with really high quality lives, and do not participate to a high degree in international stability and charitable development projects. Letting such states become more powerful could lead to much suffering everywhere. It turns out that Clinton's hawkishness would not only have been justified, it would have been exactly what was needed in such a time.
UPDATE:
Interesting piece in the Japan Times discussing whether China would actually stand up for North-Korea at the moment. It seems like the Chinese intelligentsia is somewhat divided on this. However, I don't think they would budge. Naive to think they would let the US put troops near their borders.
At the same time Clinton was described very often as hawkish. One of the things that was held against her was that she said that she would use the nuclear option if she would have to. Of course any leader would do that 'if they would have to'.
Why was it convenient to portray Clinton after this sane and average statement as a pro-war agressive person who would be dangerous?
There were three main reasons. For Trump this was good because it discredited Clinton in the eye of some very naive voters who don't understand that nuclear are in a normal case only deterrents, but they can only be deterrents if a leader states that they would use them if they would have to.
For Putin this was good because he has an agressive agenda. In the long term he hopes to destabilize the EU and to extend Russia's sphere of influence over the whole of Ukraine and the Baltic states, as well as possibly Hungary. A US leader like Clinton who is firm and vowes to take action against such agression and stop him was not good for him. He can't afford to go against a firm US leader who could be able to unite with the EU countries and halt him. A weak and confused Trump was much more convenient for Putin. Trump is vain. It appealed to him that such a seasoned veteran of the highest level of international politics like Putin paid him compliments.
For Xi in the background, Clinton's defeat was important for the same reason as for Putin. A capable and talented politician who has a good understanding of international relations and could make use of all that Obama and his team have already established would be able to stop Chinese expansion in the Pacific. For Xi and his Chinese advisors Clinton seemed a much bigger threat than an incompetent newby to politics, like Trump.
This is why all the fake news sites were jumping around emphasizing that Trump is great for being peaceful and having good ties with Russia. It was of course bollocks. The current Russian leadership wants to have good ties with the US only in case they will let them play their game in Europe and West-Asia. If not, they don't care, and Russia will still pursue her goals. This was of course also convenient for the Chinese who coordinate their actions at the moment with the Russians to a very high degree to undermine the stability of NATO, and the US-EU led peace of the current system of international relations.
As it emerges more and more clearly, Clinton would have been a much better choice as president than Trump. She could have won over senior experienced policy makers, she does have normal working relationships with many Republicans (a thing Trump often seems to lack) and she would have been able to stop or foresee many of Putin's and Xi's steps. Her firmness would have been an assett in a climate when two superpowers - China and Russia - are becoming more and more agressive. These countries also happen to be authoritarian states that don't respect human rights, cannot and do not want to provide their citizens with really high quality lives, and do not participate to a high degree in international stability and charitable development projects. Letting such states become more powerful could lead to much suffering everywhere. It turns out that Clinton's hawkishness would not only have been justified, it would have been exactly what was needed in such a time.
UPDATE:
Interesting piece in the Japan Times discussing whether China would actually stand up for North-Korea at the moment. It seems like the Chinese intelligentsia is somewhat divided on this. However, I don't think they would budge. Naive to think they would let the US put troops near their borders.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)