On the Tonight Show a couple nights ago, President Obama told Jay Leno that his bowling game had improved since his disastrous sub-100 game during his campaign. As the audience laughed, I wondered, "How good does he juggle?" As China and India continue their ascension into power in Asia, the White House is going to be forced to work with both closely to ensure United States interests in the region are secured.
United States interests in regards to India, require a delicate juggling act of India and Pakistan. India is a growing military power in the region and one we must work closely with. They are the only nation in the region with possible bluewater navy powers. They can control the entrance to the Persian Gulf - an area critical to the oil interests of the U.S. as well as the prime naval supply port for its troops stationed in the Middle East. Yet, India's arch enemy Pakistan recently provided a key tactical position to the United States' efforts in the Global War on Terror. In an unprecedented and shocking move, Pakistan willingly opened air space and air bases to the United States for operations in Afghanistan. The U.S. ability to run quick tactical strikes from Pakistan (had it not diverted to Iraq) could have finalized operations against the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. With their efforts refocused to this region again, Pakistan will be a key ally for the White House - to the chagrin of India. India has worked under the assumption that the United States "had its back" in respects to Pakistani aggression; now, they have to wonder where the loyalties would lie if a war between the two broke out.
In regards to China the issue is always Taiwan. DefenseNews (March 2 2009) detailed an important milestone in Pentagon-PLA relations as David Sedney, deputy assistant defense secretary visited to improve relations. Although reports from the meetings indicate it was one of the most positive in years, General Qian Lihua, director general of the Foreign Affairs Office, said, "We expect the U.S. side to take concrete measures for the resumption and development of our military ties" (page 10). Read - "Stop working with Taiwan!" How does Obama juggle the old Cold War agreement that brought the budding hope of democracy to the tiny island of Taiwan with the necessity of the White House to be on positive terms with the largest Communist government in the world?
The United States needs to have a good working alliance with China and India as they rise to power in Asia. President Obama; however, must be able to successfully juggle his relations with these rising powers while also maintaining credibility with their most hated rivals.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
China - Take them at Face Value
As the United States embarks on Obama's hopeful agenda for global peace and happiness, China once again reminds us that they are still--well China. Over the past couple decades China has fed the world its new improved friendly facade. Economically, they appear to have opened the gates wide and through these gates are attempting to sell the message that they have turned the corner and are ready to join the global community as a leading super power that can be trusted.
Obama's current administration is diving in this take out box of hope, knowing that as long as the United States plays nice (victim) with China and continues peaceful dialogue that this mammoth sized country will stay within their borders and play the good communist nation-state.
One example is the Obama Administration's request to establish a military-to-military hot line to ensure better cooperation, understanding and to avoid incidents. News Flash - this hotline had been established years ago and those phones were unanswered on 9 March 2009 as the unarmed USNS Impeccable faced an onslaught of harassment by Chinese vessels in the South China Sea. The United States Pentagon, in an attempt to assess the situation from the Chinese perspective met a dead response. Why? Because the only country on the globe who has to answer for aggressive actions is the United States. Furthermore, our quiet acceptance of these actions demonstrates not only to China, but also to North Korea that America is softening. For South Korea and Japan who rely on U.S. strength in the region for their survival - it must be unsettling.
This is not an advocation for a military retaliation on China; however, this incident met very little response from a White House that would rather keep the waters calm. From China's view point, it was an aggressive act by the United States - much as a slow-moving Navy P-3 was acting in agression as it "rammed" a Chinese F-8 fighter in the East China Sea in 2001. Both times, China reacted aggressively to United States activities in international waters - RECOGNIZED international waters. China is the only country to claim 100NM of the Pacific Ocean as well as the entire South China Sea as their soverign waters. How would the world react if the United States drew those same lines in the waterways adjacent to their shores.
The Obama Adminstration's attempts to engage China on an equal basis will fail because the Chinese do not believe they are on equal footing with the United States -- they are higher. Obama and the Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi met three days after the USNS Impeccable incident and although it was mentioned, no warnings from the White House were officially released.
As we move into the next decade, China has economically moved itself to the top of the food chain. Internally, their treatment of humans is atrocious; however, no one wants to rock the boat on that. Their push towards Tawain will increase - their ridiculous claims over the South China Sea and other littoral waters / islands assures us that once they claim something as theirs they will be the bully on the playground. Six-Party talks with North Korea will succeed as long as it is in China's best interest. A missile firing that doesnt breach Chinese airspace will most likely illicit little response. Unfortunately on this last point, even if United States condemns North Korea to the utmost along with Japan and South Korea, its desire to keep the waters still with China will ensure that the reaction will be nothing more than a strongly worded letter signed by Hillary.
Theodore Roosevelt agreed with speaking softly; however, he did it with a big stick at his side. If Obama's true desire is for us to lower our voices and sooth our rivals, he needs to set down the flowers and pick up the stick.
Obama's current administration is diving in this take out box of hope, knowing that as long as the United States plays nice (victim) with China and continues peaceful dialogue that this mammoth sized country will stay within their borders and play the good communist nation-state.
One example is the Obama Administration's request to establish a military-to-military hot line to ensure better cooperation, understanding and to avoid incidents. News Flash - this hotline had been established years ago and those phones were unanswered on 9 March 2009 as the unarmed USNS Impeccable faced an onslaught of harassment by Chinese vessels in the South China Sea. The United States Pentagon, in an attempt to assess the situation from the Chinese perspective met a dead response. Why? Because the only country on the globe who has to answer for aggressive actions is the United States. Furthermore, our quiet acceptance of these actions demonstrates not only to China, but also to North Korea that America is softening. For South Korea and Japan who rely on U.S. strength in the region for their survival - it must be unsettling.
This is not an advocation for a military retaliation on China; however, this incident met very little response from a White House that would rather keep the waters calm. From China's view point, it was an aggressive act by the United States - much as a slow-moving Navy P-3 was acting in agression as it "rammed" a Chinese F-8 fighter in the East China Sea in 2001. Both times, China reacted aggressively to United States activities in international waters - RECOGNIZED international waters. China is the only country to claim 100NM of the Pacific Ocean as well as the entire South China Sea as their soverign waters. How would the world react if the United States drew those same lines in the waterways adjacent to their shores.
The Obama Adminstration's attempts to engage China on an equal basis will fail because the Chinese do not believe they are on equal footing with the United States -- they are higher. Obama and the Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi met three days after the USNS Impeccable incident and although it was mentioned, no warnings from the White House were officially released.
As we move into the next decade, China has economically moved itself to the top of the food chain. Internally, their treatment of humans is atrocious; however, no one wants to rock the boat on that. Their push towards Tawain will increase - their ridiculous claims over the South China Sea and other littoral waters / islands assures us that once they claim something as theirs they will be the bully on the playground. Six-Party talks with North Korea will succeed as long as it is in China's best interest. A missile firing that doesnt breach Chinese airspace will most likely illicit little response. Unfortunately on this last point, even if United States condemns North Korea to the utmost along with Japan and South Korea, its desire to keep the waters still with China will ensure that the reaction will be nothing more than a strongly worded letter signed by Hillary.
Theodore Roosevelt agreed with speaking softly; however, he did it with a big stick at his side. If Obama's true desire is for us to lower our voices and sooth our rivals, he needs to set down the flowers and pick up the stick.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Japan's Insurance Policy
Following WWII, a defeated Japan was ordered to dismantle the military machine that wreaked havoc throughout the Pacific. Internally, the Japanese people were ashamed and agreed to abandon any offensive use of military weapons. This has evolved over time to what is known as their comprehensive security and omni-directional foreign policy. Both of these policies take a pacifist approach to their dealings with nation states. Comprehensive Security in summary is a way of protecting their interests by opening specific doors to specific countries based on their needs. Omni-directional policy looks to gain global power economically and ensuring their interests are protected by maintaining a policy of neutrality.
I have one problem with this utopian view of Japan. Their rise to economic power has been under the very large umbrella of United States protection. They have the luxury of remaining pacifist and neutral - there is a big brother who will protect them on their dollar.
I know my post comes across with a negative light; however, allow me this comparison:
As a middle income wage earner, I am more than able to afford my simple car, my small 3-bedroom home and support my two children. My car payment, mortgage and expenses are manageable; however, the black hole for my wallet is the money I dump into the protection of these things -- insurance. Car insurance, home insurance, life insurance, medical insurance -- all monies paid out to protect the "if". If I live my entire life never getting in an accident, watching my home burn down or getting deathly ill, I have easily spent 5-6000 dollars a year for something I never use. How much better would my finances be if I could invest all that money into my budget while my neighbor were to pay those things for me. I don't think I will knock on his door with that request anytime soon.
Japan spends less than 1% of their GDP on their defense budget because they don't have to. It must be comforting to lean on the United States for their offensive fire power who also has to deflect international scrutiny everytime they act on the behalf of another. Comprehensive Security and Omni-Directional Foreign Policy are nice terms and it is fantastic that Japan has the freedom to pursue these at the expense of the United States.
I have one problem with this utopian view of Japan. Their rise to economic power has been under the very large umbrella of United States protection. They have the luxury of remaining pacifist and neutral - there is a big brother who will protect them on their dollar.
I know my post comes across with a negative light; however, allow me this comparison:
As a middle income wage earner, I am more than able to afford my simple car, my small 3-bedroom home and support my two children. My car payment, mortgage and expenses are manageable; however, the black hole for my wallet is the money I dump into the protection of these things -- insurance. Car insurance, home insurance, life insurance, medical insurance -- all monies paid out to protect the "if". If I live my entire life never getting in an accident, watching my home burn down or getting deathly ill, I have easily spent 5-6000 dollars a year for something I never use. How much better would my finances be if I could invest all that money into my budget while my neighbor were to pay those things for me. I don't think I will knock on his door with that request anytime soon.
Japan spends less than 1% of their GDP on their defense budget because they don't have to. It must be comforting to lean on the United States for their offensive fire power who also has to deflect international scrutiny everytime they act on the behalf of another. Comprehensive Security and Omni-Directional Foreign Policy are nice terms and it is fantastic that Japan has the freedom to pursue these at the expense of the United States.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Effects of September 11th in Asia
The terrorist attacks of September 11th were meant to strike at the epicenter of American capitalism. The World Trade Center, a monument to economic strength to foreigners, was a statement. Its true goal was not to bring down man-made structures nor was it to spread panic or fear into the lives of Americans; although those were fantastic side-effects. No, its true target was the economic strength of the United States. Using the Soviet Union as a model, Osama Bin Laden and his chief planners weighed the cause-effect of such an attack. The Soviet Union, most capable military on the globe next to the United States in the 1980s, was decimated in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda predicted correctly that the United States would feel compelled to respond. That response would bring the Americans to the same failing grounds which swallowed up the Soviet ruble just two decades prior. Patiently riding out the initial American military onslaught, Al Qaeda has succeeded in dragging the Americans through a costly war, with little result, and bringing their economy down. Obviously, other factors played a roll, but to not look at the drain in resources caused by September 11th is to avoid a major factor in this current recession.
Where does all this factor in with Asia? To quickly summarize a century of history; the nations of Asia endured colonization from Western powers through World War II. After World War II, the age of colonization ended and the countries became nation-states. Due to the Cold War; however, the United States stayed in the region as the stabilization force. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States remained the world’s only super power. September 11th opened the eyes of the world. The United States was crippled for the first time in a long while. Although supportive of the United States in its initial efforts for the new “GWOT” (Global War on Terrorism), this was the crack in the armor that was needed. The following players in Asia are poised to take advantage.
China’s emergence in the global market has many nations in the region considering a closer option for regional security. Can the United States defend us when it can’t defend itself? Does the United States have the resources to support and defend us when they are being siphoned away by the billions in Iraq and Afghanistan? China is wisely testing the waters to see if they could replace the United States (and the Soviet Union) as the superpower in the east.
In a much darker corner awaits North Korea. Isolated from the global community, North Korea has used this time to rattle the sabers a little louder to get attention from the United States. Militarily, North Korea has been more overt against the United States in the Pacific than in years past – perhaps perceiving weakness. With its current financial troubles, it is extremely possible that North Korea could begin a stealthy proliferation campaign with the top threat in the region – terrorism. North Korean military technology in the hands of regional terrorists could unbalance the entire region.
Terrorism in this region is far more complex and dangerous than elsewhere on the globe. Many of these nations were formed by arbitrary lines from colonizing forces to mark territory. A country like Indonesia for example, spread out among several thousand miles of islands could house hundreds of terrorist cells with freedom to train, build, and import lethal weapons without anyone checking on their status. Countries with ethnic, cultural, or religious tensions heightened due to the arbitrary lines draw decades ago could find themselves in a civil war if a particular group is marked as extremist or a terrorist group. In the United States alone, sensitivity is high when a Muslim is searched at an airport. Imagine that attempt in the Philippines or other multi-ethnic region that has fully embraced the “melting pot” philosophy the United States still struggles with.
Where does all this factor in with Asia? To quickly summarize a century of history; the nations of Asia endured colonization from Western powers through World War II. After World War II, the age of colonization ended and the countries became nation-states. Due to the Cold War; however, the United States stayed in the region as the stabilization force. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States remained the world’s only super power. September 11th opened the eyes of the world. The United States was crippled for the first time in a long while. Although supportive of the United States in its initial efforts for the new “GWOT” (Global War on Terrorism), this was the crack in the armor that was needed. The following players in Asia are poised to take advantage.
China’s emergence in the global market has many nations in the region considering a closer option for regional security. Can the United States defend us when it can’t defend itself? Does the United States have the resources to support and defend us when they are being siphoned away by the billions in Iraq and Afghanistan? China is wisely testing the waters to see if they could replace the United States (and the Soviet Union) as the superpower in the east.
In a much darker corner awaits North Korea. Isolated from the global community, North Korea has used this time to rattle the sabers a little louder to get attention from the United States. Militarily, North Korea has been more overt against the United States in the Pacific than in years past – perhaps perceiving weakness. With its current financial troubles, it is extremely possible that North Korea could begin a stealthy proliferation campaign with the top threat in the region – terrorism. North Korean military technology in the hands of regional terrorists could unbalance the entire region.
Terrorism in this region is far more complex and dangerous than elsewhere on the globe. Many of these nations were formed by arbitrary lines from colonizing forces to mark territory. A country like Indonesia for example, spread out among several thousand miles of islands could house hundreds of terrorist cells with freedom to train, build, and import lethal weapons without anyone checking on their status. Countries with ethnic, cultural, or religious tensions heightened due to the arbitrary lines draw decades ago could find themselves in a civil war if a particular group is marked as extremist or a terrorist group. In the United States alone, sensitivity is high when a Muslim is searched at an airport. Imagine that attempt in the Philippines or other multi-ethnic region that has fully embraced the “melting pot” philosophy the United States still struggles with.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
China's plan to ascend to the core
The political and economical developments in the 1970's that affected the bilateral relationship between China and the United States has its roots in the 1950's. According to the World System Theory, China is classified as a late developer and accordingly started its position in the global economy on the outside looking in. As a periphery country, it would be necessary for China to find that opportunity to push their way into the market and ascend to the core. Their initial attempts at a communist economy of equality for the masses based on an agricultural system failed. Colonization did not sit well with the Chinese first by western intruders and then the violent Japanese Imperialist Army. It was natural that China wanted some "alone time" to regroup and follow their own path to recovery.
Unfortunately, the Modernization Theory which believes a country can build from within and jump into the market as an equal player does not fit in this part of the world. They missed the initial industrial thrust and would have to play catch-up and they would need help to do it. They turned first to the USSR, alienating the power players of the global economy. After a falling out in 1960, the Chinese one decade later would soften up to the prospect of Sino-American cooperation.
There are several issues that will nag at the Chinese and Americans regardless of any treaty that is made. Two very different cultures can never have a true 100% understanding. However, the one issue that will not be resolved in the near future and will continue to cause China and America from ever being core "partners" in the global economy is a small southeastern island off China's coast - Taiwan.
I understand the PRC's perspective. The Guomingdao and the Red Army were at civil war establishing their government - much like our own Civil War. This war was interrupted by Japanese colonization. Of the two groups, the Red Army was the one who made efforts to combat the intruders - not successfully, but they would be seen as protector of the people. It was not hard for the "people" and "peasants" of China (the majority of the population) to determine who had their best interests at heart.
So the opposition party hides out on Taiwan and the United States blocks the path. I try to think of our own Civil War and how I would feel if another nation crossed annexed one of the colonies to the Confederates. How intrusive!
I believe it was in 2005 (I thought I had the article in my military files, but I can't find it) when the United States signed another 50-year agreement with Taiwan. So in my opinion, unless we break that agreement and fail AGAIN in the Asian Pacific region as a "protector of democracy" starting the dominoes falling again, we will not have any significant cooperation with China.
Unfortunately, the Modernization Theory which believes a country can build from within and jump into the market as an equal player does not fit in this part of the world. They missed the initial industrial thrust and would have to play catch-up and they would need help to do it. They turned first to the USSR, alienating the power players of the global economy. After a falling out in 1960, the Chinese one decade later would soften up to the prospect of Sino-American cooperation.
There are several issues that will nag at the Chinese and Americans regardless of any treaty that is made. Two very different cultures can never have a true 100% understanding. However, the one issue that will not be resolved in the near future and will continue to cause China and America from ever being core "partners" in the global economy is a small southeastern island off China's coast - Taiwan.
I understand the PRC's perspective. The Guomingdao and the Red Army were at civil war establishing their government - much like our own Civil War. This war was interrupted by Japanese colonization. Of the two groups, the Red Army was the one who made efforts to combat the intruders - not successfully, but they would be seen as protector of the people. It was not hard for the "people" and "peasants" of China (the majority of the population) to determine who had their best interests at heart.
So the opposition party hides out on Taiwan and the United States blocks the path. I try to think of our own Civil War and how I would feel if another nation crossed annexed one of the colonies to the Confederates. How intrusive!
I believe it was in 2005 (I thought I had the article in my military files, but I can't find it) when the United States signed another 50-year agreement with Taiwan. So in my opinion, unless we break that agreement and fail AGAIN in the Asian Pacific region as a "protector of democracy" starting the dominoes falling again, we will not have any significant cooperation with China.
Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it
I just wanted to post a quick blog for comment. It isnt one of our objectives for the week, but as I was reading I thought it relevant enough to discuss.
I was reading about the Vietnam War in our book and even though I knew most of the details, reading about it after having been stationed in Iraq hit me rather hard.
If you take a pen and scratch out "Vietnam" and insert "Iraq" in most of those pages, it reads like today's newspaper on our operations in Iraq. Now I am not anti-Iraq war. I spent a good share of 2006 and 2007 there and can tell you first hand that the work we did over there while not understood by a majority of free Americans, did a lot of good.
But to play devil's advocate, I am sure that those on the ground in Vietnam in battling the on-slaught of communism didn't consier some of the ruthless tactics that the South Vietnam government under Diem used to flush out anti-government "insurgents" would have provoked many to revolt. One must not forget how the United States was established - by insurgents who were tired of British provocation.
Anyways, I know this subject was off topic, but it was on my mind. comment as you please.
I will be running in the marathon tomorrow and heading for the cruise ship to recover. I will post again as I get internet access!
I was reading about the Vietnam War in our book and even though I knew most of the details, reading about it after having been stationed in Iraq hit me rather hard.
If you take a pen and scratch out "Vietnam" and insert "Iraq" in most of those pages, it reads like today's newspaper on our operations in Iraq. Now I am not anti-Iraq war. I spent a good share of 2006 and 2007 there and can tell you first hand that the work we did over there while not understood by a majority of free Americans, did a lot of good.
But to play devil's advocate, I am sure that those on the ground in Vietnam in battling the on-slaught of communism didn't consier some of the ruthless tactics that the South Vietnam government under Diem used to flush out anti-government "insurgents" would have provoked many to revolt. One must not forget how the United States was established - by insurgents who were tired of British provocation.
Anyways, I know this subject was off topic, but it was on my mind. comment as you please.
I will be running in the marathon tomorrow and heading for the cruise ship to recover. I will post again as I get internet access!
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Week Two: Economic Models of China and Japan
The economic models of China and Japan are rooted in similarities; however, could not have evolved more differently. Both countries built their economy from an authoritarian one-party government model. This evolved from two themes common to Asian Pacific culture. The first is the absolute respect for the hierarchal relationship. Starting in the most basic unit, the family, Asian cultures respect their elders as well as those in authority over them. Secondly, cultural collectivism is a common facet of Asian nations. Unlike the west, peoples from countries such as Japan and China would prefer to make decisions collectively rather than by majority. The culture of a people trained to obey those in authority and to collectively agree on the best way to succeed, lend themselves perfectly to an authoritarian one-party government.
Economically, both of these countries use this state model to run their economies. This is where the similarities divide. Japan built a Market Economy with a twist. In Adam Smith’s model, the market is the invisible hand which controls the ebb and flow of the economy. Japan’s version replaces the market with MITI. With MITI as the invisible hand, it could be construed that Japan follows a Planned Economic route; however, the Japanese government doesn’t own any aspect of business. MITI simply guides private enterprises to consider the best for Japan in its endeavors. Any controls placed on a private company are for the best of Japan and with the culture of collectivism and hierarchal respect for authority, it is an easy sell.
China, on the other hand, has had a more difficult time revving up the economic machine. Their problems started when they shunned the international market and began looking internally for ways to build a self-sustaining system. Japan, pre-WWII and even after their defeat and occupation by the United States continued learning from the international market and determining where they could plug in and rebuild their country. China, instead, turned to the Soviet Union and isolated themselves from the major players of the international market. By adopting the Soviet model, China’s political body took control of every facet of the economy. The political body was not stable post WWII so as the government floundered along went the economy. Mao recognized the inadequacies of the Soviet model and tried on two occasions to revert back to the peasant population and use mass uprisings to bring glory back to China. Unfortunately, placing economic controls into the hands of the uneducated simply couldn’t work. Peasants are used to being controlled. Although a wave of euphoria swept through them as the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution took over; their inability to plan strategically in an international market forced the Communist Party to resume the Soviet blueprint and forcibly take control of the economic model.
Both countries still maintain their one-party, authoritarian schemes. Japan, not surprisingly has held the number two spot in the world economy for sometime. What is surprising is that China, despite the slow start and huge obstacles it endured is quickly catching up. They both are an example to late developers that it is possible to compete in the world market regardless of when they entered the game. Peeking over at the west and watching the collapse of a two-party democratic free market has to make one wonder if the style of government really matters at all or if the market has a crest and a valley for every player.
Economically, both of these countries use this state model to run their economies. This is where the similarities divide. Japan built a Market Economy with a twist. In Adam Smith’s model, the market is the invisible hand which controls the ebb and flow of the economy. Japan’s version replaces the market with MITI. With MITI as the invisible hand, it could be construed that Japan follows a Planned Economic route; however, the Japanese government doesn’t own any aspect of business. MITI simply guides private enterprises to consider the best for Japan in its endeavors. Any controls placed on a private company are for the best of Japan and with the culture of collectivism and hierarchal respect for authority, it is an easy sell.
China, on the other hand, has had a more difficult time revving up the economic machine. Their problems started when they shunned the international market and began looking internally for ways to build a self-sustaining system. Japan, pre-WWII and even after their defeat and occupation by the United States continued learning from the international market and determining where they could plug in and rebuild their country. China, instead, turned to the Soviet Union and isolated themselves from the major players of the international market. By adopting the Soviet model, China’s political body took control of every facet of the economy. The political body was not stable post WWII so as the government floundered along went the economy. Mao recognized the inadequacies of the Soviet model and tried on two occasions to revert back to the peasant population and use mass uprisings to bring glory back to China. Unfortunately, placing economic controls into the hands of the uneducated simply couldn’t work. Peasants are used to being controlled. Although a wave of euphoria swept through them as the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution took over; their inability to plan strategically in an international market forced the Communist Party to resume the Soviet blueprint and forcibly take control of the economic model.
Both countries still maintain their one-party, authoritarian schemes. Japan, not surprisingly has held the number two spot in the world economy for sometime. What is surprising is that China, despite the slow start and huge obstacles it endured is quickly catching up. They both are an example to late developers that it is possible to compete in the world market regardless of when they entered the game. Peeking over at the west and watching the collapse of a two-party democratic free market has to make one wonder if the style of government really matters at all or if the market has a crest and a valley for every player.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Week One - Western Colonization, Effects on China and Japan
China and Japan reacted very differently to the Western pressures of colonialism in the early 19th century. Both countries were sovereign states with centuries of history and relatively stable governments for the region. Under the Developmental or Statist theory, both countries should have been able to easily move into the global market without problem. For Japan, this was the case; however, China took a very different path.
Neither country was accepting of the West. Both adopted isolationist methodologies and rejected Western efforts to open ports or establish trade agreements. This is where the similarities end. The modernization theory points a path of where the two countries divided sharply in their response to Western pressure.
Japan, understanding that the western nations were industrially mighty and relentless, began a proactive campaign to strengthen their state. They adopted the traditions of the west necessary to become competitive without losing their indigenous culture or social structure. Japan established a strong enough infrastructure to be on equal footing with the western powers so they could be trade partners, not colonized victims.
Geography was a downfall for China. Ch’ien Lung, in the early 18th century, denied British trade requests believing that there was nothing China needed from the outside world. Their vast lands were the center of the universe and everything their countrymen needed was already there. In many aspects, they were correct. As industry flourished and the workers’ tea habit became insatiable, Britain was turning more silver over to China in exchange for tea and not much else. However, the Chinese were not ready for the ruthlessness of the market and instead of evolving as Japan did to respond to the new global market, they allowed the market to dictate how business would be done in China. Britain fired first, introducing opium to the Chinese working class. This lead to two wars for the Chinese who were not prepared to deal with an international superpower, especially one with decades of battle experience. The result – treaties unfavorable to China and a coastline littered with foreign countries.
In 2009, it appears according to the world system theory that both China and Japan have moved into the core of highly developed countries; however, their path was not the same. China remained at the periphery for more years than it needed to because it relied on the mythology that they were a divine nation. Japan was aggressive in its approach, proactive from the start. Although they took a major hit after World War II, their methodology learned from the 19th century helped them bounce back quickly.
Neither country was accepting of the West. Both adopted isolationist methodologies and rejected Western efforts to open ports or establish trade agreements. This is where the similarities end. The modernization theory points a path of where the two countries divided sharply in their response to Western pressure.
Japan, understanding that the western nations were industrially mighty and relentless, began a proactive campaign to strengthen their state. They adopted the traditions of the west necessary to become competitive without losing their indigenous culture or social structure. Japan established a strong enough infrastructure to be on equal footing with the western powers so they could be trade partners, not colonized victims.
Geography was a downfall for China. Ch’ien Lung, in the early 18th century, denied British trade requests believing that there was nothing China needed from the outside world. Their vast lands were the center of the universe and everything their countrymen needed was already there. In many aspects, they were correct. As industry flourished and the workers’ tea habit became insatiable, Britain was turning more silver over to China in exchange for tea and not much else. However, the Chinese were not ready for the ruthlessness of the market and instead of evolving as Japan did to respond to the new global market, they allowed the market to dictate how business would be done in China. Britain fired first, introducing opium to the Chinese working class. This lead to two wars for the Chinese who were not prepared to deal with an international superpower, especially one with decades of battle experience. The result – treaties unfavorable to China and a coastline littered with foreign countries.
In 2009, it appears according to the world system theory that both China and Japan have moved into the core of highly developed countries; however, their path was not the same. China remained at the periphery for more years than it needed to because it relied on the mythology that they were a divine nation. Japan was aggressive in its approach, proactive from the start. Although they took a major hit after World War II, their methodology learned from the 19th century helped them bounce back quickly.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Introduction
I have created this blog in order to post my comments and thoughts regarding a class I am taking called Asia and the Modern World. A brief bio of the author: I am a United States military veteran of 18+ years and extremely devoted to my country and its causes around the world. That will instantly make me unpopular in many of my views especially on a topic such as this that requires me to explain why I feel colonialism around the globe, although not popular to those who were colonized, was extremely beneficial in the long run. I don't feel apologetic about it, although mainstream media and the current political correctness of our global population will try to bully into feeling so. Colonialism has worked and failed for many; however, for the countries with the fortitude to do something about their situation it will be shown to be an overwhelming success. The United States, one of the first in the world to be colonized is a classic example. On two occasions (1776, and 1812), it was pushed into battle against the world's premier fighting force and although out manned, outgunned, and outmaneuvered on most occasions, banded together long enough to become independent and a global force to be reckoned with. As I go through this course, I hope to see this theory of mine proven with the countries of the Asian Pacific - the subject of our first week of reading.
I more than welcome all comments, positive, negative. In past classes, I have done very well in writing from the other side's point of view. I look forward to writing this blog (my first blog) and seeing where the posts and responses take me.
I more than welcome all comments, positive, negative. In past classes, I have done very well in writing from the other side's point of view. I look forward to writing this blog (my first blog) and seeing where the posts and responses take me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)