Today the Washington Post published a letter I wrote about historical reconciliation and East Asian security.
***
Japan's Difficult Reconciliation
Tuesday, August 22, 2006; Page A14
G. John Ikenberry's Aug. 17 op-ed, "Japan's History Problem," provides excellent analysis but misses three key points.
First, Japanese normalization and historical reconciliation are not entirely at cross-purposes. Revising Article 9 of Japan's constitution to make the Japanese military legal, while Tokyo continues to disavow offensive capabilities, would bring Japanese law in line with reality. Constitutional reform is important for making Japan's defense policy and contributions to international security trustworthy and legitimate.
Second, the history problem in Asia is not just Japan's problem. China and Korea have biased nationalist histories to address as well. Moreover, while apologies and conciliatory behavior from Tokyo may remove the most immediate obstacles to cooperation with China and Korea, this is a long way from these countries accepting Japanese leadership. South Korea and the United States may share national interests with a more engaged Japan, but it is doubtful that China will see an elevated Japanese role as in its interest, no matter what Tokyo does to bury the past.
Finally, East Asia is not Europe. Europe is filled with democracies and has no North Korea. Even so, Russia is far from becoming a member of NATO or the European Union. Achieving an East Asian security organization inclusive of China would be a great asset to regional peace. But different regional contexts may call for different paths to integration.
For the United States, regional security in East Asia is best pursued by expanding the sphere of cooperation centered on strong alliances, built during the Cold War and transformed to meet contemporary international challenges.
LEIF-ERIC EASLEY
Cambridge, Mass.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Friday, August 18, 2006
Remembering September 11
Today the Asia Times published a letter I wrote about the purpose and meaning of the new film World Trade Center.
***
Contrary to Ruth Rosen's analysis (Great movie, pity about the Big Lie, Aug 18), I found World Trade Center to be carefully and respectfully detached from politics. While misperceptions about the war on terror are important to address in public debate, I don't see why it should be Oliver Stone's job to tell America how related or unrelated Iraq is to September 11 [2001]. The movie is not a documentary on global politics. It consciously stays above the fray of war spin from Republicans and Democrats. The movie's short portrayals of [US President George W] Bush and [former New York mayor Rudolph] Giuliani could have glorified them or criticized them, but does neither. This movie is politically neutral. While keeping more or less true to the facts of that horrible day, it focuses on terribly trying personal experiences, purposely steering clear of controversial historical and political context. Why? Because the film aims to capture the events of just one single day, a day that will remain seared into the psyche of Americans for a long long time. The message of the movie is not a political one but a human one: people are capable of horrible things, but they are also capable of compassion, sacrifice and unity of purpose. On September 11, that compassion, sacrifice and unity were not for any political end but for the sake of what is right, and ultimately, what's worth living for: the good of humanity.
***
Contrary to Ruth Rosen's analysis (Great movie, pity about the Big Lie, Aug 18), I found World Trade Center to be carefully and respectfully detached from politics. While misperceptions about the war on terror are important to address in public debate, I don't see why it should be Oliver Stone's job to tell America how related or unrelated Iraq is to September 11 [2001]. The movie is not a documentary on global politics. It consciously stays above the fray of war spin from Republicans and Democrats. The movie's short portrayals of [US President George W] Bush and [former New York mayor Rudolph] Giuliani could have glorified them or criticized them, but does neither. This movie is politically neutral. While keeping more or less true to the facts of that horrible day, it focuses on terribly trying personal experiences, purposely steering clear of controversial historical and political context. Why? Because the film aims to capture the events of just one single day, a day that will remain seared into the psyche of Americans for a long long time. The message of the movie is not a political one but a human one: people are capable of horrible things, but they are also capable of compassion, sacrifice and unity of purpose. On September 11, that compassion, sacrifice and unity were not for any political end but for the sake of what is right, and ultimately, what's worth living for: the good of humanity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
