sorry about that, here's the journals I have so far. I copy pasted it from my Microsoft Word, so I think the comments were pasted at the end.
Again, Thank you guys for your time and help.
Globalization & History
Intellectual Journals #3
I think the historical significance of the Cold War was the beginning of the spread of democracy. As the Soviet Union weakened, states [KN2] under communist rule began to adapt democratic policies to stimulate their poor economies. For example, Hungary created the "democracy package", which includes freedom of association and assembly, before the collapse of the SU. Once the SU fell, it was like a spark that set off the riots. Through the media, news and the ideas of erupting democracy reached countries such as South and Central America, where "an electoral verse, developed over the course of the 1980s in opposition to the military cadence of dictatorships, brought new and popularly elected governments to power" (Manning, 7). Everywhere in the world, socialist countries developed a more democratic system, which continued to expand until the decline in socialist and communist parties. The SU system was seen as the model for all communist countries, but since its downfalls and conflicts, it showed it was not what the communist countries thought it was.[KN3] Although there was conflict between the political system and the people's wants, eventually the citizens eventually prevailed[KN4] .
As mentioned above, globalization contributed to the process of the spreading of democracy, but it also affected the ending of the Cold War. As mentioned above, media can influence people's ideas. In the context of the USSR, each of the states developed their own sense of identity and eventually, "separatist movements have become increasingly more vocal and demanding and less tolerant and accommodating," which makes them demand for a nation of their own (Hebron and Stack, 69). The growing identities in each of the states and wanting of independence hastened the dissemblance of the USSR. The wanting of the satellite states own nation and their ideas separating from the SU, also led to the downfall of communism.
The effect of the Cold War was a balancing act for Japan. The country must handle its relations with the US, the current super power, and China, a rising power under Communist rule. Without maintaining one or the other could result into potential nightmares: "'U.S-China hostility' and U.S.-China passing of Japan." The only thing that the country can do to maintain the balance is to "first, to strengthen trustworthy alliance relations with the United States; second, to maintain and consolidate as a friendly relations as possible with China" (Togo, 80). Japan not only has its US and China relationship, but also Korea and Russia. As with China, Japan, needs to reestablish its relationship with Korea due to Japan's treatment to Korea's people during WWII. For Russia, it is mostly a territorial issue of who controls a small group of islands between Japan and Russia. Also Japan, as the leader of Asia, must authorize its leadership by helping the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Nations) during the 1997 financial crisis. Altogether, Japan has to maintain its relationship with at least four countries.
During the 1990's to early 2000's, Japan's prime ministers were able to try and stabilize its relationships with the countries, although one of the nightmares came true: the US collaborated with China and Korea leaving Japan out of it. In five years, Japan went through three prime ministers, who tried to guide the country in the right direction, but were not able to do much due to some lack of an aspect. Although Japan is not in a bad condition for it could be worse, it needs a strong leader to help the country[KN6] . Also in part, Japan's relationship with China and Korea could be less strained if they accepted Japan's apology for its crime during WWII. I also think that another way that Japan's relationship could be relieved is that if the US considers its actions with its allies, such as Japan, in mind. For example, during Nixon and Clinton both associated/supported with Chinese and Korea without having Japan join the discussion. Since Japan doesn't know about what happens behind the scenes, it can only hope that the under-the-table discussions don't affect its relationship with Japan.[KN7]
I think after the downfall of communism caused global power to be concentrated, yet dispersed. During the Cold War, there were two main powerhouses: US and SU. Now that the war is over, global power became concentrated due to the fact that the US out lasted the SU, therefore the US would be considered the dominant powerhouse, who has a stable [KN8] economy and nuclear weapons in storage from the arms race. The pressure of the arms race is now relieved, since there is no need to build up one's military. Since there is no one for the US to "compete with," the US has all the power. Due to the Containment Policy, the country was seen as the ultimate protector from communism. [KN9] Although the US had most of the power, it was the only one who had power[KN10] . In the Orient, China and other southeast Asian countries are becoming potential threats. Therefore, in a sense, there are the about the same or a little bit more "actors" that can make an impact[KN11] .
There were many important global geopolitical changes that took place after the Cold War. In Germany, the biggest event was the unification of the two Germanies. Before the wall fell, the economy in East Germany was so bad [KN12] that its citizens tried to immigrate to West Germany in search for a better life. The barrier between the two states didn't stop the massive flow towards the West, which inundated the West's economy (too much labor) and deflated the East's economy (too little labor). Therefore, there was no point of having the wall. Finally in 1990, the Germanies were unified due to factors such as the fall of the USSR and the poor status of the East's economy, Helmit Kohl (the West's chancellor) thought that a united economy would help both sides (West and East) and saw that there was potential in the East, where communism could return. Overall, this process was seen as more of a takeover versus a merger[KN13] . In Asia, Japan had geopolitical issues with maintaining its relations with the US and China by avoiding anything that could put the country in jeopardy. Japan also had to keep in mind its status in the ASEAN and reconciling with Korea and Russia. The Cold War concealed Japan's WWII problems and now since the war is over, they [KN14] are revealed. Although US is the powerhouse, it still handles the affairs of other countries[KN15] . The Iran-Contra Scandal (part about US using money from selling arms to Iran to aid the Contras, which Congress banned) was an important geopolitical issue. This incident shows what the US can do-it's influence among other countries[KN16] . Since the scandal, it gives an impression to other countries that the US can't be trusted since it went against a policy and its ally. Finally since the fall of the SU, democratic policies rose in Brazil because it showed that socialism didn't work. The workers party, who were radical socialists became more moderate overtime due to democratic elections. A problem in Brazil was poverty and Lula, who was part of the workers party finally won an election, adopts the Stabilization plan (democratic) because it solved the poverty problem. Due to the policy change, it decreased communism and leftists in the country[KN17] . Each country has its own political issues and changes since the SU collapsed. There is a pattern of declining in old powers and the rising of new, whether its countries (US-China) or politics (democratic-communism).
The end of the Cold War was essential for development of a global capitalist economy because it changed people's perspective of communism[KN18] . Social democratics and leftist central liberals became weak and pushed as their main evidence and support, [KN19] the SU, for their ideas fell. These politicians were criticized that they want too much government control and they are not learning from history (that the SU fell from too much government)[KN20] , Just the idea of wanting more government regulation and maybe ending up like the SU, was enough to persuade the public not to have communism. Countries that thought highly of the SU began to doubt communist policies. Such countries as the Third World countries' governments that invested in military development, dams, and large industries, rethought about their plans when the SU and their economies declined. As the world's economies open up to global capital, "The kinds of industries favoured in the centrally planned system are less viable in the context of today's highly competitive global economy," meaning then that those industries will fail to dominate. Although Third World countries were against foreign capital, they were much less fearful of it now and less sanguine about communism. China, as a developing country, felt the effect of also having too much government. In order to maintain its political supremacy, it switched from central planned economy to a market driven one and the country recognized that it had to incorporate foreign capital.
Even if the Cold War didn't happen, I think the rise of global capitalist economy would've happened anyways due to the major changes in world. Besides the change in perspective of communism in countries and them opening up to global capita[KN21] l, technology advancements allowed industries to go beyond the domestic area[KN22] . The new technology allowed access to information simultaneously and instantaneously. Since it was facilitated by software, that means a person can manipulate the machines anywhere for any factory by changing the code (for production). This also applies to the ease of moving capital. Now with a touch on one's iPhone or click on a computer can transfer large quantities of capital quickly from place to place. The flexibility and ease increased production, while decreasing the use of human labor. Therefore labor-intensive companies can cut down on labor and increase their profit margin. This process is a reorganization of labor. As the world's economies and markets becomes increasingly competitive, corporations and investors are trying to find new ways of increasing their revenue, (while also limiting government regulations).[KN23]
Towards the end of the Cold War, Japan's foreign investments grew exponentially in the US. Since the US was the primary importer, Japanese companies established branches on American soil in order to overcome anti-Japan lobbyists, who thought that the companies would make Americans unemployed, and avoiding tariffs (advocating neoliberalism). The process that the incoming companies used was in the opposite direction of the usually business function process. Instead they started with importing of the product and then worked towards research and development. Before the US branches maintained a close relationship with the main corporation back in Japan to what path to take[KN25] ,
"[This] decision-making system can work, and local management can effectively participate in it by taking the time to understand the system and by sticking to business fundamentals: by mastering the details of a particular business function, understanding the overall corporate goals, developing a personal information and influence network, and openly communicating with local and headquarters Japanese staff" (172, Curran).
Although that system is useful, it doesn't take the full advantage of the company being in the US, meaning taking the opportunity of understanding the new consumers' wants and needs. This would be employing locals-foreigners-into the Japanese firm, which includes the research and development section. These locals would have a bette[KN26] r idea of what the consumers want and therefore eventually increase the firm's profit. The hiring of American citizens would combat anti-Japanese lobbyist of accusing the Japanese firms of putting Americans out of work. This would benefit the firm and America.
Although the Japanese could move into the US, Americans couldn't or at least had a hard time [KN27] moving to Japan. The opposite is not true for necessarily true for foreigners to work in Japan for, "government policies and public attitudes share a common perspective: they see the presence of foreign workers as a phenomenon to be tightly controlled and kept at arms' length from the routines of Japanese life, rather than one that is to be accepted" (Douglass and Roberts, 3). This discrimination can make the local consumers prejudice on what product to buy. If an American company moves in Japan and has a better product than the domestic one, the Japanese would probably buy the Japanese one versus the other. [KN28]
The countries discussed today had one or more of these components: immigration, multinational corporation (MNC), and unions. These factors interacted with each other to affect the growth of globalization[KN30] .
Starting with Japan's immigration, which historically the country has been harsh on immigrants. The nation prides itself on being number one and the only one, but actually many foreigners, especially Chinese and Korean, reside in Japan. Due to demographics issue of the aging population, whether Japan likes it or not, they would have to "accept" immigrants in order to take care of its citizens. Overall though, the integration into Japanese society is hard for immigrants because the country doesn't not have much experience with handling it, even so that there is resistant to it.[KN31] Compare to Japan, Germany welcomed immigration during the economic boom and there was also racism and discrimination. Germany also faces the same demographic issue too, but instead of restricting policies, they made it easier for naturalization. The immigration can encourage people to pursue higher jobs, which I don't think Japan has yet to discover.
In Brazil, who's MNC in the shoe industry has largely benefited in the US with its design of women's leather shoe. Although there is competition among the shoe firms in Brazil, there is a competitive collectivism[KN32] among the firm, in which these firms do such things as share technology and quality control assessments. As opportunities opened for other countries to jump into the US shoes market, the competition grew for Brazil. Now that countries such as Indonesia and China, who have lower labor costs, entered the industry, Brazil needs incentives to compete in the international market[KN33] . The country tries to diversify its export market and move to other locations in Brazil for cheaper labor, which then disperses the shoe industry. If Brazil doesn't find a cheap labor in the country, then it will have to either find an international source and set up a plant there or invest in making technology improvements, which can be capital intensive. For Japan instead of staying and operating at home, the firms began expand and bring the factory closer to the consumer. Companies such as Honda set up their branches in the US and hired locals, who have a better idea of what the consumers want versus the Japanese. Also the plants also allow a timely efficient production process. If a customer wants a blue car versus a black one, the factory can make one there versus waiting for a shipment from overseas. Small adjustments can be made easily.
Most of the MNC mentioned above focus on doing business in the US. Ever since the fall of the SU, the supports for unions has been declining and the investment in foreign places has increased. Unions are industrial based and since there are factories all over the world, there is less unionization, it's impossible to bring everyone together in order to achieve the same goals. Also companies "squashed" unions by attending conferences or meetings that explain why unions are bad, increase in technology advancements that can cut back on workers, and the shift to the service sector, meaning companies can hire or fire whenever they want (acts like a part-time job). Without unions, it can lead to such things as, hazardous working conditions and low-wage jobs that can be taken up by cheaper labor. Overall it effects the employment of citizens.[KN34]
In all of these incidents, it speeds up the globalization process, whether its moving capital or labor. Most of this is due to the ease of capital and labor mobility. Immigration plays a role by increasing the connections between countries.
[KN35] Week 12
A cultural cosmopolitan is one who supports racial integration and is open to new ideas, while a traditionalist is one who thinks that the old system and ways should dominate. Both sides view each other as _____[KN36] --traditionalists see cosmopolitans as destroying tradition, while cosmopolitans see traditionalists as rigid. These groups are the extremes of the other[KN37] , so much so that I can't choose a side. On one part, I do think diversity is good in order to eliminate such things as prejudices and fear, by understanding one another, but I do think it is important to preserve traditions for people to know about their nationality. Like most people (I assume), I'm in between both groups. In order for both sides to cooperate, I think that these groups must be flexible, in that the cosmopolitans must respect traditions, while traditionalist must respect other nationalities. Although, I do think "these developments [are a] dangerous invasion by American commercial culture because it reflects, among other things, a feeling that national identities are being undermined by the market based American model of capitalism" (Hebron and Stack, 104). Due to American corporations and their greed, they have "killed" some of the aspects that makes a country unique. For example, if someone might imagine Japan as not as samurais and Mt. Fuji, but Tokyo Disney.
Again, cosmopolitans want "diversity." In order to have diversity, there needs to be a distinctive feature between nationalities, therefore each nationality has its own customs and traditions. If cosmopolitans push too much to the point of eliminating traditions, then there will be no diversity, but a homogenous blob. On the part of the traditionalists, such aspects as gender attitudes and sexuality must change. We now live in a world where policies allow minorities to obtain opportunities and most of this freedom is widespread. In other words, it is too late to go back to the old ways.
Over the past few generations, Japan's economy adapted to the capitalistic structure of western societies and capital mobility. People became greedy and looked out for their own gain. The country also took advantage of the changes in technology and became known to have the most sophisticated technology or at least people thought so. A prime example of all of these aspects is the Tokaimura incident. In this nuclear power plant, untrained workers mixed proportionate amounts of dangerous chemicals by hand caused a nuclear meltdown in 1999. The plant also had cracks and fissures in its equipment, non-protective uniforms, and many other issues that were pointed out, but not fixed. Inspectors knew of these problems and reported the issues, but the METI (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry), failed to make the accommodations. This cover-up was to target "allaying public concerns about nuclear power and avoiding expensive plant shut-downs to carry out the repairs that have been the financial bane of the industry" (Kingston, 20), which obviously did not work. Also the area around the power plant also was unprepared if any of the power plants happen to fail. When the public found out about the all incidents, it further questioned and lost its trust in the government. Like in the Kobe earthquake, the government is suppose to take action and ensure the safety of all people (citizens and workers). The community should have been more prepared and the nuclear company should not be running under those conditions. What also shook the Japanese was the use of primitive technology, for Japan was thought to be technological advanced, but the company and government placed profit over safety.
Overall, at the cost of risking the one's reputation, politicians chose money[KN39] . This then lead to shifting the public's view on the government of seeing them as the people who take charge to the people who they can't trust. Now with the corruption of the government, the people need to take matters in their own hands.
The largest contributor that creates the globalizing tendencies for Germany, Brazil and Japan is the US. In each of these countries, are affected some way, either by adoption of economic practices, behaviors, or standards[KN40] . For Germany, as the country becomes more diverse such as opening up immigration and studying abroad; crimes, divorce, poverty rates increased. Germans associated these changes with Americanism, from which stems from individualism. Individualism attitude affects the business atmosphere by creating speculation in the markets. Although Germans blame Americanization for those negative consequences, Americanization can be positive by changing styles, tastes, and music. Most of these changes a adapted from Western culture, therefore these changes can also be seen as negative to oth[KN41] ers. Compare to Germany, Brazil sees the "American trash" as gold. To Brazilians, someone wearing a NY Giants jersey or Disney shirt shows a sign of wealth. Most of the goods imported in Brazil are from the US and Brazilian consumers thought the locally produced goods weren't as good. This would eventually lead to the decline of the "mom & pop" stores and culture as the US is replacing what was once there. As for Japan, the biggest impact of the US was the capitalistic attitude. More and more leaders and corporations are looking for ways to make money and save one's reputation. Once the public found out their wrong doings, the citizens lost their faith in trust in the leaders who were seen as the people who would guide the country. (There's more in the previous entry.) Whether these countries embraced the US influence or looked down upon it, the effects caused irreversible consequences on their culture. I think since US was a super power in these times and the increase in capital mobility and information flow, it's impossible for a country to avoid the US influence, especially if that country wants to do well also. There is a "give and take" relationship between the country and the US. If the country wants to do well, it has to give up a part of itself, it being the culture.[KN42]
As for the US, there is a suburbanization movement, meaning people moving from the rural area to the suburbs. Also there is growth in privatization of companies and in the service industry. The cause of these changes are from the US' good economic growth after the war, unions have improved the standards of living, and corporations finding new technologies and using more capital. This affluence and corporation power led to investment in other countries, where there are no taxes and cheaper labor, therefore more profit. Although Americans are enjoying the American Dream, eventually, as more corperations move out of the country, there'll be less jobs, and therefore this might lead to a decline in a comfortable life.[KN43]
The relationship between nation states, intergovernmental organizations (IGO) and nongovernmental organizations (NGO) is that all of them participate in some way or another in the same activities, such as peace-keeping, human rights, environmental issues, and disasters. For example, during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, FEMA (nation-state), the Red Cross (NGO), and United Nations (IGO) helped out with relief and other repercussions. The organizations may have the same role, but all contribute to support the situation. Since these types of organizations have impacted and helped societies greatly, in the last decade there has been an expansion of them all over the world in all different kinds of interest areas.
If you include globalization in the relationship then, "transnational public, political, economic, social, and environmental issues are no longer under the exclusive domain of national governments", and that "governmental power in most countries will be exercised in pursuit of domestic and international policies" (Hebron and Stack, 89). Globalization brings the connections of these organizations together. It enables them to collaborate on events or issues. The organizations "served to link different parts of the world together, and in doing so, diversity as well as homogeneity" (Iriye, 193). As a consequence though, globalization undercuts national sovereignty. Part of a government's revenue is determined by taxing of corporations. Although as corporations grow and they will eventually have the power to move anywhere, therefore escaping the taxation. Governments can't regulate the corporations in another country. Thus, the government has to appease the corporations. That's not all though. Not only the government needs to appease corporations, but also the IGOs and NGOs. Governments must follow the policies of IGOs, while satisfying the wants of the people in the NGOs. Therefore, the nation-states must find the balances between these factors or sacrifice something in order to achieve its goals.
Japan had two great fears: terror and empire. Terror refers to terrorism, while empire refers to the US superpower empire after the Cold War. The US doesn't need approval from other countries in the UN in order to things due to its mighty military power. This gives them the "rights" of intervene in order to protect humanitarian rights[KN45] . During this time period, most of the policy shifts are to democratization. What's ironic between the US's action of its justification of "peace-keeping" is that it contradicts the concept of democracy (what the US is all about). By the US trying to intervene/actions takes away the democracy of that country and the US become a dictator. [KN46]
I think Japan wasn't affected that much by IGOs and NGOs, but more by its relationship with the US. Japan depends on the US for security (due to Article 9), therefore fears American isolationism, but it also was critical of the US's position. American politicians excluded the Japanese from making decisions and mainly focuses on its own interests. The Japanese were also in a dilemma of pursuing these goals[KN47] : "geopolitical alliance with the United States to secure a stable balance of power in Asia, , and economic diplomacy intended to provide a more beneficial investment climate" (Fujiwara, 65). Either way one way or another, Japan would have to give up something. In the end, Japan chose to be stagnant or "based on realpolitik rather than a quest for global issues" (Fujiwara, 66). This puts them in a position where they are close enough to the US for protection, but not far away enough to be independent.[KN48]
Whether influenced by IGOs or NGOs, during the early 21st century [KN50] the positions of countries are constantly shifting as the powers of each country rises and falls. Most of the countries are trying to find ways to put them in a better position [KN51] or choose between which stance to take. For Brazil, it is coping with structural constraints. As the country is part of BRIC (Brazil Russia India China), it questions the order the UN because BRIC's power are rising while the US and UKs are declining. In order to make up for their inferior position, they regularly meet with the UN. Brazil also tries to cooperate with the US, such as Brazil would stop tariffs, while the US would lower tariffs on agriculture. So far though, they have not come to an agreement, but are happy with the status quo. Germany on the otherhand is debating on which type of foreign policy: assertive or civilizing. The assertive policy is based on realism, on which every nation is watching for themselves and Germany should be do the same. Civilizing is where the country will be interdependence and cooperative with other countries and uses three goals: limit use of force, promote freedom of individuals, and decrease gross equalities in international states. Compare to other countries in the post-Cold War era, a problem that Germany has with making the policy is that it has to deal with the country itself being a new nation-reunification of the two Germanies. If the country does take the civilizing policy, then on the positive side it would help Europe, but it would compete with the US. In the East, Japan also faces a dilemma between being independent (from the US) or under the US' security, which they need now as protection from terror. For the US, citizens spot the problems in the government and therefore create NGOs to fill in the gaps with their interests, such environmental issues and collective security. [KN52] Although the citizens are trying to pursue their wants, the government (President) also has other, more important issues to deal with foreign policies. Since the US' (military) power is at its peak and takes the role of being the protector, which comes with new and heavy responsibilities, it has to decided to keep aware of terrorism by adapting policies of intervening.
With the US being the at the top with its huge military power, the US now has a new responsibility. Especially with their fresh awareness of terrorism, They have to decide whether or not it is their responsibility (or if they are right in doing so) to fight terrorism in general and in and for other countries. Should they take on the role as the Protector? Should they "fix" and "help other countries up"?
This has been a consistent policy through the past decade, but what countries they chose isn't.
Between all of these countries, all are trying to find a policy/way to balance their powers and gain the most. In as sense, realism does occur (therefore support for Germany's assertive policy). During these hard times, even if the countries would like to cooperate, it is getting harder to for it must take care of its citizens.[KN53]
[KN1]Transitions, and check if 1st paragraph is accurate
[KN2]Right word to describe Poland, Hungary, etc...?
[KN3]Very confusing sentence
[KN4]Need to say what they prevailed (in obtaining their desires/saving country & selves)
[KN5]Very little analysis, a lot of facts.
- SU fallen ŕ no arms race ŕ no need military build up ŕ no more 2 reigning powers ŕ yes, dispersed/relieved b/c decrease in pressure from weapons (arms race)-no: US (has all power, concentrated into one)
[KN12]CHANGE!! Sounds like a "yo mamma" joke
Note: EG had high gov debt
[KN13]Needs to be condensed
[KN14]Japan dealing wi/ situation
[KN16]Might need to expand on that
[KN18]Swayed from state-centrally planned (SU proved wrong)ŕ capitalism
[KN19]Awk wording. They didn't have substance due to SU collapse
[KN23]fix: mention about how corps don't like gov restrictions & the movement of capital allows them to escape form regulations?
[KN27]Awk wording ish
[KN28]Going off topic & not really what the article talked about
[KN29]Check if points correlate with opinion at all
[KN32]Check on that
[KN34]Meant to say citizens who want higher paid jobs, won't get any job b/c ppl (immigrants or other workers) who want the "low-wages" can fill it up
[KN35]Just say something about immigration
[KN36]Need word. Something bad, seeing each other as an extreme, pessimistic, etc.. not understanding
[KN37]Doesn't really make sense, one-sided
[KN38]Want to combine all 3 issues that are expounded in one incident
[KN39]Fix. Weirdly worded. Risk: losing reputation, want: $$ lost: ppl's respect
[KN40]Right word-wanted a word that relates to Brazil (America symbol of wealth)
[KN41]Meh...change, change, change...
[KN42]Make any sense?
[KN43]O.o nothing really do to w/ culture. Doesn't really make sense
[KN44]Major help w/ getting ideas out
[KN45]Overall idea: US doesn't need approval from other countries b/c of its military power. So if the US wants to intervene b/c of its duty as "protecting humanitarian rights" & no body really agrees with the country b/c the US can blow them up. In a sense, no body can stop the US.
- US judgment may not match w/ other countries
- See pg. 62 top
[KN46]Trying to say it taks away from the meaning of democracy.
[KN52]Do all of these match? Does it match with what I'm stating