Japan- McCormack

I think that it is possible for Japan to be both dependent and assertive, it just is not quite the easiest combination to achieve. One of the main things that McCormack stresses is that Japan's current political situation was basically mandated by the US after WWII, with some help from the Japanese Emperor . He also mentions how much the current Japanese government is willing to cooperate with Bush, regardless of whether or not that cooperation is reciprocated or approved of by the Japanese people. Because Japan's "American-imposed" identity has only been established in the latter half of the 20th century, it is difficult for Japan to become part of a greater "Asian" identity. Because Japan is dependent on the US but has an undercurrent in its identity of strength and aggression, it is hard to find a midpoint between dependence and assertion. It seems like Japan is able to be dependent on the US for some things/aspects, like the military, but is assertive in other aspects, like economics. Therefore, Japan will end up being assertive in non-security aspects without being assertive in security aspects. This non-assertion in security aspects will be hard to mesh with the Japanese identity that the Japanese government put forth, but it will be interesting to see how much Japan will continue to be dependent on the US for security if the Japanese identity is strengthened. The dependence-assertion combination is possible, but the emphasis depends on whether or not the government wants to focus on security or on more domestic issues. That give-and-take is constantly changing, so it is possible to achieve a mix of the two and still be a powerful state.

Getting Beyond the Impasse

Kim and Feffer's article is very critical of the Bush administration's handling of the North Korea situation. They feel that the administration is hypocritical in their polices and that they still try to skirt around the issue rather than seek a solution, even with the Six Party Talks. They explain how North Korea is very reluctant to make any concessions until they get some kind of guarantee that they will get something in return, so far the US and Japan have been hesistant to change their policies towards North Korea.

Klinger defends the Bush administration (and South Korea's) by saying that there needs to be some type of North Korean accountibility before any of the polices laid out in the Six Party Talks be implemented. He thinks that the new South Korean president Lee will be a better player than the former South Korea president Roh because Lee will run the country like a business and not be as unfocused in his dealings with North Korea as Roh was.

I think that Kim and Feffer make a better argument, they don't "sugar-coat" the situation as much as the Bush Administration does. I think that the way they talk about North Korea seems more logical and realistic than Klinger's. It takes into account other reasons why North Korea is acting the way they're acting.