Kya Kim: "Conflict is no longer synonymous with war. It is, rather, an opportunity for growth, an opportunity for peace...Everyone of us has a role to play in determining the outcome of our shared conflicts...Which future will we choose?"

Myong Hee Kim, Founding Artist of Peace Mask Project at the

History+Art = Peace Festival, organized by Alpha Education, Toronto, Canada, 

August 15-21, 2015

In "The Art of Symbolism in Peace Building," an Autumn 2014 presentation about the Peace Mask Project at TEDxKyoto, team member Kya Kim emphasizes that we are all co-creators of our shared world, and can choose to think and work for a peaceful present and future:

A divided world creates more insecurity and fear. And fear, too often results in violence. Trust is the courageous act of being the first to break through that fear and reach out to "the other." Peace Mask Project is itself an act of trust, from the idealism that inspires the effort to the individual act of being a Peace Mask Model to the support and participation of hundreds of individuals in a collective effort to advance into a sane and healthy future.

Today tensions are rising in East Asia and many regions around the world. Fear and insecurity are also on the rise. This tension we are seeing does not guarantee violence, but, instead, could be seen as a great opportunity.

Conflict is natural and always present. It is neither negative nor positive in itself. Violence and repression are only one possible response to a conflict and one our societies turn to far too often.

There are many reasons for this: the profitability of militarization for a handful of corporations and individuals; the control and manipulation of a population through fear. But mostly I think it's due to a lack of creativity and cooperation. We are stuck in old habits and old ways of thinking.

Today young people have an unprecedented understanding of the greater world. We are becoming increasingly aware of how we are interconnected and interdependent. We find beauty in other cultures. And by reflecting on our own, we are open to growth and to change. This is the reality of our future, and one that needs to be reflected in our societies. Conflict is no longer synonymous with war. It is, rather, an opportunity for growth, an opportunity for peace...

We hope that Peace Mask Project will provide a platform for their shared vision of peace, to build trust by building lasting relationships, and to help them become leaders of a better world...

We do not need for the conflicts of our time to erupt in violence or be resolved through aggression. Everyone of us has a role to play in determining the outcome of our shared conflicts.

How will we participate?

What opportunities will we present through our actions?

Which future will we choose?

Karel Van Wolferen on regime change in Japan & Ukraine, the resurrection of the Cold War (without communism), the 'pivot,' Okinawa, the 'reinterpretation' of Article 9, & 'Full Spectrum Dominance'

Karel van Wolferen's September 2014 analysis of the US-Japan relationship within the context of US neocon geopolitical aims,"The Havoc and Fantasy of ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’." sheds light on why the Abe administration is violating of rule of law to rush its "reinterpretation" of the Japanese Peace Constitution,  and using military force against Okinawan civilians to build a US miitary port and training base at Okinawa's most important natural cultural heritage site.

This rare analysis of Abe policies within global context is especially relevant now as the LDP regime pits itself against the majority of citizens in Okinawa and mainland Japan, on behalf  of the interwoven US-Jp military-industrial complex, which depends on war and the threat of war to justify ever-increasing military expansion and expenditures:

     The American-triggered regime change in Ukraine at the Western end of the Eurasian continent has been widely discussed. Less noticed, if at all, has been the American-triggered change of government in Japan four years ago as part of the so-called ‘pivot’ aimed at holding back China on the Eastern end. The two ought to be considered together, since they share a purpose known as ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’.

     A military ambition and agenda, this provides much activist energy among America’s neoconservatives and their fellow travelers, which include sundry financial and commercial interests. Made up of many parts, like the recently established “Africom” (U.S. Africa Command), the comparable effort to contain-isolate-denigrate the two former communist enemy giants, China and Russia, may be considered a central aim.

     It does not add up to a feasible strategy for long-term American interests, but few American initiatives have done in the recent past. Since neoconservatives, ‘liberal hawks’ and neoliberals appear to have captured the State Department and White House, and their activism has already produced significant geopolitical instability, it would be no luxury to dig deeper in developments on the rather neglected Asian side of the globe.

     The protracted overthrow in the course of 2010 of the first cabinet formed by the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) does not at first glance resemble what happened in Kiev on January 22nd 2014 – when Victoria Nuland and Co triggered, aided, and abetted an anti–Russian coup d’état...No civil war against Japanese citizens who had supported a reformist program. It was a gentle overthrow. But an overthrow it was even so. And, importantly, while the Ukraine case served the elevation by consensus of Russia to being the new number one enemy of ‘the West’, the abrupt end to a new Japanese policy of rapprochement was the start of a fairly successful drive to create common imagery of China as a threat to its neighbors.

     Back in September of 2009, Japan underwent a politically momentous change when a new ruling party came to power, thereby ending half a century of what had been in fact a ‘one-party democracy’. As the first serious opposition contender for government, the DPJ had won an overwhelming electoral victory with a strongly reformist manifesto...

     One of this new government’s first moves was to initiate a new China policy. Its main architect, Ichiro Ozawa, had filled several planes with writers, artists, and politicians to visit China for the specified purpose of improving “people to people and party to party” relations. At the same time, the prime minister of this first cabinet, Yukio Hatoyama, was openly declaring his intention to join other East Asian leaders in the formation of an Asean+3 community, consisting of the existing Asean grouping plus Korea, China and Japan. It is highly unlikely that the now diplomatically ruinous and possibly dangerous Sino-Japanese conflict over the Senkaku/Diyaou islands would have come into being if his cabinet had lasted.

     As could have been expected, these unexpected Japanese initiatives created collective heartburn among Washington’s ‘Japan handlers’...

     Throughout the Cold War, Washington’s determination to rely on having an obedient outpost close to the shores of the two huge Communist powers did not require much pleading or pushing, because Tokyo had, as a matter of course, decided that it shared this same Communist enemy with Washington...

     The regime change drama can be said to have been prefigured shortly before the August 2009 elections that brought the DPJ to power. In January of that year Hillary Clinton came to Tokyo on her first mission as Obama’s Secretary of State to sign an agreement with the outgoing LDP administration (which knew it was stumbling on its last legs), reiterating what had been agreed on in October 2005 about a highly controversial planned new base for US Marines on Okinawa – a plan hatched by Donald Rumsfeld – which had earlier been forced down the throat of the LDP. The ruling party of the one-party democracy had applied a preferred method of Japanese politics when something embarrassingly awkward comes up: do nothing, and hope everyone will forget it. Clinton made clear that no matter what kind of government the Japanese electorate would choose, there could be no deviation from earlier arrangements...

     Much of the international Japan coverage at that time was done out of Washington with journalists interviewing the Japan handlers, since the body of regular American correspondents in Tokyo had dwindled to a very few who permanently resided there. Like we have just seen happen with the coverage of the Ukraine crisis in European media, Japan’s newspapers were beginning to reflect the reality as created by American editors...By these means the story about a politically new Japan led to the propaganda line that Prime Minister Hatoyama was mishandling the crucial US-Japan relationship...

     ...Hatoyama did not have to flee like the elected president in Kiev almost 4 years later. He eventually simply stepped down. He did so in line with a custom whereby politicians who wish to accomplish something that is generally understood to be controversial and difficult will stake their political future on the outcome. In this case Hatoyama had walked into a trap. He was given to believe that an acceptable compromise solution was being arranged for the problem of the new Marine basis in Okinawa. As he told me himself about half a year later, with that he made the biggest mistake in his political life.

     This is not how the newspapers have reported on it...but let this sink in: Washington managed, without the use of violence, to manipulate the Japanese political system into discarding a reformist cabinet. The party that had intended to begin clearing up dysfunctional political habits that had evolved over half a century of one-party rule lost its balance and bearings, and never recovered...Where earlier a China policy of friendly relations was being forged was suddenly nothing...

     The resulting anti–Chinese predisposition in the region perfectly suited the ‘pivot’, which has been Hillary Clinton’s program to develop greater muscle to curtail China’s influence. The American military, which maintains bases all over China’s neighboring soil, is not prepared to share power in the the Western Pacific, and Japan plays an important part in all this, even extending to current Prime Minister Abe’s reinterpretation of the famous pacifist clause in Japan’ constitution.

    ...Global diplomacy has gone out of the window in the meantime. Neither European countries nor Japan can, under current circumstances, engage properly with their gigantic neighbors. For a variety of reasons the powers that make a difference in the United States have demonstrated that they are comfortable with a reignited Cold War, this time without communism...

     ...full spectrum dominance does not constitute a feasible strategy; it is a dangerous fantasy among institutions that are not supervised by a politically effective coordinating center, hence are not on any leash...When we cheer NATO and its new initiatives for a rapid deployment force to be used potentially against the renewed enemy in Moscow, and when we cheer the supposedly great achievement of the European Union unanimously to endorse sanctions against that same new enemy, when we join the choir denouncing an imagined inherently aggressive China, we are encouraging a bunch of incompetent, politically immature zealots as they trigger chains of events whose likely dire consequences we could not possibly desire.

Kya Kim & Peace Mask Project: The art of symbolism in peace building

Journalist, peace activist and Peace Mask Project team member Kya Kim reminds us of the powerful role of symbolism in creating change towards lasting peace. Kyoto-based Kya Kim and her team strive to spark this lasting peace across Japan, China and Korea:

A divided world creates more insecurity and fear. And fear, too often results in violence. Trust is the courageous act of being the first to break through that fear and reach out to "the other." Peace Mask Project is itself an act of trust, from the idealism that inspires the effort to the individual act of being a Peace Mask Model to the support and participation of hundreds of individuals in a collective effort to advance into a sane and healthy future.

Today tensions are rising in East Asia and many regions around the world. Fear and insecurity are also on the rise. This tension we are seeing does not guarantee violence, but, instead, could be seen as a great opportunity.

Conflict is natural and always present. It is neither negative nor positive in itself. Violence and repression are only one possible response to a conflict and one our societies turn to far too often.

There are many reasons for this: the profitability of militarization for a handful of corporations and individuals; the control and manipulation of a population through fear. But mostly I think it's due to a lack of creativity and cooperation. We are stuck in old habits and old ways of thinking.br />
Today young people have an unprecedented understanding of the greater world. We are becoming increasingly aware of how we are interconnected and interdependent. We find beauty in other cultures. And by reflecting on our own, we are open to growth and to change. This is the reality of our future, and one that needs to be reflected in our societies. Conflict is no longer synonymous with war. It is, rather, an opportunity for growth, an opportunity for peace...

We hope that Peace Mask Project will provide a platform for their shared vision of peace, to build trust by building lasting relationships, and to help them become leaders of a better world...

We do not need for the conflicts of our time to erupt in violence or be resolved through aggression. Everyone of us has a role to play in determining the outcome of our shared conflicts.

How will we participate?

What opportunities will we present through our actions?

Which future will we choose?

Beyond the Fog of War: Widening remembrance of the victims of the firebombings of Tokyo, 66 other Japanese cities, Chinese cities, & all bombings in world history...

In Errol Morris’s documentary "Fog of War," 

former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara details the firebombings of Japan.

Why was it necessary to drop the nuclear bomb if LeMay was burning up Japan? And he went on from Tokyo to firebomb other cities. 58% of Yokohama...Tokyo is roughly the size of New York. 51% percent of New York destroyed. 99% of the equivalent of Chattanooga, which was Toyama. 40% of the equivalent of Los Angeles, which was Nagoya. This was all done before the dropping of the nuclear bomb, which, by the way, was dropped by LeMay's command. 

Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50 to 90% of people in 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people...LeMay said if we lost the war, we'd all be prosecuted as war criminals, and I think he's right. 

- Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, Fog of War

Today is the 69th anniversary of the U.S. fire bombing of residential Tokyo. This was the most destructive bombing raid in world history. On March 10, 1945, 334 B-29 American bombers dropped napalm and white phosphorus incendiary bombs that destroyed 16 square miles of buildings and killed (minimum estimates) 100,000 people, and wounded another 150,000, almost all civilians, in Tokyo.

The Japanese government has apologized to survivors of Japanese carpet bombings in China; memorialized victims of the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings, provided compensation to hibakusha; memorialized the military dead at Yasukuni, and provided compensation to Japanese Second World War veterans. However, the Japanese government has never commemorated the hundreds of thousands of victims of the firebombing of Tokyo and other historic Japanese cities, or compensated survivors, all whom were children at the time of the bombings.

Incongruously, the Japanese government, instead, honored Gen. Curtis LeMay, the commander of the “Superfortress” bombers that firebombed Tokyo and 66 other Japanese cities.  He designed the firebombing campaigns in a way that would maximize suffering of Japanese civilians; oversaw "Operation Starvation," designed to stop food from reaching civilians; and commanded the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  In 1964, during the administration of former PM Eisaku Sato, a 1974 Nobel Peace Laureate, LeMay was awarded the Grand Cordon Order of the Rising Sun, given to those who have made "distinguished achievements in the following fields; international relations, promotion of Japanese culture, advancements in their field, development in welfare or preservation of the environment."

Some of the plaintiffs of the Tokyo firebombing lawsuit

Last year, the Japanese Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against the Japanese government by civilian victims and relatives of those who died on March 10. The plaintiffs demanded an apology and damages over the U.S. firebombing of Tokyo; all were children during the war; many became orphaned.

In December 2009, the Tokyo District Court dismissed the original suit filed by 131 plaintiffs who were demanding a government apology and ¥1.44 billion in damages. In April 2012, the Tokyo High Court turned down an appeal, citing the hundreds of thousands of other firebombing victims who received no acknowledgement and compensation from the government.

The task of remembering and commemorating the victims of the Tokyo and other Japanese firebombings has been left to the aging survivors, their descendants, and civil society.

Charred body of a woman who was carrying a child on her back. 

(Photo: Taken on March 10, 1945 by Koyo Ishikawa (1904-1989))

The task of remembering of all victims of bombings worldwide needs more attention by journalists, scholars, and civil society.

Locals from Chungking, China, left homeless by Japanese bombing, May 1939. 

(Photograph: Hulton-Deutsch Collection/Corbis via The Guardian)

Ayoko Mie's "New map shines light on Tokyo air raid horrors: Scholars record wartime history politicians would rather forget," posted at JT yesterday explains how the Great Tokyo Air Raids Life of Victims Map created by the Center of the Tokyo Raids and War Damage shows how Tokyo residents tried to flee the bombs and fires:

The Life of Victims Map is the most comprehensive effort to visualize the overall effect of the raids because it includes those killed by raids other than Operation Meetinghouse. Over 100 air raids were carried out on the capital after November 1944...

U.S. forces went on to conduct air raids on 66 Japanese cities in the final months the war. Over a 10-day period beginning on March 9, 1945, the strikes destroyed 40 percent of those 66 cities, according to scholar Mark Seldon’s research paper “Bombs Bursting in Air: State and Citizen Responses to the U.S. Firebombing and Atomic Bombing of Japan.”

Yet the central government has conducted little research on the air raids, even the ones on Tokyo, despite their gravity.

“In a sense, over-concentration on the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has overshadowed the dozens of cities attacked by firebombing,” said Cary Karacas, assistant professor of geography at the College of Staten Island, who with author Bret Fisk launched the bilingual historical archive Japan Air Raids.org in 2010.

It was not until 1970 that the impact of the Tokyo air raids would begin to be scrutinized by a citizens’ group led by Katsumoto Saotome, director of the Center of the Tokyo Raids and War Damage, with the support of then-Tokyo Gov. Ryokichi Minobe.

“The central government didn’t want to recognize the fact that much damage was caused in Japan’s capital city, Tokyo, and they did not want to compensate non-military Japanese people who suffered from the bombing,” said the 81-year-old Saotome, who was 12 when the bombs began dropping.

In "Tokyo firebombing and unfinished U.S. business," posted at JT on Feb. 15, historian Jeff Kingston provides more context and details of the firebombings; calling into question the judgment of the Japanese government; and blaming both Japan's wartime government and the Truman administration for prolonging the war, which resulted in deaths of American troops and hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians:

Prolonging the war meant there was a price to be paid and, as in most modern conflicts, civilians paid the highest price. The firebombing campaign left some 5 million people homeless throughout Japan, killing perhaps 500,000 civilians and wounding another 400,000 — excluding the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims. LeMay also oversaw Operation Starvation, a strategy to mine Japan’s coastal waters and ports from the air, so disrupting shipping and the distribution of food. This supplemented a very effective submarine blockade...

The ashes of more than 100,000 air-raid victims are interred at Yokoamicho Park in Sumida Ward, where there is a modest memorial. And in Koto Ward, documents and oral histories have been assembled at a private library/museum — but there is no publicly funded Tokyo Firebombing Museum or state memorial commensurate with the scale of this ghastly event.

In 1990, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government set up a committee to prepare plans for a memorial, but in his recent book “Tokyo Vernacular,” Jordan Sand, a professor at Georgetown University, states that “this was ultimately derailed by politicians on the right and the national bureaucracy.”

In "Bombs Bursting in Air: State and citizen responses to the US firebombing and Atomic bombing of Japan," scholar Mark Selden has taken an in-depth look at the human consequences of the firebombings of Japan's cities. Selden argues that many more than 100,000 died on March 9-10.  He further demonstrates that LeMay's campaign against Japanese civilians set the stage for his bombings of Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and later bombings Afghanistan, and Iraq, in the context of the culture of celebration of war:

The Strategic Bombing Survey provided a technical description of the firestorm and its effects on Tokyo...

The survey concluded—plausibly, but only for events prior to August 6, 1945—that “probably more persons lost their lives by fire at Tokyo in a 6-hour period than at any time in the history of man...The largest number of victims were the most vulnerable: women, children and the elderly.”

 ...The figure of roughly 100,000 deaths, provided by Japanese and American authorities, both of whom may have had reasons of their own for minimizing the death toll, seems to me arguably low in light of population density, wind conditions, and survivors’ accounts...

Following the Tokyo raid of March 9-10, the firebombing was extended nationwide. In the ten-day period beginning on March 9, 9,373 tons of bombs destroyed 31 square miles of Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka and Kobe. Overall, bombing strikes destroyed 40 percent of the 66 Japanese cities targeted... the slaughter of civilian populations on a scale that had no parallel in the history of bombing.

...Overall, by Sahr Conway-Lanz’s calculation, the US firebombing campaign destroyed 180 square miles of 67 cities, killed more than 300,000 people and injured an additional 400,000, figures that exclude the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

Throughout the spring and summer of 1945 the US air war in Japan reached an intensity that is still perhaps unrivaled in the magnitude of human slaughter...The point is not to separate the United States from other participants in World War II, but to suggest that there is more common ground in the war policies of Japan and the United States in their disregard of citizen victims than is normally recognized in the annals of history and journalism...

With area bombing at the core of its strategic agenda, US attacks on cities and noncombatants would run the gamut from firebombing, napalming, and cluster bombing to the use of chemical defoliants and depleted uranium weapons and bunker buster bombs in an ever expanding circle of destruction whose recent technological innovations center on the use of drones controlling the skies and bringing terror to inhabitants below.

Less noted then and since were the systematic barbarities perpetrated by Japanese forces against resistant villagers, though this produced the largest number of the estimated ten to thirty million Chinese who lost their lives in the war, a number that far surpasses the half million or more Japanese noncombatants who died at the hands of US bombing, and may have exceeded Soviet losses to Nazi invasion conventionally estimated at 20 million lives...

 Washington immediately announced the atomic bomb’s destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and released the iconic photographs of the mushroom cloud... was banned under the occupation were close-up images of victims whether of the firebombing or the atomic bombing captured on film by Japanese photographers, that is, the human face of the atomic holocaust...

We reflect on the fact that there is no Sadako of the firebombing of Japanese cities, no carbonized lunchbox relic known to the world, or even to Japanese children. Yet there was precisely the killing of myriad mothers and children in those not quite forgotten raids. We need to expand the canvas of our imagination to encompass a wider range of victims of American bombing in this and other wars, just as Japanese need to set their experience as bomb victims against the Chinese and Asia-Pacific victims of their war and colonialism. Nor should American responsibility for its bomb victims end with the recovery of memory. It requires a sensibility embodied in official apology and reparations for victims, and a consciousness embodied in public monuments and national military policies that is fundamentally at odds with American celebrations of its wars.

Additional links:

"Children's World Peace Statue (Tokyo)"-- Plans for this statue and diligent fundraising

 were conducted by Tokyo junior and senior high school students while studying about

 the effects of the conventional and atomic air raids.

(Image: The Center of the Tokyo Raids and War Damage, Koto Ward, Tokyo) 

The Center of the Tokyo Raids and War Damage

Japanairraids.org

One of the participants of a group of Tokyo residents paying pilgrimage to landmarks dedicated to the victims 

of the Great Tokyo Air Raids gives an offering to the Buddhist deity of mercy in Tokyo’s Edogawa Ward 

on March 2, 2014, ahead of the 69th anniversary of the U.S. bombing on the capital. 

(Photo: Hirotaka Kojo, Asahi)

"VOX POPULI: Anniversary of 1945 Tokyo air raid warns us against past mistakes" (Asahi, March 10, 2014) 

"Woman's picture book recalls how mother saved her in Tokyo firebombing" (Hirotaka Kojo, Asahi, March 6, 2014)

"Fire Bombings and Forgotten Civilians: The Lawsuit Seeking Compensation for Victims of the Tokyo Air Raids" (Cary Karacas, The Asia-Pacific Journal, January 17, 2011)

"The Firebombing of Tokyo: Views from the Ground" (Brett Fisk and Cary Karakas, The Asia-Pacific Journal, Jan. 17, 2011)

"China and Japan at War: Suffering and Survival, 1937-1945" (Diana Lary, The Asia-Pacific Journal, Nov. 29, 2010)

"The Great Tokyo Air Raid and the Bombing of Civilians in World War II", The Asahi Shimbun, reposted at The Asia-Pacific Journal, March 11, 2010)

"A Forgotten Holocaust: US Bombing Strategy, the Destruction of Japanese Cities and the American Way of War from World War II to Iraq [*]" (Mark Selden, The Asia-Pacific Journal, May 2, 2007)

-JD

Wild "Heavenly Horses" Return Home

"Heavenly horses" return to Steppes of Mongolia and China. 

(Photo and Story: AFP via JT, 2013)

Chinese legend says the Silk Road's iconic Heavenly Horses were discovered 2,000 years ago by a criminal exiled to Dunhuang (a Silk Road crossroads in western China) who captured some and then presented them to the emperor, who fell in love with the breed.

  

They became known as Przewalski’s horses during European contact in the 19th century. Once thought to be extinct in the wild, the ancient species is being revived by conservationists in China and Mongolia.

Steppes horses came to Japan during the Kofun Period (250-540), from the Asian continent via the Korean Peninsula. Haniwa (funerary clay) horses were buried in tombs, along with figurines, from the Kofun to the Asuka Periods (538-710). 

Haniwa (clay funerary) horse acquired by the LA County Museum in 2010. 

(Photo: LA Times)

Great Chain of Nonviolence: Writers Oe, Murakami, Lianke, & Civic Leaders from Japan, Okinawa, South Korea, Taiwan, & China call for end to nationalistic aggression

(Nobel laureate & Article 9 defender Kenzaburo Oe voices support for 
Japanese civic group's call to "Stop the vicious cycle of territorial dispute!”. 
Photograph: The Hankyoreh)

Responding to the political and media circus over unresolved (since the Pacific War)  territorial disputes between Japan, China and South Korea, Japanese writers, journalists, scholars, and civil society leaders held a press conference on Sept. 28, 2012 in Tokyo to publicize their call on Japan to "recognize, reflect on, and sincerely articulate its historical issues" in East Asia.  The group, supported by Nobel laureate Kenzaburo Oe, jointly signed a civic statement: "Stop the vicious cycle of territorial dispute!”.

Jeong Nam-ku, Tokyo correspondent of The Hankyoreh detailed the event:

They included Atsushi Okamoto, former editor-in-chief of the leading Japanese progressive journal Sekai (The World); attorney Masatoshi Uchida, a longtime figure in lawsuits claiming compensation for issues in South Korean-Japanese history; former Asahi Shimbun Seoul bureau chief Koh Odagawa; and Ken Takada, an activist with the Citizens' Association Against Revision of the Constitution. Around 800 citizens signed the appeal, including children's writer Kayoko Ikeda, military critics Tetsuo Maeda, former Nagasaki mayor Hitoshi Motoshima, and Oe.

The statement urged the Japanese public "not to forget that the backdrop for the current territorial frictions is modern Japan's history of invading Asian countries."

The participants gave a number of suggestions for reducing friction, including enacting norms of behavior to deter such conflicts in East Asia, setting up forums for dialogue and discussions toward joint development of local resources, and establishing a framework for private dialogue linking South Korea, China, Japan, Taiwan, and Okinawa.

On the same day, Japanese novelist Haruki Murakami published a column in the Asahi Shimbun expressing concern that the violent nationalism stirred by the territorial conflict was destroying East Asian cultural bridges: "We cannot block the path for souls to cross national borders."

In response to Oe's & Murakami's public statements, Chinese novelist Yan Lianke penned a call for reason and peace, published at The New York Times on Oct. 5:

Again and again, I pray in these dark nights: Please, no more guns and drums. All wars are disastrous. The bloodstains of the Sino-Japanese war during World War II remain vivid even today in our collective memory.

The day after, on Oct. 6, the East Asia Citizens Forum, comprised of representatives from South Korea, China, Taiwan, Okinawa, and Japan, held a forum in Taiwan and issued a statement, “Facing history, resolving disputes, working towards peace in East Asia”  in conjunction with a petition calling for peaceful relations, starting at the grassroots level, between citizens of East Asian countries, despite recurrent belligerent nationalism at the government level.   Park Min-hee, correspondent for the South Korean progressive newspaper, The Hankyoreh, reported:

The campaign is being led by Professor Chen Guang Sheng of Shanghai Jiao Tong University of Taiwan at the helm, Prof. Lee Dae-hoon of Sungkonghoe University (NGO studies, member of Democratic Professor Association International Solidarity Committee), Atsushi Okamoto, former editor in chief of Sekai magazine of Japan, Nohira Shinsaku, representative of Peace Boat, Prof. Wakabayashi Jiyo of Japan’s Okinawa University, Prof. Wang Xiaoming of Shanghai University, and Prof. Han Jialing of Beijing Academy of Social Sciences.In an email interview with the Hankyoreh on Oct. 24, Prof. Chen said, “I hope the solidarity and signature campaign in East Asia can ease tensions in the region and act as a chance to inform the people that the government is not the only group that has power to make decisions concerning this issue. There are other opinions in civilian society.” He went on to say, “I hope this campaign will pave the way for other experiences and sentiments within East Asia to be exchanged and understood, and lay the groundwork for future common understanding.”
...Prof. Lee Dae-hoon [of of Sungkonghoe University in South Korea], who participated in the forum said, “The campaign is focused on the goal of uniting East Asian civil society and preventing territorial disputes from escalating while resolving the situation in a non-militaristic and peaceful way. We must not allow territorial disputes to be used to satisfy imperialistic power or agression.” He added, “The campaign was started with intellectuals at the center, but we will gather citizens’ signatures in the next few months. Based on citizens’ opinions, we will lead activities to seek and propose solutions on these territorial conflicts.

Japanese writers & civil society leaders again call for a

calm, diplomatic response to territorial disputes 

at Oct. 18, 2012  rally in Tokyo. Photo: Asahi Shimbun)

The Japanese civic group followed their Sept. 28 press conference with  a demonstration rally in front of the No. 2 Lower House members' office building in Tokyo’s Chiyoda Ward on Oct. 18, covered by Hatsumoto Hosokawa for Asahi:

Pointing out that "territorial issues rock nationalism in any country" and that "action on one side leads to action from the other," the group's Internet statement urged people to "reflect upon history" and called for resolution "through peaceful dialogue."

This snowballing of dialogue between citizen groups and the public is a form of collective grassroots empowerment that peace studies scholar Johan Galtung calls the "great chain of nonviolence".

Tng Ying Hui: Domestic Politics (unpopular political leadership in Japan, China, & ROK) driving political theater in Senkakus

Excellent analysis posted at Al Jazeera by Tng Ying Hui about domestic politics in China, Japan, and South Korea driving the melodramatic political theater over the Senkakus:

Political changes across the region have induced the governments to weigh in more strongly in the contest for the islets. Just when the leadership transition is about to commence, the Chinese political elites are facing challenges to its absolute position.

As the Bo Xilai scandal revealed fissures within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), they are anxious for a closure to the incident. Gu Kailai was swiftly charged for Neil Heywood’s murder, while ousted politician Bo Xilai was only briefly mentioned during the trials.

In Japan, PM Yoshihiko Noda suffers from below 30 per cent approval rating. Noda also comes under pressure to hold another election soon; a deal he made in exchange to get his tax-cut bill passed in parliament.

South Korea's Lee Myung-bak does not have it better. With elections looming, his approval ratings are at rock bottom, partly due to a series of corruption scandals, convicting a few of his closest aides and his brother.

"The governments hence see it necessary to take this opportunity to utilise nationalist passions to prevent being perceived as weak in the eyes of the electorate. In Lee's case, his visit to Takeshima/Dokdo Islands, which is also contested by Japan, have given some life to his approval ratings as it crept up 6 per cent.

However, with relations more tense than ever, countries are in a tenuous situation where possible severe foreign policy repercussions could occur if provocative behaviour calculated to influence domestic politics takes precedence over diplomatic gestures.

Ahn Sehong's "Layer-by-Layer Project" - Gallery Furuto, Tokyo through Sept. 9

Photo: Photographs of the Soul. Courtesy of Ahn Sehong

Ahn Sehong's "Layer by Layer Project: Military Sexual Slavery by Japan During the Second World War" is being exhibited (the second time this year) at Gallery Furuto in Tokyo’s Nerima Ward through Sept. 9.

The exhibition features 36 black-and-white pictures of 12 Korean women who were abandoned in China, after being forced into Japanese military sexual slavery during the Pacific War.

The first exhibition, at Nikon Gallery, encountered rightist backlash, a pattern used to repress controversial views in Japan since the postwar period. Tomoko Otake's Aug. 19 article at The Japan Times details Ahn's experience and gives voice to the photographer's compassionate and humanitarian motivation, just as he gives some voice to these displaced, forgotten victims of military sexual violence and war:

"This is not an issue of Japan-Korea relations," he said. "It's an issue of how war can infringe on the human rights of women who are the most vulnerable members of society. Japanese prostitutes were also taken (to other parts of Asia) as comfort women, and their rights were significantly trampled upon as well."

Toyohiro Mishima's Sept. 4 article at The Asahi explains how the second exhibition came about through the support of Kozo Nagata, a Musashi University professor and Kazuo Tajima, the manager of Gallery Furuto.

Twelve of the photographs are available for viewing at Ahn's website, Photographs of the Soul.

Charles J. Hanley on the Korean peninsula: "Why has this state of no war, no peace dragged on for 60 years?"

(Map: The Asia-Pacific Journal)
This 2010 article by Pulitzer Prize-winning AP correspondent Charles J. Hanley is as relevant today as when first published.

Hanley, a rare example of a journalist of integrity sticking with a tough story over the long term, asks, "Why has this state of no war, no peace dragged on for 60 years? and the answers he receives all point to world powers manipulating the Korean peninsula to maintain the Cold War status quo:

South Korean scholar Hong believes four great powers -- the U.S. and Japan on one side, China and Russia on the other -- like it this way.

A unified Korea would align with one power or the other, upsetting the regional balance, said the former Korea University president, a prominent conservative commentator.

"By keeping Korea divided, they're in fact maintaining their own security," Hong said...

Despite normalizing relations with Moscow, Beijing and Vietnam, the U.S. "has chosen containment over engagement and peaceful coexistence with North Korea," he [historian Park Myung-lim] said.

"I don't understand -- Washington is much, much bigger and stronger than Pyongyang, but for 60 years they have failed to bring it into the international community, to invite them to the international community."

...Veteran Korea observer Selig A. Harrison, of the Washington research group Center for International Policy, sees "lots of missed opportunities for peace" over six decades of confrontation."

(Generalissimo and Madame Chiang Kai-shek flank Roosevelt and Churchill at Cairo "where the U.S., Great Britain, and China signed a communiqué in December 1943. The three signatories proclaimed for the first time that Japan would forfeit its control over the Korean Peninsula...The initial plan concept for an occupied Korea did not envision a peninsula separated into two independent occupation forces, but a joint trusteeship occupation similar to that which they later coordinated in Austria. There the Soviet Union, France, Great Britain, and the United States were designated areas of administration coordinated by a central policy. Korea’s occupation divided the peninsula into two separate geographic and political zones. At the December 1945 Moscow Conference the Soviet Union and the United States reaffirmed their commitment to trusteeship and agreed that Korea would be granted its independence in five years, within which time the two superpowers would prepare the Korean people for general elections to form a unified Korean government. This plan never took hold. Within three years separate governments in the south and north were formed, which paved the way for all out war in June 1950." Text & photo: The Asia-Pacfic Journal)

Democracy Now! interviewed Charles Hanley, co-author of The Bridge at No Gun Ri: A Hidden Nightmare from the Korean War, after South Korea's Truth and Reconciliation Commission released findings in 2008, "concluding the US military indiscriminately killed large groups of South Korean civilians during the Korean War in the early 1950s."

See also "North Korea's 100th – To Celebrate or To Surrender?" by Gavan McCormack and "Extended Nuclear Deterrence, Global Abolition, and Korea" by Peter Hayes.

"Banks that broke the economy also lead on financing coal plants"

Sustainablebusiness.com via Reuters: "Banks that broke the economy also lead on financing coal plants":

The top three banks that finance coal plants and thus are major contributors to climate change [and the destruction of entire ecosystems] are:

- JP Morgan Chase: $22 billion.

- Citi: $18.27 billion

- Bank of America: $16.79 billion

They are followed by Morgan Stanley, Barclays, Deutsche Bank, and Royal Bank of Scotland

The top 20 coal financing banks are from the US, UK, Germany, France, Switzerland, China [Bank of China], Italy and Japan [Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group]. Since 2005, the 93 banks analyzed in a study have financed coal to the tune of $309 billion.

"Bankrolling Climate Change," released at the Climate Summit in Durban, South Africa, examines commercial bank lending practices in the coal industry. It was produced by several NGOs - urgewald (Germany), groundwork and Earthlife Africa Johannesburg (South Africa) and international network, BankTrack.

Read the entire report at Banktrack.org.

Not only China and India, but the United States provides examples of the devastation that coal production and burning wrought upon the natural environment. Southeastern Appalachia is reminscent of western Tohoku's breathtaking mountainous landscape and deep traditional culture. This beautiful region, similarly to Tohoku, has become a "national sacrifice zone."

To produce a tiny percentage (around 4%) of U.S. energy output, coal companies have bombed nearly 500 of the oldest mountains in North America encompassing 800,000 acres. Entire ecosystems and centuries-old small farming communities have been obliterated. As in Tohoku, war-like destructive assaults upon nature and people by dirty energy companies have been met with political, social, and media activist resistance by the people of the entire region and their worldwide supporters.

For more information, please see I Love Mountains: End Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining, United Mountain Defense, Plundering Appalachia: A National Sacrifice Zone, Appalachian Voices, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, and 40 Days of Prayer for the Mountains.

For more background on coal in Asia, see "Grassroots Asians part of interconnected worldwide coal-free movement: Coal is not the answer for post-3.11 Japan" (TTT, July 11, 2011)

Peace in Asia and the Pacific: Alternatives to Asia-Pacific Militarization Conference - Oct. 21-22, 2011, American Univ., Washington D.C.

Peace in Asia and the Pacific: Alternatives to Asia-Pacific Militarization

October 21, 2011 - 7:00pm - Saturday, October 22, 2011 - 6:00pm

Initiated by the American Friends Service Committee

To register and for additional information: http://afsc.org/PeaceInAsiaPacific

Please join us and consider having your organization co-sponsor this uniquely important conference.

Even as the Pentagon has been pursuing its Long War across the Middle East and Central Asia, the campaign to contain China has been driving U.S. strategic war planning and military spending.

Our movements to prevent war and to address the impacts of the militarization of the federal budget are not prepared to the long term designs of the Pentagon, right-wing and the Military-Industrial-Complex to reinforce and deepen U.S. militarism across the Asia-Pacific.

As former U.S. Ambassador to China R. Stapleton Roy put it, “we poked China in the eye” by sending the nuclear powered and nuclear capable aircraft carrier the U.S.S. George Washington into the East China Sea “because we could.”

The U.S. still has more than 100 military bases and installations across Japan. In Korea, activists have engaged in hunger strikes and been jailed for opposing the decimation of their communities with new U.S. military bases. The U.S. now has tacit military alliances with Vietnam and India and is exploring the return of military bases to the Philippines. The National Military Strategy issued in 2010 also calls for expanded military cooperation with Thailand, Malaysia, Pakistan, Indonesia and Singapore.

While the US economy stagnates under the tremendous burden of its military expenditures, China has poured resources into becoming the world’s workshop and building 21st century infrastructures and technologies. As the world’s financial centers tilt towards Beijing, new military spending in the region has increased the complexities of its territorial disputes with Japan and ASEAN nations with competing claims to South China Sea islands. A growing number of militarized “incidents” and violent conflict have also occurred on the Korean Peninsula.

The conference goals are:

Build our movements’ capacities to understand and respond to these developments
Identify and promote campaigns that challenge Asia-Pacific militarism and that advocate meaningful alternatives.
Facilitate solidarity between U.S. and Asia-Pacific peace movements, advocates and campaigns
In addition to our keynote speakers, panels will be devoted to Northeast Asia, Southeast Asia, and peace movement campaigns

Workshops to include:

Asia-Pacific Peace Movements

Southeast Asia

Central/South Asia

Economic Realities & Dynamics of the Asia-Pacific

Global Costs of Militarism

History 101: U.S. in Asia-Pacific

Human Rights

Korea

Nuclear Weapons Abolition

U.S.-China relations

Other workshops to be developed


Keynotes by Madame Yan Junqi, Vice President of the Chinese People’s Association for Peace and Disarmament and the Vice Chairperson of the Standing Committee of the Chinese National People’s Congress and by Professor Bruce Cumings, Gustavus F. and Ann M. Swift Distinguished Service Professor in History Chairperson of the Department, University of Chicago* Panels on Northeast and Southeast Security Issues, Peace Movement Campaigns and Workshops (see below).

*Madame Yan is confirmed. Professor Cumings has been invited. This conference will also serve as the 4th Peace Forum organized by The American Friends Service Committee and the Chinese People’s Association for Peace and Disarmament.

Additional information, including registration, available at http://afsc.org/PeaceInAsiaPacific.

Location

Kay Spiritual Life Center, American University
4400 Massachusetts Ave NW
Washington, DC 20016
See map: Google Maps
Contact Information:
Joseph Gerson
(617)661-6130
jgerson@afsc.org

Chinese farmers protest state seizure of land

Similarly to nomads in Tibet,  Chinese farmers are protesting state seizure of their land.

In Communist China, the state legally owns all the property, but this has not stopped Guangdong farmers from protesting recent seizures and demolitions to make way for government projects.

Saving Jeju Island: "It is about love for the people who cannot speak now. It is about love."

(Sung-Hee Choi in detention for holding a banner expressing concern for flowers and rocks)
Korean peace activist Sung-Hee Choi, arrested on Jeju Island, a "World Heritage Site" just south of the Korean Peninsula, for holding up a banner reading ""Do not touch even one stone, even one flower!" remains spiritually strong despite over two months of imprisonment, much of which she has spent on hunger strike.

David Vine, an American University anthropology professor who researches issues of overseas U.S. militarism and imperialism, interviewed Sung-Hee in prison last week. Here is an excerpt from the interview published at Foreign Policy in Focus today:

SUNG-HEE CHOI: The United States and South Korea use military exercises in the Asia-Pacific region that are aimed against China, not North Korea. There is big evidence that the United States will want the Jeju naval base, even though this is officially denied every time: They say, “This is not a U.S. naval base. This is a South Korean base.” So this is really a trick. They are really deceiving people. There is no problem for the U.S. military to use it. First, the U.S. and South Korean mutual defense treaty, which was signed in 1954, allows the United States to use of all South Korean military facilities. Second, the SOFA [Status of Forces Agreement] facilities are really meant for the U.S. military. Third, the U.S. military strategic flexibility policy under which South Korea has allowed U.S. forces in Korea to assume expanding regional and global roles beyond deterring North Korea.

The United States military can clearly use any South Korean base.

It is not only the military, but also corporations like Samsung and Daerim that are benefiting from the building of the base. It is not only a military part, but also the commercial part. What I am afraid about is the entrance of fascism in the whole island.

DAVID VINE: Fascism?

SUNG-HEE: Yes, fascism. Yes. In the mainland, and now Jeju island is being dominated by Samsung.

A base on Jeju would be a tragedy for Jeju Island and its people, because of what they have already experienced in 1948, when the South Korean military massacred 40,000 [accused communists].

Jeju’s people’s history is one of struggling against outside powers: the United States and Japan. U.S. military weapons [were involved in the massacre] just a few years after the South Korean liberation from Japan. Jeju's own identity is constant. Jeju has been the victim of the outside powers.

Why are we still struggling? Not only for the environment, but also for the history of the Jeju island and South Korea, which have been struggling against the powerful countries.

Another thing that I am thinking is that, day by day, Jeju island is a red button for the United States military. The United States already occupies all of the region that it covets. The United States already occupies Hawai’i, Okinawa, Philippines—or, they used to. Now they want to occupy Jeju island. This is a peace island. This is for peace. Now the vision of the peace activists here is for keeping the island as a real peace island.

Brother Song [a fellow activist] and [former Jeju Governor] Shin Goo-beom have tried to find alternatives for villagers for how to develop Gangjeong village for our future generation. One option is to build a UN Peace School. They are all talking about this. And also the chairman and the villagers’ committee, they are all talking about this. That needs to be our vision. That needs to be our ultimate goal. That is a concrete vision to create a real peace school for future generations in Jeju island.

And I really hope that you can talk about how the villagers are suffering. How they love their hometown. I really hope that you will please communicate how the islands in the Asia-Pacific region are now a target of an empire base for the United States.

DAVID: Why do you think there are so many people who are so dedicated to the struggle? Like yourself. People willing to go to jail. People willing to go on hunger strikes. There are many anti-base movements but people seem to be very passionate, and I wonder why—either personally for yourself or for others—you think people are so dedicated, so strong in their opposition?

SUNG-HEE: As I have written before, I feel a responsibility to talk for the voiceless animals and creatures who cannot speak. Second, for our future generations who will be the victims of war if we don’t stop the base. I think the villagers love their hometown so much. It is their hometown. They love it so much.

It is about love. It is about a love that cannot speak. It is about the sea that cannot speak. It is about the creatures who cannot speak aloud. We are basically talking about, we are basically talking….

And then, an automated voice and background music abruptly cut Sung-Hee off, announcing that our time had expired and instructing visitors to leave quickly. Sung-Hee grabbed her pen and the scrap of paper next to her and furiously wrote a few final words. She held the paper briefly up to the glass between us before a guard took her away. The paper read:

It is about love for the people who cannot speak now.

It is about love.

A poignant message of solidarity from Sung-Hee sent on behalf of the Spring Love Harukaze peace festival held in Tokyo in April 2010 may be read here.

For information on how you can support the Gangjeong villagers of Jeju in their struggle to preserve their beautiful, peaceful island, as well as how you can help release Sung-Hee and the others imprisoned for their nonviolent actions (and love for their community, the sea, dolphins and other sea creatures), please see this previous TTT post.

Grassroots Asians part of interconnected worldwide coal-free movement: Coal is not the answer for post-3.11 Japan

China's example demonstrates that coal is not an answer to energy production. (Image: Sierra Club)

Congratulations to locals in Sabah, Malaysia and their global supporters in prevailing against a coal company 

that wanted to destroy this beautiful coast! (Image: Sierra Club)

Last month scientists reported that Pacific marine life passed into the Atlantic Ocean for the first time in thousands of years because global warming has melted ice cover in the Arctic. This month we've seen a flurry of news stories stating China's coal burning has "halted" global warming. Responsible media outlets like Reuters and Discover qualified the finding with pronouncements from climate change scientists who stressed that, over the long term, sulfur dioxide emissions from coal would increase global warming. Anyone who has been to China (or the Appalachian region of the United States) already knows coal is not an answer to energy production. The coal industry is as destructive as the oil and nuclear energy industries: causing permanent ruin of entire eco-systems and communities worldwide.

Even before 3.11, Japanese electricity producers were, together, the world's #1 coal importer and had planned or had under construction several new major coal-fired power stations in Japan:

Tepco previously said it expected two new coal-fired units to start operations in late 2013—a 1 GW plant at Hitachinaka and the 600 MW Hiromo No. 6 unit northeast of Tokyo, and J-Power has several plans for new coal-fired generating stations.

In past years, Japanese energy companies clashed with the Environment Ministry over emissions. Coal energy concerns now are using the Fukushima catastrophe to push through previously rejected projects and pursue growth. Owners of a mine project (20% owned by Japanese; 20% owned by South Koreans) in Vancouver, British Columbia want to produce coal for export to Asia over the objections of local residents. Itochu, a Japanese trading group, paid US$1.52 billion to acquire a 20% stake in Drummond International’s Colombian coal mining operation. The agreement gives Itochu “rights” to sell Colombian coal in Japan. The conglomerate, a major uranium supplier, used to buy most of its coal from Australian companies and has investments in Canada, Indonesia, and China. Two days ago, Mitsui bought a 49% share of Australia's Cockatoo coal project.

In Asia (and elsewhere), coal companies have seized farm land and destroyed villages, rendering entire populations homeless. The Sierra Club details this pattern of destruction, attempted destruction, and local resistance by rural people who want to save their ancestral homes and natural environments in "Down With Coal! The Grassroots Anti-Coal Movement Goes Global":

While China struggles with the enormity of the pollution burden from its world-leading annual coal consumption, it is not the only hotbed of future coal-plant construction. Activists in India, for example, report that regulators gave the green light to at least 173 coal projects during 2010 -- nearly one plant every other day. In Southeast Asia, large Chinese utilities such as China Huadian are setting up shop to finance and build a slew of new coal plants. Meanwhile, new coal mines are being proposed in Australia and Indonesia, overwhelmingly for export sales. Countries from Mozambique to Mongolia, which have had little domestic need for coal, are now being hyped as the next big players in the global coal rush. (Photo: A 2,000-MW coal plant in Madhya Pradesh, India.)

In the fertile farming areas that support large rural populations in much of Asia, the new coal boom spells civil conflict, as fields are seized, villages are ordered to pack up and leave, and communities resist. For the U.S. coal movement, the 2,500 people who turned out to protest the Capitol Power Plant was a large number. In India or Bangladesh, marches and demonstrations of more than 10,000 people are not uncommon.

The dominant international narrative focuses on the need to build large numbers of new coal plants across the developing world to spur economic progress. However, the assertion that development can only be achieved through a massive expansion of coal use is being met with increasingly fierce resistance by those asked to bear the most toxic and destructive burdens of this expansion: the people living next to coal projects.

Local populations are resisting private and public-sector pressure to dramatically expand coal-fired power because these projects are not intended for their benefit. While local people face displacement and the destruction of their livelihoods, electricity is often exported to urban centers. Communities are calling for a more sustainable model of energy development that prioritizes access to energy services for all, environmental sustainability, and human health. Their efforts to halt coal-plant construction have placed them front and center in the struggle over energy and development in the 21st century.

In the past, most communities struggling to take on ill-conceived projects have done so largely on their own, but that's starting to change. International coalitions are beginning to develop to bring publicity and support to front-line efforts. Here are a dozen places around the world where people are uniting to halt coal projects, increasingly with international support.

•  Sabah, Malaysia

In April, 1,500 people convened on a beach in Malaysia to savor a victory that had been judged impossible just two years earlier: the defeat of a 300-MW coal plant in the Malaysian state of Sabah, located on the northeast side of the island of Borneo. Celebrations were also underway 7,500 miles away, in California, among a group of activists who had helped draw international publicity to the issue -- including a Time magazine article entitled "A Coal Plant in Paradise."

• Phulbari, Bangladesh

Bangladesh's high population density (more than 164 million people in a country the size of Iowa) and rich agricultural land make coal mining a destructive proposition. In the township of Phulbari, as many as 220,000 people would be displaced by a proposed 15-million-ton-per-year coal mine and a 500-MW coal plant. Community opposition reached a crescendo in 2006, when paramilitary forces fired on a protest rally of as many as 70,000 people, killing three people and injuring 200. In the wake of these deaths, nationwide protests and strikes closed down the country for four days... During recent demonstrations, the Bangladeshi government has deployed its Rapid Action Battalion, notorious for torture and for the deaths of persons in its custody. The repression has failed.

• Andhra Pradesh, India

This coastal state of eastern India is experiencing a coal-plant construction boom, including the 4,000-MW Krishnapatnam Ultra Mega Power Project, one of nine such massive projects in planning or under construction across the country...The 2,640-MW Sompeta plant proposed by Nagarjuna Construction Company and the 2,640-MW Bhavanapadu plant proposed by East Coast Energy have both provoked large nonviolent protests that have ended in police attacks, including four deaths of local residents. Following coverage of the police action on Indian television, investigations revealed a pattern of "crony capitalism" among the permitting agencies and corporate sponsors. As of May 2011, the Sompeta plant had been cancelled and the Bhavanapadu plant had been placed on hold by officials, with corruption investigations continuing...

• Dawei, Burma

In Dawei, on the beautiful southern peninsula coast of Burma, Italian-Thai Development Plc signed a deal in Nov. 2010 to build a 4,000-to-6,000-MW coal plant, the largest in Southeast Asia and possibly the world. Within weeks of the signing, 19 villages had received orders to move. Dawei is 10 miles from Maungmagan, a scenic beach and rich fishing district...

• Nakhon Si Thammarat Province, Thailand - On Feb. 24, 2011, 10,000 people formed a human chain in this province in Thailand to protest a coal-fired power plant planned by Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand...

• Konkan Coast of Maharashtra, India

Home to 112 million people, this state in western India is building a concentration of large coal plants on a tiny sliver of land south of Mumbai known as the Konkan Coast (dubbed "the California of Maharashtra")...Concerned by the pollution and displacement entailed by the massive proposals, farmers have targeted some of the largest projects. One of these is the 4,000-MW Girye Ultra Mega Power Project, which prompted mango farmers and others to stage marches, hunger strikes, and other nonviolent actions. They successfully forced the project to seek a new location [PDF] as protests barred the government from acquiring the needed land.

• Orissa, India

In this state on the eastern coast of India, the scale of coal-plant development is staggering... In March, activists from across India converged on Orissa for a national conclave to plan a response to the coal boom, as well as the related issues of energy use and climate change. The mobilization includes the National Alliance for People's Movements, Focus Odisha, and numerous other groups.

• Madhya Pradesh, India

Since 1977, when the World Bank financed the first coal-fired plant in the region, the Singrauli district of this state in central India has been notorious for roughshod development and population displacement. Now more massive coal plants are being built or planned... The concentration of power generation in an agricultural area has left local communities reeling. The Sasan Ultra Mega Power Project, for example, has displaced 6,000 people. One man is benefiting: Mukesh Ambani, the controlling owner of India-based Reliance Power, whose reported net worth of $27 billion makes him one of the world's five richest individuals.

• Queensland and New South Wales, Australia

On a tonnage basis, Australia already leads the world in coal exports, and that lead may widen significantly if several massive mines are allowed to move forward in the eastern coal-mining states of Queensland and New South Wales... Farmers and ranchers are fighting back with a concerted effort to protect rich agricultural lands and precious water resources from mining operations...

•  Victoria, Australia

While the low-quality coal in this state in southeastern Australia is not suitable for export, it provides 91 percent of the fuel used for power generation in Victoria itself...

• Colombia

One of the oldest examples of citizens working across national boundaries on coal issues is the coalition of human rights and labor organizations that has brought attention to the massive mines in Colombia, such as the 35-by-5-mile Cerrejón coal mine, operated by Cerrejón Coal Company, and the mines operated by Drummond. The expansion of these mines has been marked by paramilitary violence, high numbers of deaths in mining accidents, and displacement of entire communities, including Tabaco, a 700-person Afro-Colombian village that was razed in 2001. Witness for Peace has brought members of Kentuckians for the Commonwealth to visit the mines, as well as people who live near the Salem Power Station in Massachusetts, which uses coal from Colombia.

• Sarangani Province, the Philippines

In the Philippines, grassroots protests against new coal plants and open-pit coal mining have taken place across the country...At a separate demonstration, students at Mindanao State University dressed as Na'vi from the film Avatar marched on the fenced property of the proposed plant site...

The co-authors (collaborative activists worldwide) conclude:

As grassroots resistance grows in countries around the globe, a nascent, interconnected, worldwide anti-coal movement is emerging. In an increasingly globalized world, local campaigns can quickly reach a global audience and tap into previously unimagined support networks. While the participants in this new movement are diverse, some of the patterns are becoming clear: sustained and passionate grassroots activism is challenging the idea that fossil fuels are the only option. Many governments have backtracked or shelved plans in response to political pressure or legal actions. Some banks, investors, and even energy companies are growing increasingly wary of further supporting coal.

But it's still too early to write the obituary for King Coal. The industry is now attempting to wrap itself in the cloak of "development," justifying dirty energy projects in the name of providing energy access for some of the world's most economically poor countries. While many coal projects have encountered strong opposition, too many others are proceeding without challenge.

...Like tobacco, coal insinuated its way into our lives delivering a cheap, short-term energy high, but leaving a bitter long-term aftertaste -- in the case of coal, ruined rivers and lands, lives wrecked and cut short, abandoned communities, and an increasingly polluted and potentially unlivable atmosphere.

We need clean energy alternatives, not the continuation of dirty energy that destroys people's health, livelihoods, and resources. Will you join the growing global movement to move away from coal?

(24 February 2011 - Thailand. Children join Greenpeace & thousands of other people from Nakhon Si Thammarat to protest plans for a new coal-fired power station to be built in their province by the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT). The protesters call for EGAT to immediately withdraw its coal project due to projected serious economic, social and environmental impacts. Photo: Greenpeace Int.)

Bishop Kang Woo II of Jeju Island: "A peace issue of Korea, for Northeast Asia, & for the whole world..."

(April 26, 2010 Peace Missal at Gangjeong, Jeju Island, S. Korea)

For the past four years Gangjeong Village has been resisting the naval base building project in their home sea. For years Gangjeong village has been called Il-Gangjeong by Jeju natives due to its outstanding ocean scenery and well preserved nature. Recently a lot of Gangjeong citizens have moved out, so the current population of the village is about 1,500, which is a small number compared to the entire population of Jeju Island.

This small village has been quite alone in its opposition to the construction of the naval base. Now they have reached a point of physical and spiritual exhaustion, and at this time, all over the nation, people from many different organizations, as well as well-known social activists, are joining the people of Gangjeong Village in the movement to resist the construction of the base. We are encouraged by and thankful for this support.

The people of Gangjeong Village and Jeju Island want to share why we are opposed to the construction of a naval base. In 1948, already 63 years ago, the people of Jeju Island suffered from the 4-3 (April 3) Massacre. At that time over 30,000 civilians, including children and the elderly, were killed by their own military. Innocent civilians were cruelly massacred in such a way that this incident has become nationally recognized as a genocide. The government has continually admitted these mistakes of the past, apologized, and asked for forgiveness from the victims who lost their lives, in order that the next generation will learn from this event and ensure that Korea will never again experience this kind of tragedy.

A military base on this kind of land, a naval base in this island – a naval base with all of the latest weapons collected in one place, including the Aegis and aircraft carriers, creating a great concentration of military power – it simply does not make sense to be in Jeju Island. The reason that the citizens of Gangjeong Village and Jeju Island are resisting the construction of this military base is not just because it is a Jeju issue. We also see this as a peace issue for the whole nation, and not even just our country, but also an issue for China, Japan and Korea – countries that have not yet been able to overcome the conflicts between them. If this military base becomes a reality, it will only stimulate a larger conflict in Northeast Asia. We believe that this is not healthy for the peace of Korea, for Northeast Asia, and for the whole world.

Please continue to support the people of Gangjeong Village. If more people in the nation start to have more understanding and awareness about this issue, it can be the one reward for the suffering of the people in Gangjeong Village. We hope that from this point on, you will take an active role in this struggle. Thank you.

~ Bishop Kang Woo Il of Jeju Island

Worse than NAFTA: S. Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) would hurt U.S. & S. Korean small farmers & workers; Burmese, N. Korean slave laborers

(Photo: Korea Policy Institute)
• "South Korea ‘Free Trade’ Deal: Another Funnel for Exploitation" by Roger Bybee, In These Times, June 3, 2011:

KORUS is based on the NAFTA model, the outstanding achievement of which was managing to lower living conditions for the majority of citizens in three nations (United States, Mexico, and Canada) simultaneously...

KORUS defines “South Korean-made” as any product that has at least 35% of its value created in South Korea. Under this rule, the origin of the remaining 65% does not matter. “So South Korea can use components made by slave labor in Myanmar or in China with its repressive conditions and currency manipulations,” McKinnon told In These Times.

KORUS would potentially open up the United States to components produced under one of the world's most tightly-repressive nations. The rigid police state of North Korea has opened up a free-trade zone employing about 40,000 workers currently. South Korean firms operating factories in the zone typically pay the North Korean government just $3 to $4 per day per worker, of which the worker gets to keep just $1.

• "Why We Must Oppose the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement" by Christine Ahn and Seung Hye Suh, Korea Policy Institute, May 25, 2011:

If passed, the Korea-U.S. FTA is predicted to have profound consequences on jobs, workers' rights, environmental protections, the U.S. trade deficit, banking and financial services, healthcare, agriculture, and both governments' ability to pass public health and anti-discrimination laws.

Yet here in the United States, there is almost no word about it in the media and no public debate. Large corporations and the South Korean Embassy have been spending millions of dollars to lobby for the FTA while the U.S. people, a majority of whom opposes such deals, are not even aware that the largest trade deal since NAFTA could be passed before mid-summer...

Korean farmers are so militant because for them, this is a struggle between life and death. This FTA—because of the stark differences between Korean and U.S. farms—will drive most farmers to ruin. Korea has only 4.2 million acres of farmland, compared with the US's 434 million. The average farm size in Korea is 1.2 acres, compared with the U.S.'s 71 acres. The National Family Farm Coalition, an alliance of American small family farmers, opposes the deal because only large U.S. agribusiness corporations will benefit. Meanwhile, the Korean Peasants League estimates that if the FTA is implemented, Korean agricultural production will decrease by 45 percent and force roughly half of Korean farmers off their land. Korean farmers stand to lose their land, livelihoods and lives, and Korea stands to lose its rural farming tradition and culture...

One of the most dangerous parts of this FTA for people in general and workers specifically is its investment chapter. The deal was negotiated in 2006, at the height of the deregulatory fervor that brought on our current economic recession. The deal grants unprecedented freedoms to investment banks and financial corporations to manipulate the economy. In the late 1990s, many in our Korean American community immigrated to the U.S. because of the Asian financial crisis that ravaged Korea's economy. Koreans not only lost jobs and savings, they lost significant labor protections while their quality of life and work prospects drastically declined. Even as Korea's overall economy eventually improved, the lives of ordinary Koreans did not. More people became irregular workers, earning half the salary of regular workers and without benefits or pensions. In 2000, 40 percent of Korean workers were irregular workers; by 2008, that number had grown to 60 percent. Of that irregular workforce, 67.5 percent are women workers. Korea also has the largest gender wage gap of all OECD countries.

Most labor economists say that this FTA will only intensify these trends and eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs, at a time when both governments are cutting social welfare programs. Furthermore, neither the U.S. nor Korea has ratified ILO Conventions 87 and 98, which are core international labor standards guaranteeing the freedom of association, the right to organize, and the right to collective bargaining...

The FTA has also been used to dismantle Korea's environmental and public health laws. During talks, Korea agreed to a side deal, which basically overturned its 2000 genetic engineering labeling law that kept genetically modified organisms (GMOs) out of Korea's food supply. By 2008, Korea had approved 102 GMOs for import as feed or food, 70 percent from the U.S. firms Monsanto, Dupont and Dow Chemical...

Finally, if passed, the FTA has and will continue to seriously undermine democracy in both Korea and the United States. In Korea, perhaps the most egregious example is the dismantling of Korea's universal healthcare system...

• "Korea US Free Trade Agreement Another Cash Cow for Corporations" by Jim Goodman, Familyfarmers.org, April 11, 2011:

...U.S. agricultural interests stand to gain billions in earnings. Farmers, however, are not international traders. The real profit in agriculture is made in the corporate boardroom; farmers don’t have a seat there. Perhaps the stronger point is that most farmers worldwide produce food to be consumed locally, not commodities for international trade. They stand to be victims of corporate “dumping” rather than standing to benefit by trade.

Like Mexican and Central American farmers under NAFTA and CAFTA, Korean farmers...stand to lose their land, their culture and their dignity.

If the argument in favor of KORUS is increased corporate profit, fine, call it that, but it is a perverse misrepresentation to imply that U.S. farmers and workers will profit. Farmers and workers do not have the power, the lawyers or the off-shore banks that the multi-national corporations use to push their agenda.

As tariff barriers are removed, the world will indeed be the oyster of multi-national corporations. Shakespeare could be quoted as their guiding light: “Why then the world’s mine oyster/Which I with sword will open."

• "Free Trade Kills Korean Farmers" by Christine Ahn and Albie Miles, Foreign Policy in Focus, February 15, 2011:

The Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (Korea FTA), which the Obama administration is promising to send to Congress for ratification in the next weeks, would be the largest international trade deal since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Korea is the seventh largest U.S. trading partner and the United States is Korea’s third largest trading partner. Commerce between the two countries is estimated at $86 billion annually. The Korea FTA was originally signed in April 2007 by President Bush and later amended by the Obama administration in December 2010. But neither the U.S. Congress nor the South Korean parliament has yet to sign it...

In 1995, South Korea joined the World Trade Organization and signed the Agreement on Agriculture. Like many Asian countries, South Korea had limited foreign agricultural imports through the use of quotas and tariffs to protect their agricultural base. But by signing the Agreement on Agriculture, Korea was forced to end its system of quotas and tariffs, and begin to import a certain amount of agricultural commodities.

Meanwhile, as the United States and the EU were forcing farmers in poor developing countries through the WTO to open their markets, they were providing billions of subsidies to their own farmers. From 1995 to 2005, OECD countries collectively increased the subsidies they provided their farmers from $182 billion to $300 billion. Although most unsubsidized peasant farmers around the world lived on less than $400 a year, U.S. and EU farmers received on average $21,000 and $16,000 annually in subsidies.

Opening Korean markets to cheap foreign imports devastated Korean farmers. Since the 1995 Agreement on Agriculture, Korean farmer debt grew four-fold to approximately $30,000 forcing millions off their land and into poverty. In 1970, farmers made up 44.7 percent of the Korean population. By 1995, only 11.6 percent were farmers. Today, only 3.2 million Korean farmers remain, comprising 7 percent of the population. According to Reverend Han Kyung Ho, President of the Korean Rural Mission, Korea’s dependency on imported food has reduced its food self-sufficiency from 56 percent in 1980 to 25.3 percent by 2004. Lee Kwang Seok of the Korean Peasants League points out that, with rice out of the equation, Korea would only be 5-6 percent food self sufficient. “If a country depends on other countries for food, the sovereignty of the whole nation becomes threatened,” says Reverend Han. “Food is a strong weapon to control another country.”

• In-depth and detailed scholarly analysis of KORUS: "Capitalism, the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement, and Resistance" by Martin Hart-Landsberg, temporarily available as a free download at the Critical Asian Studies website.