INDONESIA: What can we learn about #nuclearban from wayang?

INDONESIA: What can we learn about #nuclearban from wayang?
(Please share this message on Twitter.)

It is breathtaking to follow the #nuclearban hashtag and read the live tweets about specific contributions being made minute-to-minute at the "United Nations Conference to Negotiate a Legally Binding Instrument to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons, Leading Towards their Total Elimination."

We're talking about a treaty banning nuclear weapons globally.

Notably, my own country (the US) is boycotting the talks. So are a few other "big powers." But what is becoming clear day by day is that this is really about who is at the table. And what you see by clicking on #nuclearban is the way 100+ countries are successfully creating a treaty.

I reflected yesterday: "To me, the enormous significance of the #nuclearban is this: global rules are no longer going to be dictated by a small number of countries -- those with the most money, the most weapons, who 'know better,' who have appointed themselves the 'leaders' and 'policemen' of everyone else. With this treaty and other efforts like it -- on climate, for instance -- the majority of people in the world -- the people who for decades have been saying 'we want a nuclear weapons free world' -- are going to be the ones leading the way."

Here's a single tweet that helped crystallize that idea for me:

via @nuclearban
"We need to delegitimize nuclear deterrence as a concept,
says Indonesia. The treaty's preamble can help us do this."
#nuclearban
(Please share this message on Twitter.)

The representative from Indonesia is wearing native batik. For one thing, it serves as a reminder that the Western business attire of US diplomats is not in the picture because the US chose to un-include itself.  For another thing, it invites you to wonder, "What do I really know about Indonesia and its people . . . ?" Indonesia is a very populous country - did I remember that there are about 260 million people there? Indonesia is one of the supporters of the #nuclearban - did I remember that Indonesia was one of the co-sponsors of the original proposal to hold the #nuclearban talks? India is a growing economic power - did I remember that Indonesia is a member of the G20?

The second aspect of this image of the Indonesian representative at the #nuclearban talks that grabs my attention is all the retweets and "likes." This speaks to the enormous power of social media to help spread these new perspectives and examples of heroic leadership like that of Indonesia around the world in real time.

Then: there are the Indonesian representative's words themselves: "We need to delegitimize nuclear deterrence as a concept. . . . The treaty's preamble can help us do this." This goes to the very heart of what the #nuclearban treaty is about. It is a challenge to the "conventional wisdom" or "global security system orthodoxy" that has been thrust upon the world by a few countries with large nuclear weapons arsenals. A big part of the treaty creation process is to jolt people into breaking out of these old ways of thinking and embracing a new perspective. (See "Deterrence": As a strategy, it makes about as much sense as "proliferation")

I think it's not irrelevant to remark that Indonesia has intellectual and cultural traditions that help give insight and solve problems, and sometimes in ways that those of us outside of the South/Southeast Asian sphere miss. By coincidence, a few months ago I was learning about the epic involving the hero Rama at the Ramayana exhibition at the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco. The Ramayana is the subject of an enormous body of performance art in Indonesia -- shadow puppet or wayang theater. When I learned about Rama and the Ramayana, I learned about is arch-foe, the evil king Ravana. Ravana is so bad, so evil, so rapacious, that he actually wants to swallow up the entire universe.  That's when it occurred to me, "Ravana is like the nuclear weapons states!" That's when I created this meme, based on a scene from the Indonesian shadow puppet theater in which Rama battles the evil Ravanna:

Thank you #INDONESIA.
(Please share this message on Twitter.)

(Ravana is the scary-looking guy on the left with the bright red eyes and bulging nose.)

The story of Rama's struggle with Ravana extends across many episodes, and wayang performances are marathons -- often lasting all night. This is helpful to remember as we embark on an epic struggle to rid the world of a nearly inconceivable evil, wielded by adversaries willing to contemplate plunging the world into darkness and chaos. The #nuclearban treaty will be just the beginning.

This epic struggle to get the nuclear weapons to disarm: perhaps we can only fully understand it with the help of the  world's great literature and mythology?


Related posts:

VIETNAM and the NUCLEAR BAN: Out From Under the Shadow of US Nuclear Terror

Why People Want a Pacific (and World) Free of Nuclear Weapons

China DOES Have a Role in the Nuclear Ban Movement

Korea: A History of Living Under Nuclear Terror and The Cynical American Scapegoating of Korea as a Cover for Nuclear Terror

Tlatelolco 50: A Gift to the World

133 Is a Lot of #Nuclearban-Supporting Countries


Please share this post . . . .

21st c. Berkeley: More Relevant Than Ever to Antiwar Movement

As a "peace" enclave within California's concentrated military/defense economy, Berkeley and the East Bay have a role to play in the discussion about China.

BERKELEY: Looking west -- the bay, San Francisco . . . and beyond.

As I set out to understand California's entanglement in the military-industrial complex, I started where I live: Berkeley.

Reading a letter to the editor from our representative in Congress, Barbara Lee, a few days ago reminded me that the 13th district is kind of unusual: "As the National Defense Authorization Act comes up for a vote, I will once again co-lead a bipartisan amendment to audit the Pentagon." (Read more on Barbara Lee's position on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF).)

Yup, this is different than the town I just came from. Chicago's star corporate citizen is mega military contractor Boeing.

Of course, Berkeley was ground zero for the antiwar movement during the '60s. But what's its relevance today?


A bridge to China

As a long-time student of China and the Chinese language, I am enchanted to find myself in a city whose university attracts lots of the very smartest students from China and other parts of Asia. (See "Berkeley - International Student Enrollment - Fall 2015") Many other Berkeley students who are US citizens claim Asian ethnicity. (See "Berkeley - Enrollment Data")

If California, and especially the Bay Area, is the historic link between the US and China, Berkeley is a particularly vital US-China hub right now.

We all say things like "youth are our future" . . . . What would happen if we encouraged a serious discussion between the diverse people in the Berkeley community (and from other communities) about the future of peace and security in the Pacific region?

SOUTH CHINA SEA FACE OFF:
Does this make ANY sense?

The discussion we need to have

I wrote recently about the growing tensions in the South China Sea.

As I read the Chinese language paper every day, it is clear to me that -- in the absence of sustained civic discourse on the security issues in the Pacific region -- our future is being shaped by military posturing.

I think a good way to re-direct the conversation would be to get a large number of young people who know and care about the situation in the region to get together and talk. It should include people from the various countries and territories concerned. It should be directed at the future we're all trying to build together. It should place a strong premium on listening. It should be open-ended.


Some possible starting points

The good thing about a university town is that it has many of the ingredients necessary to conduct forums.

Now this I understand . . . !
(Image: Android Authority)

Here are a few available in Berkeley that might assist the type of discussion I am suggesting:

* Student associations, including Chinese Students Association, Taiwanese American Student Association,
Hong Kong Student Association, . . . .

* University departments, including International Relations and  Institute of East Asian Studies

* Citizen groups, including United Nations Association - East Bay

* Relevant University affiliates, such as Office of International Relations and International House - UC Berkeley

My hope and belief is that a Berkeley forum on peace and prosperity in the Pacific would reveal a shared interest in de-escalating the South China Sea confrontation, and dramatically increase awareness of shared Pacific prospects for well-being.


Related Posts

In four hundred and thirty-five Congressional districts, there is an inseparable relationship between campaign funding for Congressional races and the military contractors. How do we push back?


(See IT'S A LOCK: Why the US Can't Break Its Addiction to War)





What people in Asia (and others) have seen for the past century is that something is happening in the Pacific, and it's being driven in part by advances in naval (and, subsequently, aviation and electronics) technology, and in part by powerful nations (principally, but not limited to, the U.S.) proximate to the area.

(See The Imperialized Pacific: What We Need to Understand)

"Although we know the end from the very beginning," says Walker, "the story is no less compelling to watch." A man, gloriously alone (except for his own reflection) on an ice-covered lake; the soothing pastel colors of the distant sky; and what seems surely to be a circle he is digging around himself with a pick-axe. A perfect parable for our headlong rush toward climate crisis?

(See How Do You Say "Suicide Narcissus" in Chinese?)

SOUTH CHINA SEA FACE OFF: Does this make ANY sense?

"World War III's First Shot:
Will It Be Fired in the South China Sea?"

I pick up a Chinese language newspaper at the corner store in my Berkeley neighborhood every day, and almost every day there is an article about:

(a) US Navy activities challenging Chinese positions in the South China Sea; and/or

(b) China's activities to establish sovereignty in areas of the South China Sea; and/or

(c) China's military and naval buildup to try to get into the same league with the US.

The mainstream Western press has been reporting on these developments at an increasingly frequent rate.

Unquestionably a lot is going on in the South China Sea. I think we can choke on the detail if we don't try to step back and gain perspective on the situation.

What's the right way to think about what's going on in the South China Sea? I wrote a short post on this several years ago ... but I think it's time to address the question a bit more thoroughly.


The "Law and Order" Paradigm

USA as global policeman -- ever since TR.
(More on The Federalist website.)

On the face of it, there should be no controversy. There are laws about this sort of thing, and everything should be decided according to international law, e.g. the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

So it can be very easy for US people to cast the US and its navy as the "white hats" who stand ready to "police" the situation, keeping things fair for everyone. One problem: "the United States now recognizes the UNCLOS as a codification of customary international law, it has not ratified it." Well, that's awkward . . . .

In other words, before we say "Who is China to think they should be entrusted with being the traffic cop in the South China Sea?" we should first ask the question, "Who is the US to think they should be?"


The "Befitting a Global Power" Paradigm

Teddy Roosevelt with his "big stick" in the Caribbean.

As I look at what China is doing in the South China Sea, I can't help thinking of a cartoon of Theodore Roosevelt treating the Caribbean Sea as a private lake belonging to the US.

[Not a bad time to make this comparison - President Obama just visited Cuba this week to attempt to reverse some of the effects of the past 50 years of antagonism between the US and Cuba.]

The US history of imperialism in its own backyard does not justify China in taking the same attitude; nonetheless, the fact that the US has really not come very far from its "We're a global power and what we say goes" attitude makes it a little difficult to wonder that China may think they should be following in the US' footsteps.

I think one thing we all need to do is notice the double standard that is applied to China. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. China can legitimately be asked to exhibit a 21st century form of non-militaristic global power when the US decides to even make a head fake in that same direction.

(By the way, there certainly must somewhere exist a really clever cartoon updating the Caribbean-as-US-lake concept, i.e. South-China-Sea-as-China-lake, but everything I've seen so far is predictably based on boring dragon and Great Wall imagery.)


The "Neoliberal" Paradigm

To many people, it probably seems that the issues in the South China Sea should just be viewed as a matter of property rights. Stuff (e.g. oil) is there for people to exploit, and everything has a price; in light of overlapping claims, the parties simply need to define rights and compensate each other accordingly.

In other words, "we should be happy with the solution, as long as it smells like capitalism."

Oil and gas in the South China Sea
(Source: Grenatec)

But aren't the assets that lie under the South China Sea precisely the kind of oil and gas properties that are rapidly becoming valueless in light of the carbon bubble?  Given that the oil companies already have five times as many reserves as they can ever put to use without breaking the planet, aren't those South China Sea hydrocarbons destined to stay beneath the sea where they belong?


"A Piece in the Larger Puzzle"

US Military in the West Pacific
(Source: Thomson-Reuters)

I can't help believing that, from a Chinese perspective, the question of whether it is "right" for China to grab (and militarily build up) bits of land in the South China Sea can only be considered in light of the precedent established by the US in grabbing (and militarily building up) bits of land in strategic locations through the Pacific (and worldwide).

Looking at a map of US military installations in the Western Pacific brings to mind the old quip, "How dare they put their country so close to our bases?"

Moreover, of at least equal importance to bases is the terrifying firepower of US carrier strike groups. Is it any wonder that China is building up its navy? Though it may never come close to the strength of the US navy, China's navy may have the ability to close the gap in its own part of the world.

Maybe the South China Sea is just a sideshow.

Maybe what we should really be talking about with China is a military stand-down, followed by a military build-down.

(To be continued . . . . )

Additional resources:

Map showing overlapping claims in the South China Sea



Related posts

The problem: the U.S. "pivot to Asia."

The opportunity: asking ourselves, "What would we do differently if we revised our myths of Asia?"

(See U.S. Militarism in Asia: THINK DIFFERENT!)





What people in Asia (and others) have seen for the past century is that something is happening in the Pacific, and it's being driven in part by advances in naval (and, subsequently, aviation and electronics) technology, and in part by powerful nations (principally, but not limited to, the U.S.) proximate to the area.

(See The Imperialized Pacific: What We Need to Understand)





Strategic analysts are pointing out that the South China Sea is an area through which a vast amount of the world's trade passes.  And some of them have made the modest suggestion that it would be a good idea for the U.S. to dominate it now, in much the same it dominated the Caribbean at the turn of the 19th century.

(See SOUTH CHINA SEA: No End of American Grand Designs)

SOUTH CHINA SEA: No End of American Grand Designs

The third stop on Obama's Asia tour is Kuala Lumpur.  What could he possibly doing in Kuala Lumpur?

By now, most people have gotten wind of the fact that what Obama is up to in Asia is justifying U.S. involvement in every aspect of Asian affairs, particularly in the governance of the sea lanes that connect China, Japan, and their neighbors.

Up north, Obama weighed in on the decades-old standoff between Japan and China over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands (north of Taiwan).

Down south, Obama could be expected to do something similar vis-a-vis a China-Philippines standoff over some islands (or "rocks") in the middle of the South China Sea.

However, it seems that the U.S. has grander plans, and it is tipping its hands.

Strategic analysts are pointing out that the South China Sea is an area through which a vast amount of the world's trade passes.  And some of them have made the modest suggestion that it would be a good idea for the U.S. to dominate it now, in much the same it dominated the Caribbean at the turn of the 19th century. (Cue images of Teddy Roosevelt and quotes from Admiral Mahan.) (See "The Sea at the Center" and "Straits of Malacca: Obama to Pursue Naval Base Demand")

Herein lies a peculiarly American tendency, for it is one thing to hatch grandiose visions; it is another to actually expect that you are somehow entitled to carry them out; and it is yet another thing entirely to think that you are ever and always the only one entitled to do so.

Related posts

The problem: the U.S. "pivot to Asia."

The opportunity: asking ourselves, "What would we do differently if we revised our myths of Asia?"

(See U.S. Militarism in Asia: THINK DIFFERENT!)

Advocates for human rights in the Philippines, including the Ecumenical Advocacy Network on the Philippines, are asking us to speak out publicly on the need for the U.S. government to "own" its responsibility for human rights violations in the Philippines, and to take affirmative action to halt them. As President Obama begins his trip to Asia -- underlining the much-touted "pivot to Asia" -- it is an especially important time to draw attention to what is really happening in the Philippines.

(See Needed: Less Military Force, More Human Rights in the Philippines )

Many people will argue that it was only because the U.S. made a threat of force that Syria offered to enter into an agreement on chemical weapons. The sequence of events certainly suggests some relationship between the two.

(See "OR ELSE!" (What the U.S. threat of force against Syria teaches us) )










Related links

before ...

... and after

August, 2, 2015 - Interesting story on Chinese projects on rocks and islands in the South China Sea: "What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea" in The New York Times.  Of course, if the US were doing this, everyone would say, "Look how industrious we are!"