I enjoyed listening to Professor Kubo lecture on how relations between Japan and the US were reconciled, after Pearl Harbor April 1, 1942 to the Tokyo Air Raid in March 10, 1945 in Hiroshima Nagasaki and WWII occurrences between the countries.  It was interesting to find out that they were able to rebuild- repair, and move forward from these historical staged attacks with much patience and willingness to move forward.  It was noted that there was not shortage of anger and bitter feelings between the two countries they ultimately created an asymmetric defense treaty of sorts.  Due to the detail of the defense treaty, US was obligated to defend Japan while Japan was not obligated to defend the US. We wanted an ally to help garner some kind “maintenance of International peace security in the far East’ (South Korea, South Vietnam, Taiwan)  and as such, US were allowed to use bases in Japan.    Although US presence – and ultimate role as Japans defense ally existed on the island, Japanese did not all want them there.   The Japanese might not all be on board with US presence, however they continue to sustain military outposts in Japan today.   

Professor Kubo's article on the path of reconciliation showed the importance of patience and compromise from both sides. After reading the article, I was interested in hearing more about how the asymmetrical relationship between the United States and Japan continues to work and whether or not Japan wants to make this relationship more symmetrical.

Dr. Kubo's explanation of the asymmetry in rights and obligations puts into perspective why the United States doesn't need a willingness to defend the United States obligation  from Japan. As Trump had stated his concerns about this imbalance in the relationship, Professor Kubo explained why the relationship works. By allowing the US to use Japan's multiple bases throughout the island and on Okinawa, this "imbalance" is not quite as asymmetrical.

Professor Kubo also stated that PM Abe would like to see Japan further revise Article 9. The prime minister has called for adding an explicit reference to the SDF in war-renouncing Article 9, which bans Japan from maintaining air, sea and land forces, so there is no room to view them as unconstitutional. The prime minister said the security situation around Japan has grown severe at a much faster rate than five years ago, when Japan set the current guidelines.

This is an interesting idea considering only 11% of the Japanese are willing to fight for their own country.

Professor Kubo abviouslyis  very knowlegable with veriety of rsearches and studies represented Japanese government. It was very impressed the way he talked about the relationship between USA and Japan during the wartime and postwar relationship development economically and diplomatically. I noticed towards the end of his lecture he mentined the disputeed Senkaku isuse. He title his slide " Chinese Vessels enter Japan's Senkaku ..." with bar charts indicated the activities Chinese vesseals conducted in Japanese Senkaku daily. I quite disagee with him at this point becasue Senkaku Diaoyudao was Chinese territory since Ming dynasty.  In Qing Dynasty, Diaoyudao was part of Taiwang. When Janpnese invaded weaked China and seized Taiwang as war spoils. In my perspective, it's quite usual that Chinese vessels are doing their routine-activities in their own territory not " Enter" in Senkaku many times /day.

I was entralled by Professor Schaede's presentation on Japanese business.  Her article that was published in Asia Pacific Business Review spoke to "New Japan" and how large Japanese companies had to make a change, a "shift" from their post-war priority of sales and market shares to profitability.  It was fascinating how she discussed that "New Japan" is more tightly controlled by the government vis a vis the "Old Japan" and traditional familial structured business and business models.  In recent times, the Japanese business must report profits and losses.  In the past, a family had a large and substantial control over a given business, and this formation does not lead to transparency.  Needless to say, it is difficult to adjust to this new way of doing business.  The article suggests that the 1990s was a time in history that innovation became critical for survival in the marketplace.  Professor Schaede mentioned that Japanese companies are all about quality.  Innovation brings diversity, and the ability for Japanese companies to compete on a global scale.  Her article stated that the 1990s were a challenging decade because this Asian nation had tremendous difficulties with the concept of change.  The article further stated that "straightjacket" effect was in place and easy organization was out of the picture.  Along with this effect, profitability was challenged by globalization.  This ushered in a problematic situation because the "Old Japan" was cluttered by politics and "vested interests".  The attached link could be used in an Economics class or World History to spotlight the 1990s in Japan.  Students would view the video and have a DBQ (Document Based Questions) pertaining to the information featured in the video clip.

• Japan Tokyo Part 1 1990

  youtube.com

•  

I totally agree with you. Dr. Shaede seems more American stlye, she is quite open.obviousely engaging her audience with her body language and her emthusiasm about the topic she was taking about. She incooporated large amont of graphs and made her presentation very easy and interesting. She raised questions and allowed her aufience to interact with her and carry the conversations on very smoothly. The economic impact Japan used to have in America is great, Toyota, Honda, Kodak , Sony, etc. used to create lots of jobs for Americans,. Actually, the Koreans learnd and modified a little bit of the logo ( Honda - Hyundai), which is very identical. "Old Japan" used to be one of the "Four Little Dragons" in Asia leading the power of the economy. When I stopped to connect my next plane to Shanghai in 2014, the Tokyo AIrport was so empty, but extremely clean and environmental, excellent service. My students are every interested in Japan, the animated cartoon figures are very attractive for them, the food, and the culture, which will be embedded in my future lessons.

I enjoyed Professor Kubo’s lecture on the Strengths and Weaknesses of Rights-Obligations Asymmetrical Alliance between the United States and Japan.  This is a complicated alliance not to be taken lightly.  I learned that many Japanese are not interested in gaining a more symmetric alliance and that Japanese who are willing to defend the country amounts to only 11%.  Wouldn’t it be interesting for students to read about the US-Japan Security Treaty found here http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/japan_1950_usjapan.htm

 and have them discuss their views on the US-Japan alliance?  They can read the introduction and take a look at the primary documents regarding US-Japan Treaties.  After reading the the documents, a possible essential question up for debate could be whether Japan’s Treaty with US should be more symmetrical.  What’s their opinion? I would have them make a list of strengths and weaknesses and then do a gallery walk to compare.

In Part I of his lecture: Reconciliation, Professor Kubo stated that overcoming the past for Japan and the United States of America was a extremely rare occurence, specifically because, generally speaking, it left a limited enemy/colonizer relationship after Imperialism. This truly intrigued me.

Professor Kubo went on to explain and list many of the posible reasons for this. For example, Japan's signs of Democracy in the 1920's before the overpowering militarism of the 1930's, The Cold War's push to make Japan an ally to help with the USSR, and one of the most striking--American occupation until the Vietnam era and LBJ's return of Okinawa in 1972.

Not till after reading "The 1950s: Pax Americana and Japan's Postwar Resurgence" from Takuya Sasaki and Hirodhi Nakanishi and researching a bit on The Intercept and also reading their article "Japan Made Secret Deals With the NSA That Expanded Global Surveillance" by Ryan Gallagher did I begin to understand why Professor Kubo possibly presented this complex historical period the way he did. And I am truly honered to have had the experience.

To keep this forum-length, as of 2013 American military base Camp Hansen on Okinawa is where, according to the Gallagher's article, mass surveillance, data gathering, and "robust" military working relations continue. Also, in the Sasaki and Nakanishi piece incidents like the "Lucky Dragon" in the early 1950's have fueled the what-really-is-the-treaty-agreed-upon that Japan and the US have had/have since the very successful surprise Pearl Harbor attack?