In the required readings (Mason), the author has discussed the bloodied history of Korea leading up to its current division today, including the parts of the Japanese occupation and the post-WWII split occupation by US and Soviet-backed governments. However, Mason argues how Korea's division has also been partly due to geography, claiming how the southern part of Korea was more naval and trade-based, and how the northern part of Korea was more mountainous and closer to China (Mason, 294). In this however, I believe that the geography of the Korean peninsula did not contribute as much of a factor to Korea's division as its history, as my own understanding (plus Professor Chu's lectures) have the opposing viewpoint that Korea's division was not necessarily based on the geography as Koreans were in general united (under the same state, just with different occupiers), but the drawing at the 38th parallel plus the removal of contact with each other, is what caused Korea's division.

My understanding of each Module #9 objective + movie:

Korea Divided Nation:

While Mason says that "the division of Korea is a consequence of its geography and history", the division of Korea relies more on the history, according to our lectures. Mason points out to how the north part of Korea tended to associate more with Manchuria and China, while the southern part tended to extend its reach outwards through maritime means. However, what's more important leading to the modern-day division of Korea was after the end of WWII and the Japanese losing control of Korea as a result, the peninsula was split on the 38th parallel, creating a North (communist) and South (capitalist) Korea.

Overview of Vietnam:

Under Vietnam's colonial history (as part of French Indochina), the Vietnamese were used basically as slave labor in producing goods for the French. Plantations for rice and rubber, extreme conditions, and excessive force in stopping revolt were common, according to Mason. However, after a successful revolt (including battle of Dien Bien Phu), Vietnam's independence would be compromised from the communist North Vietnam and US-backed capitalist South Vietnam, divided at the 17th parallel.

Vietnam War:

North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam, and while the North mainly got supplies and help from China/Russia, the US + the "West" also sent aid, supplies, and the US with the most soldiers for the war effort. The proxy war was part of the United States' greater plan in "containment" of communism. With South Vietnam, the US supported Ngo Dinh Diem, and while although he suppressed rights of marginalized groups, especially the Buddhists (where one monk burned himself in protest), the US failed in its attempt, by any means possible to force Vietnam as a unified capitalist state.

Result of Korean War:

Around the end of the 19th and turn of the 20th century, a unified Korea went from being a tributary state of the Chinese to being suzerain to the Japanese because of the Sino-Japanese war. Korean independence was suppressed (abdication of the Korean emperor), as well as Korean culture, but after WWII saw the defeat of Japan, the Korean peninsula was divided between a communist-backed North and capitalist-backed South.

During the War (Vietnam):

In the war, the US conducted lots of bombing campaigns (with the purpose to "remove" the jungle, so it would be easier to spot enemy forces from the sky). Also with the American bombing of Vietnam, this also included using fire in the case of napalm and spraying chemicals, such as Agent Orange, which Mason says that it harmed future generations of the Vietnamese, because of birth defects and horrendous malformations of infants. Also, not only the Vietnamese were affected but also the US Veterans who were exposed near the chemicals because they were near where it was stored on the US bases before they were loaded onto the planes.

"The Vietnam War" & "The Korean War" documentaries clips analysis: From both of these films, a takeaway shared between both films was how the American involvement in both conflicts reflected greater American interest and involvement in Asia due to Cold War tensions. This was because as communism was spreading throughout East and Southeast Asia (starting with China), it was noted how the fear that if a country would fall to communism, the ones neighboring would fall to communism as well, being the "Domino Theory", also covered in Professor Chu's lectures.

References:

Mason, C. (2014). A short history of Asia (5th ed.). Red Globe Press.

"The Vietnam War", and "The Korean War", (from Professor Chu)

“Why Is There a North and South Korea?: Origin of Everything.” PBS LearningMedia, Origin of Everything, 5 Aug. 2024, ca.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/north-south-korea-origin-everything/north-south-korea-origin-everything/.

In the required readings (Hung), Hung discussed how during Clinton's presidency, he let China off the hook and was willing to see past the human rights violations in growing Chinese factories, that in 'good faith' China would eventually become more capitalist and Western-aligned because its people were growing richer. What Hung was trying to show by highlighting this policy by Clinton of giving China the benefit of the doubt, was how in a way letting goods become cheaper at the expense of American jobs and domestic industry. In this, I believe that while Clinton may have thought that because living standards would mean more democracy, I would argue that the CCP most likely would've not have been willing to let more democracy happen, in order to keep their own public order.

My understanding of each Module #10 objective + movie:

Clash of Empires:

In this objective (which was basically just a recap of the book section), while the American economy was dominant and wanted products, and the Chinese economy was weak, developing, but most importantly had a large population to make said products, there was a sort of symbiotic relationship called "Chimerica", which continued even up to the Clinton administration because of Clinton's belief that in good faith, China would eventually become more democratic because there is a higher standard of living. However, as China's economy matured threatening the US' economic hegemony, relations between both sides soured (starting with Obama).

One Country, Two Systems:

In Hong Kong, after China "re-patriated" the city from British control in 1997, China said that Hong Kong would be on a 50-year lease where although it was a part of China nationally, it would have a "special status" so that it could still have its capitalist and western governmental systems. However, over time that promise has been broken on, with laws like the National Security Law of HK basically making the CCP police being able to shut down any dissenting opinions, despite millions of Hongkongers going in protest from 2019 up until COVID. These protests turned violent (because some of the Hongkongers believed that nothing could be done through peaceful means), although the Beijing government was able to suppress it.

City of Fear: The Death of Democracy in Hong Kong (ABC News) documentary clip analysis:

In the documentary, "The Death of Democracy in Hong Kong", a takeaway could be how the arrival of COVID-19 came at a crucial time during the protests, basically allowing the CCP and Beijing's government to have a reason for shutting down the movement. Furthermore, with the stuff like police barricades to stop cameras from filming, and stopping of social gatherings on the pretense of trying to stop the virus, it allowed for an easy escape for the police to keep public order (at least on the surface), by suppressing freedom of the press and assembly this way.

References:

Hung, Ho-fung. Clash of Empires, p. 1-46.

One China Policy, CNBC https://www.cnbc.com/video/2017/02/03/what-is-the-one-china-policy.html

ABC News, City of Fear: The Death of Democracy in Hong Kong, Feb 9, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpFMs61_pwk

In the required readings (Hung, Mason), Mason states how China's national reserves in the trillions translates to China's willingness to invest abroad and buy up companies (Mason, 328) whilst Hung points out how after the Great Recession, China has been making a solid put to make its own currency on-par in global relevancy with the US Dollar, and eventually, to become a sort of lingua franca but for money (Hung, 57-58). Both Mason and Hung point out this fact of China's economy trying to lap the United States, because China's ultimate goal in the 21st, or as Mason likes to say, "Asian Century", to at least equal the United States in global standing, but also wanting to become the world's most influential nation. In this, I believe that by the end of this century, or at least until the end of my lifetime, I think that China will be able to be at the same level of the United States, but I don't believe that China will be able to completely overwhelm the United States and take global hegemony, at least for the foreseeable future.

My understanding of each Module #11 objective + movie:

"Asian Century" (Mason, Chapter 37):

From Mason, the term "Asian Century" was first used in a conversation in 1988 between Deng Xiaoping (Chinese leader after Mao) and Rajiv Gandhi (Indian Prime Minister). What Mason said they meant was that in this century, Asian nations would assume global leadership militarily, economically, and with their political philosophy -- turning the spotlight of global hegemony away from the US and the "West". While Mason thinks that no one could know anyway, he believes that an economic "equality" reached with the US seems more likely.

Overview of US-China Relationship:

From the greater background of the Cold War, because China was communist and the US was capitalist, there was ideological conflict. Also in 1964, China got access to nuclear weapons as well, which further escalated tensions. However, in the 1972, Nixon visited China which eased tensions a little bit, but also in the 70s the US officially stopped recognizing Taiwan as the rightful China, in favor of the CCP. In 1989, the Tiananmen Square massacre happened which flared tensions again, but by today, China and the United States are in constant tension over who is more dominant.

Clash of Empires (part two):

With Hung, in the conclusion he believes that the US-China rivalry will only grow greater in the near future, where China's challenge to the US as the second major global power is very much real, and China's Belt and Road Initiative also seeks to build more connections in parts of Asia, Africa, and Europe to make them less reliant on the US and towards China.

Who is Xi Jinping?:

The Chinese president Xi took power since 2012, and since China's government is authoritarian, he can make quick decisions to force China to do whatever he wants. Xi's goals for China are to make China more "secure" with greater national security (which means crackdowns and surveillance, especially on places like Hong Kong), and the end goal is to make China number one politically, but more importantly economically.

Decoding Putin and Xi's blueprint for a new world order (DW News) documentary clips analysis:

In the documentary, Decoding Putin and Xi's blueprint for a new world order, a takeaway could be how the United States' "worst nightmare" was Russia and China being a united force together against NATO and the US in possible war. This is because while granted, all of NATO and the US would likely be able to stop Russia by itself, the addition of China, its large manpower and industrial production capabilities, its now highly advanced and large economy, and its military is basically the counteraction against the sole hegemon of the United States, akin to Hung's readings when Clinton was president, and the United States stood unrivaled.

References:

Decoding Putin and Xi's blueprint for a new world order, DW News. Sep 29, 2024. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4-ZC_fd19Y

Hung, Ho-fung. Clash of Empires, p. 47-67.

Kent, Arthur. (2019 May 16). Tiananmen Square Massacre: Black Night in June. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA4iKSeijZI

Mason, C. (2014). A short history of Asia (5th ed.). Red Globe Press.

I picked this article, because other than the fact it happened very recently -- I found that the political background surrounding Yoon and the opposition parties harken to Cold War politics: Yoon is also part of the big party in South Korea which is considered conservative, but in his decision to enact martial law, Yoon blamed the opposition, who could be categorized as more liberal-minded, other than accusing them of "anti-state" activites, Yoon said that they were also communist, and collaborating with North Korea, which is a reminder of the shared animosity between both of the Koreas.

The author's purpose of writing the article is to inform as it is a news article after all, but also to highlight the possible fallout and repercussions that an impeached president Yoon could mean to South Korea, and how this may spark change in the government.

Some comments that I would make on this article would be that it would've been nice for the article to include more information on the reason why martial law was declared by Yoon, which I had to look up separately. After doing a little more research, the reason why Yoon had attempted to put down martial law was because he disliked a budget bill supported by the opposition parties.

Citation:

“South Korea Martial Law Lifted. Opposition Submit Motion to Impeach President Yoon  | AP News.” AP News, 4 Dec. 2024, apnews.com/article/south-korea-yoon-martial-law-25a2a7c957e77a19f771b6b7c56a2173.