I think this kind of sense of shame that a man should feel shame when his country has a stationed foreign army is very strange.
Firstly, though many people are devout and have a holy sense when they are talking about sovereignty, actually the definition of the independence of sovereignty is floating and depend on the need of the governor, it can also be calculated and changed. We can observe a narrative that worships the purity of the state. It proposes such a dimension: the less contact between a foreign power and its own state, the more pure the state is. If a state is "polluted" by a foreign power, the citizens should be shame because foreign power is always dangerous potentially. But if so, North Korea can get a higher rank under this narrative due to its rejection of foreign capital. In this case, some people will say it is necessary to opening-up because of the development of the economy.However, in fact, there is no real boundary between economic cooperation and military cooperation. If you need to cooperate with foreign capital, you must admit that there exists a universal law and discipline between different countries, and people have a possibility to believe and trust each other. If you insist that economic cooperation is safer than military cooperation, then North Korea can say economic cooperation will be also dangerous to the sovereignty, because of the permanent tendency that foreign force wants to eliminate us. Actually, before the reform and opening up, the proposition of economic cooperation will be viewed as a traitor to the state and representative of the bourgeois. Even contact with a foreigner will be viewed as impure and suspicious. It is common sense that the modern economy builds on the division of labor and cooperation between a large-scale population. But China falls into a dilemma that if it should admit universal values. To maintain the development of the economy, it should insist on universal discipline and give up the narrative of purity to a certain extent, otherwise, the legitimacy of domination will be shocked. But if it truly insists on universal discipline and abandons the original narrative, its legitimacy will still be challenged. The propaganda system's working difficulty is to make a balance between the two poles. But it can be seen that the balanced point is moving in the direction of strengthening the statism narrative. This issue is the root trouble that conceals in the current political structure which should be solved before 34 years. A similar dilemma also emerged in the late Qing Dynasty. It is not optimistic.
Second, In the same way, the reason why this question can be established needs to be based on an important assumption, that is, the country's armed forces (not limited to the army, but also conventional law enforcement forces, etc.) must be able to protect the safety of the people better than foreign force, Only when this assumption is true, your sense of superiority can be established. But there is a situation that one state's own army oppresses one's own people, this question is actually avoided, but it is a more real problem. If the country's army also oppresses its own people, wouldn't this sense of superiority completely disappear? Obviously, though a country's armed forces are of the same nationality as you, it does not mean that it will definitely protect your interests. Only when this machine is in the hands of a supervised government, and its actions are authorized and permitted through transparent and open legal procedures, you can say that this violent machine is serving you, otherwise, it has an oppressive nature.
So the crux of the issue is no longer whether the armed forces have the same nationality as you, but whether the armed forces are supervised by an open and transparent mechanism. Specifically, when you exercise some legally recognized rights, such as wanting to get back your savings and your wages, is this armed force protecting your rights or ignoring your rights? When you disagree with the government, will the armed forces strictly maintain a neutral position, or will they clearly express their views? We say that the invading army is evil and that colonialism is bad. The primary reason is that the invading army or the colonists do not protect the property rights and the right to life of the people in the occupied areas or colonies, what is especially important is that this kind of infringement cannot be corrected by legal procedures. As for whether the American troops stationed in Japan belong to the above-mentioned aggressor army, it is a matter of opinion. If the U.S. military can stop workers from going to Tokyo to petition at the Osaka railway station or prohibit farmers in Chiba from burning coal, then this is indeed something worthy of reflection by the Japanese people.
窥视卡
发表于 2023-1-27 15:52:22
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
变色卡
千斤顶
金币.
发表于 2023-1-27 16:32:40
