For a few decades it seemed as if military conscription was
something that would soon fade into memory, at least for Western nations. Many
countries were doing away with it, even the über-militarist United States.
Basically ending conscription had more or less become
associated with a host of Western modernist norms and progressive reforms. With
the abolition of the death penalty, anti-racism laws and many other forms of
legislation we're all too familiar with, the ending of forced military service
seemed to be part of the package.
The fact that this trend seems to be reversing is both a
cause for concern and a sign of the times.
Just over the past few years several nations have moved to
re-introduce conscription. From Lithuania to Sweden and now France, the nations
of the West are re-building their militaries and preparing for war.
The latter clause would be denied. In fact it's more likely
that their own political and military establishments would argue that a
military buildup is to (they hope) prevent war. But the truth is, and history
bears this out, that militarisation does not prevent war but leads to it and
foments it.
There are exceptions and many will quickly point to the Swiss
but it must be understood that Switzerland's situation is almost unique and
finds almost no analogies. Additionally the Swiss posture is clearly defensive.
They have no means to wage war. What they have is a means to cut off the
invader and defeat them not on the battlefield but through attrition. The Swiss
option isn't even on the table for most nations. Their geography alone rules it
out. Landlocked and mountainous, only nations like Bhutan or perhaps Tajikistan
could hope to employ a similar strategy.
Though it hasn't happened yet the prospect of reintroduced
Japanese conscription is perhaps the most troubling to contemplate. Shinzo Abe
is at the head of a powerful faction that seeks re-militarisation and his
agenda has necessarily generated a discussion regarding conscription.
History repeats itself, Japan once the spear-point in US
Asian Policy is set to re-assume the role it played in the early 20th
century. Through the machinations of Theodore Roosevelt the US supported and
urged Japan to wage war with the Tsarist Russia over Manchuria and Korea and
after Japan's stunning victory, Tokyo embraced an Asian Monroe Doctrine and
began to expand along the East Asian littoral. Japan became a proxy of US
interests and ensured the Open Door would indeed remain open.
During this same period the United States also established
strong ties with China or perhaps we should say what was left of China. Much of
it had already been parceled out and appropriated by the imperial powers,
including Japan. As Japan's imperialist ambitions were divorced from US goals
and then came into conflict with both the US and the other Western imperialist
powers (France, UK and the Netherlands), conflict was inevitable.
Or to put it another way, the US attempt to control and
manage the partition of China and by direct rule and through proxies control Korea,
the Philippines and Taiwan was a project birthed during the McKinley and
Roosevelt administrations. Taft as Governor-General of the Philippines and
later as Secretary of War and then as President also played no small role in
this agenda.
Japan was the partner but of course later this relationship
broke down and the US 'flipped' to China. Wilson and subsequent administrations
took a different tact vis-à-vis Tokyo. While Roosevelt and Taft were racists to
the core they had a view of the Japanese that fostered a form of cooperation.
Though it must be said the Japanese grew frustrated with Roosevelt's duplicity
and broken promises. Then in the wake of the Taft-Roosevelt schism and Taft's
defeat, Woodrow Wilson came to power. Roosevelt had been arrogant and
presumptuous but Wilson would put a new stamp on American hubris and what we
today call Exceptionalism. Wilson's policies and posture offended Tokyo and
marked the beginning of the break. Japanese nationalism, so long fostered by the
US ended up becoming point of contention and ultimately led to Japan's
destruction. After seventy years, the game board is being re-set and one
wonders if a sequel is inevitable. Will Japan play the same role or will Tokyo
assume a different posture even as it seeks to re-assert East Asian hegemony?
Will they trust the United States once more? They would be fools to do so but
at present Tokyo's path to re-militarisation goes hand-in-hand with US plans
for the larger region.
Conscription is returning and the world is preparing for war.
Ironically the US military Establishment is split on the issue. For some,
conscription is undesirable. The US, they would argue should rely on a
streamlined force, high-tech weaponry and civilian contractors to aid with
logistics and many other tasks. They would appeal to the largely hidden and
deliberately forgotten episodes of mutiny that took place during the Vietnam
period. If mentioned at all they are footnote and popular histories effectively
whitewash the extent of the problem. By the end of America's Indochina Wars the
US military was in a state of degradation and morale was dangerously low. Drug
use and defiance were open. There was a complete breakdown in authority and
corruption was rampant. Many fear a return to those days and believe
conscription when weighed in terms of cost-benefit analysis is found wanting.
Others argue conscription is necessary to society. While they
won't speak in quite these terms it affords yet another chapter of indoctrination
in the life of young people and through 'the experience' their horizons are
broadened, they meet and befriend people from across the nation forming a sense
of cohesion and nationhood. Provincialism is eliminated and it essentially
'invests' young people into the nation's civic life. It augments and ensures
life-long patriotism and identification with the institutions of state.
Critics of the debate will argue the unique geo-political and
military situation of the United States allows for such discussions to take
place. For many, the realities of their geography and the fiscal inability to
support a large military industrial complex and standing army all but require
conscription. These arguments attempt to place the interests of the state at
the pinnacle of a moral hierarchy in which the concerns, conscience and
principles of the individual are subsumed.
Western nations that have retained conscription have for the
most part included exemption provisions in which someone can declare
conscientious objection. Some will still require some other form of state
service or even military 'duty' in a non-combatant role. And yet many countries
like Turkey and South Korea have not allowed these options leaving true
objectors in a fairly desperate situation. They must either go against
conscience or in the end must pay a terrible price in terms of fines,
incarceration and with the latter, social rejection and ostracisation.
New Testament Christians can certainly rejoice that Seoul is
at long last wrestling with this issue and seems set to loosen the draconian
standards of their conscription system. And yet we must ask, where has the
Church been? Have South Korean Christians wholly succumbed to the narratives of
the state and the geopolitical situation that while real is contrived? Have
South Korean Christians bought into the state and its propaganda concerning the
nation, citizenship, duty and the like? While the threat of war on the Korean
peninsula was and is certainly real, why hasn't the Church proclaimed their
citizenship in the Kingdom that is not of this world?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.