Pdf Document - United Nations Office On Drugs And Crime: Fill & Download for Free

This answer may contain sensitive images. Click on an image to unblur it.United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has a 40 page manual; "Recommended Methods for the Identification and Analysis of Cocaine in Seized Materials" available for free download in English, French, or Spanish.This manual has been designed to provide practical guidance to national authorities and drug analysts by describing recommended methods for use in forensic laboratories for the identification and analysis of cocaine.UN document ID number: ST/NAR/7/Rev.1Publication date: March 2012Number of pages: 40File type: PDFLanguages: English, French, SpanishVery informative. Includes:5.0 Qualitative and quantitative analysis of materials containing cocaine. . . . . 175.1 Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.2 Analysis of coca leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185.2.1 Physical identification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185.2.2 Chemical analysis of coca leaf (whole or powdered) . . . . . 185.3 Analysis of coca paste and cocaine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205.3.1 Presumptive tests for cocaine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205.3.1.1 Colour test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205.3.1.2 Odour test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215.3.1.3 Microcrystal tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225.3.1.4 Solubility tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245.3.1.5 Anion tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245.3.2 Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265.3.3 Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) . . . . . . 295.3.4 Gas Chromatography (GC) with flame ionization detection (GC-FID). . 315.3.5 High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC). . . . . . 335.3.6 Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy. . . . . . . . . 355.3.7 Ultraviolet (UV) Spectrophotometry. . . . . . . . . 35

MYTH # 1Gay men molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.THE ARGUMENTDepicting gay men as a threat to children may be the single most potent weapon for stoking public fears about homosexuality — and for winning elections and referenda, as Anita Bryant found out during her successful 1977 campaign to overturn a Dade County, Fla., ordinance barring discrimination against gay people. Discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, the most ubiquitous purveyor of anti-gay junk science, has been a major promoter of this myth. Despite having been debunked repeatedly and very publicly, Cameron's work is still widely relied upon by anti-gay organizations, although many no longer quote him by name. Others have cited a group called the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) to claim, as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council did in November 2010, that "the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a [molestation] danger to children." A related myth is that same-sex parents will molest their children.THE FACTSAccording to the American Psychological Association, children are not more likely to be molested by LGBT parents or their LGBT friends or acquaintances. Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found, as Herek notes, that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends, and the majority are men married to women. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.Some anti-gay ideologues cite ACPeds’ opposition to same-sex parenting as if the organization were a legitimate professional body. In fact, the so-called college is a tiny breakaway faction of the similarly named, 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics that requires, as a condition of membership, that joiners "hold true to the group's core beliefs ... [including] that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children." The group's 2010 publication Facts About Youth was described by the American Academy of Pediatrics as not acknowledging scientific and medical evidence with regard to sexual orientation, sexual identity and health, or effective health education. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, was one of several legitimate researchers who said ACPeds misrepresented the institutes’ findings. “It is disturbing to me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality,” he wrote. “The information they present is misleading and incorrect.” Another critic of ACPeds is Dr. Gary Remafedi, a researcher at the University of Minnesota who wrote a letter to ACPeds rebuking the organization for misusing his research.In spite of all this, the anti-LGBT right continues to peddle this harmful and baseless myth, which is probably the leading defamatory charge leveled against gay people.MYTH # 2Same-sex parents harm children.THE ARGUMENTMost hard-line anti-gay organizations are heavily invested, from both a religious and a political standpoint, in promoting the traditional nuclear family as the sole framework for the healthy upbringing of children. They maintain a reflexive belief that same-sex parenting must be harmful to children — although the exact nature of that supposed harm varies widely.THE FACTSNo legitimate research has demonstrated that same-sex couples are any more or any less harmful to children than heterosexual couples.The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry affirmed in 2013 that “[c]urrent research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents do not differ from children with heterosexual parents in their emotional development or in their relationships with peers and adults” and they are “not more likely than children of heterosexual parents to develop emotional or behavioral problems.”The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in a 2002 policy statement declared: "A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual." That policy statement was reaffirmed in 2009 and in 2013, when the AAP stated its support for civil marriage for same-gender couples and full adoption and foster care rights for all parents, regardless of sexual orientation.The American Psychological Association (APA) noted in 2004 that "same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation." In addition, the APA stated that “beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation.” The next year, in 2005, the APA published a summary of research findings on lesbian and gay parents and reiterated that common negative stereotypes about LGBT parenting are not supported by the data.Similarly, the Child Welfare League of America's official position with regard to same-sex parents is that "lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are as well-suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts."A 2010 review of research on same-sex parenting carried out by LiveScience, a science news website, found no differences between children raised by heterosexual parents and children raised by lesbian parents. In some cases, it found, children in same-sex households may actually be better adjusted than in heterosexual homes.A 2013 preliminary study in Australia found that the children of lesbian and gay parents are not only thriving, but may actually have better overall health and higher rates of family cohesion than heterosexual families. The study is the world’s largest attempt to compare children of same-sex parents to children of heterosexual parents. The full study was published in June 2014.The anti-LGBT right continues, however, to use this myth to deny rights to LGBT people, whether through distorting legitimate research or through “studies” conducted by anti-LGBT sympathizers, such as a 2012 paper popularly known as the Regnerus Study. University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus’ paper purported to demonstrate that same-sex parenting harms children. The study received almost $1 million in funding from anti-LGBT think tanks, and even though Regnerus himself admitted that his study does not show what people say it does with regard to the “harms” of same-sex parenting, it continues to be peddled as “proof” that children are in danger in same-sex households. Since the study’s release, it has been completely discredited because of its faulty methodology and its suspect funding. In 2013, Darren Sherkat, a scholar appointed to review the study by the academic journal that published it, told the Southern Poverty Law Center that he “completely dismiss[es]” the study, saying Regnerus “has been disgraced” and that the study was “bad … substandard.” In spring 2014, the University of Texas’s College of Liberal Arts and Department of Sociology publicly distanced themselves from Regnerus, the day after he testified as an “expert witness” against Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban. The judge in that case, Bernard Friedman, found that Regnerus’ testimony was “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration,” and ruled that Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Despite all this, the Regnerus Study is still used in the U.S. and abroad as a tool by anti-LGBT groups to develop anti-LGBT policy and laws.MYTH # 3People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents.THE ARGUMENTMany anti-gay rights activists claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder caused by some psychological trauma or aberration in childhood. This argument is used to counter the common observation that no one, gay or straight, consciously chooses his or her sexual orientation. Joseph Nicolosi, a founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, said in 2009 that "if you traumatize a child in a particular way, you will create a homosexual condition." He also has repeatedly said, "Fathers, if you don't hug your sons, some other man will."A side effect of this argument is the demonization of parents of gay men and lesbians, who are led to wonder if they failed to protect a child against sexual abuse or failed as role models in some important way. In October 2010, Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm released a related study in the British Journal of Biosocial Science, which used to be the Eugenics Review. Schumm argued that gay couples are more likely than heterosexuals to raise gay or lesbian children through modeling “gay behavior.” Schumm, who has also argued that lesbian relationships are unstable, has ties to discredited psychologist and anti-LGBT fabulist Paul Cameron, the author of numerous completely baseless “studies” about the alleged evils of homosexuality. Critics of Schumm’s study note that he appears to have merely aggregated anecdotal data, resulting in a biased sample.THE FACTSNo scientifically sound study has definitively linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse.The American Psychiatric Association noted in a 2000 fact sheet available on the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists, that dealing with gay, lesbian and bisexual issues, that sexual abuse does not appear to be any more prevalent among children who grow up and identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual than in children who grow up and identify as heterosexual.Similarly, the National Organization on Male Sexual Victimization notes on its website that "experts in the human sexuality field do not believe that premature sexual experiences play a significant role in late adolescent or adult sexual orientation" and added that it's unlikely that anyone can make another person gay or heterosexual.Advocates for Youth, an organization that works in the U.S. and abroad in the field of adolescent reproductive and sexual health also has stated that sexual abuse does not “cause” heterosexual youth to become gay.In 2009, Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a psychologist at the Christian Grove City College, noted in an analysis that “the research on sexual abuse among GLBT populations is often misused to make inferences about causation [of homosexuality].”MYTH # 4LGBT people don't live nearly as long as heterosexuals.THE ARGUMENTAnti-LGBT organizations, seeking to promote heterosexuality as the healthier "choice," often offer up the purportedly shorter life spans and poorer physical and mental health of gays and lesbians as reasons why they shouldn't be allowed to adopt or foster children.THE FACTSThis falsehood can be traced directly to the discredited research of Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute, specifically a 1994 paper he co-wrote entitled "The Lifespan of Homosexuals." Using obituaries collected from newspapers serving the gay community, he and his two co-authors concluded that gay men died, on average, at 43, compared to an average life expectancy at the time of around 73 for all U.S. men. On the basis of the same obituaries, Cameron also claimed that gay men are 18 times more likely to die in car accidents than heterosexuals, 22 times more likely to die of heart attacks than whites, and 11 times more likely than blacks to die of the same cause. He also concluded that lesbians are 487 times more likely to die of murder, suicide, or accidents than straight women.Remarkably, these claims have become staples of the anti-gay right and have frequently made their way into far more mainstream venues. For example, William Bennett, education secretary under President Reagan, used Cameron's statistics in a 1997 interview he gave to ABC News' "This Week."However, like virtually all of his "research," Cameron's methodology is egregiously flawed — most obviously because the sample he selected (the data from the obits) was not remotely statistically representative of the LGBT population as a whole. Even Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographer at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has called Cameron's methods "just ridiculous."Anti-LGBT organizations have also tried to support this claim by distorting the work of legitimate scholars, like a 1997 study conducted by a Canadian team of researchers that dealt with gay and bisexual men living in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The authors of the study became aware that their work was being misrepresented by anti-LGBT groups, and issued a response taking the groups to task.MYTH # 5Gay men controlled the Nazi Party and helped to orchestrate the Holocaust.THE ARGUMENTThis claim comes directly from a 1995 book titled The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. Lively is the virulently anti-gay founder of Abiding Truth Ministries and Abrams is an organizer of a group called the International Committee for Holocaust Truth, which came together in 1994 and included Lively as a member.The primary argument Lively and Abrams make is that gay people were not victimized by the Holocaust. Rather, Hitler deliberately sought gay men for his inner circle because their "unusual brutality" would help him run the party and mastermind the Holocaust. In fact, "the Nazi party was entirely controlled by militaristic male homosexuals throughout its short history," the book claims. "While we cannot say that homosexuals caused the Holocaust, we must not ignore their central role in Nazism," Lively and Abrams add. "To the myth of the 'pink triangle' — the notion that all homosexuals in Nazi Germany were persecuted — we must respond with the reality of the 'pink swastika.'"These claims have been picked up by a number of anti-gay groups and individuals, including Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, as proof that gay men and lesbians are violent and sick. The book has also attracted an audience among anti-gay church leaders in Eastern Europe and among Russian-speaking anti-gay activists in America.THE FACTSThe Pink Swastika has been roundly discredited by legitimate historians and other scholars. Christine Mueller, professor of history at Reed College, did a 1994 line-by-line refutation of an earlier Abrams article on the topic and of the broader claim that the Nazi Party was "entirely controlled" by gay men. Historian Jon David Wynecken at Grove City College also refuted the book, pointing out that Lively and Abrams did no primary research of their own, instead using out-of-context citations of some legitimate sources while ignoring information from those same sources that ran counter to their thesis.The myth that the Nazis condoned homosexuality sprang up in the 1930s, started by socialist opponents of the Nazis as a slander against Nazi leaders. Credible historians believe that only one of the half-dozen leaders in Hitler's inner circle, Ernst Röhm, was gay. (Röhm was murdered on Hitler's orders in 1934.) The Nazis considered homosexuality one aspect of the "degeneracy" they were trying to eradicate.When Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party came to power in 1933, it quickly strengthened Germany's existing penalties against homosexuality. Heinrich Himmler, Hitler's security chief, announced that homosexuality was to be "eliminated" in Germany, along with miscegenation among the races. Historians estimate that between 50,000 and 100,000 men were arrested for homosexuality (or suspicion of it) under the Nazi regime. These men were routinely sent to concentration camps and many thousands died there.Himmler expressed his views on homosexuality like this: "We must exterminate these people root and branch. ... We can't permit such danger to the country; the homosexual must be completely eliminated."MYTH # 6Hate crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia.THE ARGUMENTAnti-gay activists, who have long opposed adding LGBT people to those protected by hate crime legislation, have repeatedly claimed that such laws would lead to the jailing of religious figures who preach against homosexuality — part of a bid to gain the backing of the broader religious community for their position. Janet Porter of Faith2Action, for example, was one of many who asserted that the federal Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act — signed into law by President Obama in October 2009 — would "jail pastors" because it "criminalizes speech against the homosexual agenda."In a related assertion, anti-gay activists claimed the law would lead to the legalization of psychosexual disorders (paraphilias) like bestiality and pedophilia. Bob Unruh, a conservative Christian journalist who left The Associated Press in 2006 for the right-wing, conspiracist news site WorldNetDaily, said shortly before the federal law was passed that it would legalize "all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or 'paraphilias' listed by the American Psychiatric Association." This claim was repeated by many anti-gay organizations, including the Illinois Family Institute.THE FACTSThe claim that hate crime laws could result in the imprisonment of those who "oppose the homosexual lifestyle" is false. The First Amendment provides robust protections of free speech, and case law makes it clear that even a preacher who publicly suggested that gays and lesbians should be killed would be protected.Neither do hate crime laws — which provide for enhanced penalties when persons are victimized because of their "sexual orientation" (among other factors) — "protect pedophiles," as Janet Porter and many others have claimed. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation refers to heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality — not paraphilias such as pedophilia. Paraphilias, as defined (pdf; may require a different browser) by the American Psychiatric Association, are characterized by sexual urges or behaviors directed at non-consenting persons or those unable to consent like children, or that involve another person’s psychological distress, injury, or death.Moreover, even if pedophiles, for example, were protected under a hate crime law — and such a law has not been suggested or contemplated anywhere — that would not legalize or "protect" pedophilia. Pedophilia is illegal sexual activity, and a law that more severely punished people who attacked pedophiles would not change that.MYTH # 7Allowing gay people to serve openly will damage the armed forces.THE ARGUMENTAnti-gay groups have been adamantly opposed to allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces, not only because of their purported fear that combat readiness will be undermined, but because the military has long been considered the purest meritocracy in America (the armed forces were successfully racially integrated long before American civil society, for example). If gays serve honorably and effectively in this meritocracy, that suggests that there is no rational basis for discriminating against them in any way.THE FACTSGays and lesbians have long served in the U.S. armed forces, though under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy that governed the military between 1993 and 2011, they could not do so openly. At the same time, gays and lesbians have served openly for years in the armed forces of 25 countries (as of 2010), including Britain, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia, according to a report released by the Palm Center, a policy think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The Palm Center report concluded that lifting bans against openly gay service personnel in these countries "ha[s] had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness." Successful transitions to new policies were attributed to clear signals of leadership support and a focus on a uniform code of behavior without regard to sexual orientation.A 2008 Military Times poll of active-duty military personnel, often cited by anti-gay activists, found that 10% of respondents said they would consider leaving the military if the DADT policy were repealed. That would have meant that some 228,000 people might have left the military the policy’s 2011 repeal. But a 2009 review of that poll by the Palm Center suggested a wide disparity between what soldiers said they would do and their actual actions. It noted, for example, that far more than 10% of West Point officers in the 1970s said they would leave the service if women were admitted to the academy. "But when the integration became a reality," the report said, "there was no mass exodus; the opinions turned out to be just opinions." Similarly, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male Canadian service members and a 1996 survey of 13,500 British service members each revealed that nearly two-thirds expressed strong reservations about serving with gays. Yet when those countries lifted bans on gays serving openly, virtually no one left the service for that reason. "None of the dire predictions of doom came true," the Palm Center report said.Despite the fact that gay men and lesbians have been serving openly in the military since September 2011, anti-LGBT groups continue to claim that openly gay personnel are causing problems in the military, including claims of sexual abuse by gay and lesbian soldiers of straight soldiers. The Palm Center refutes this claim, and in an analysis, found that repealing DADT has had “no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions,” including sexual assault. According to then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in 2012, the repeal of DADT was being implemented effectively and was having no impact on readiness, unit cohesion or morale. Panetta also issued an LGBT Pride message in 2012.MYTH # 8Gay people are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol.THE ARGUMENTAnti-LGBT groups want not only to depict sexual orientation as something that can be changed but also to show that heterosexuality is the most desirable "choice," even if religious arguments are set aside. The most frequently used secular argument made by anti-LGBT groups in that regard is that homosexuality is inherently unhealthy, both mentally and physically. As a result, most anti-LGBT rights groups reject the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses. Some of these groups, including the particularly hard-line Traditional Values Coalition, claim that "homosexual activists" managed to infiltrate the APA in order to sway its decision.THE FACTSAll major professional mental health organizations are on record as stating that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.The American Psychological Association states that being gay is just as healthy as being straight, and noted that the 1950s-era work of Dr. Evelyn Hooker started to dismantle this myth. In 1975, the association issued a statement that said, in part, “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, reliability or general social and vocational capabilities.” The association has clearly stated in the past that “homosexuality is neither mental illness nor mental depravity. … Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.”The American Psychiatric Association states that (PDF; may not open in all browsers) homosexuality is not a mental disorder and that all major professional health organizations are on record as confirming that. The organization removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual in 1973 after extensive review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts, who concluded that homosexuality is not a mental illness.Though it is true that LGBT people tend to suffer higher rates of anxiety, depression, and depression-related illnesses and behaviors like alcohol and drug abuse than the general population, that is due to the historical social stigmatization of homosexuality and violence directed at LGBT people, not because of homosexuality itself. Studies done during the past several years have determined that it is the stress of being a member of a minority group in an often-hostile society — and not LGBT identity itself — that accounts for the higher levels of mental illness and drug use.Richard J. Wolitski, an expert on minority status and public health issues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, put it like this in 2008: "Economic disadvantage, stigma, and discrimination ... increase stress and diminish the ability of individuals [in minority groups] to cope with stress, which in turn contribute to poor physical and mental health."Even as early as 1994, external stressors were recognized as a potential cause of emotional distress of LGBT people. A report presented by the Council on Scientific Affairs to the AMA House of Delegates Interim Meeting with regard to reparative (“ex-gay”) therapy noted that most of the emotional disturbance gay men and lesbians experience around their sexual identity is not based on physiological causes, but rather on “a sense of alienation in an unaccepting environment.”In 2014, a study, conducted by several researchers at major universities and the Rand Corporation, found that LGBT people living in highly anti-LGBT communities and circumstances face serious health concerns and even premature death because of social stigmatization and exclusion. One of the researchers, Dr. Mark Hatzenbuehler, a sociomedical sciences professor at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, said that the data gathered in the study suggests that “sexual minorities living in communities with high levels of anti-gay prejudice have increased risk of mortality, compared to low-prejudice communities.”Homosexuality is not a mental illness or emotional problem and being LGBT does not cause someone to be mentally ill, contrary to what anti-LGBT organizations say. Rather, social stigmatization and prejudice appear to contribute to health disparities in the LGBT population, which include emotional and psychological distress and harmful coping mechanisms.MYTH # 9No one is born gay.THE ARGUMENTAnti-gay activists keenly oppose the granting of "special" civil rights protections to gay people similar to those afforded black Americans and other minorities. But if people are born gay — in the same way that people have no choice as to whether they are black or white — discrimination against gay men and lesbians would be vastly more difficult to justify. Thus, anti-gay forces insist that sexual orientation is a behavior that can be changed, not an immutable characteristic.THE FACTSModern science cannot state conclusively what causes sexual orientation, but a great many studies suggest that it is the result of both biological and environmental forces, not a personal "choice." A 2008 Swedish study of twins (the world's largest twin study) published in The Archives of Sexual Behavior concluded that "[h]omosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors." Dr. Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, said: "This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality — the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here — heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors." In other words, sexual orientation in general — whether homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual — is a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.The American Psychological Association (APA) states that sexual orientation “ranges along a continuum,” and acknowledges that despite much research into the possible genetic, hormonal, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, scientists have yet to pinpoint the precise causes of sexual orientation. Regardless, the APA concludes that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." In 1994, the APA noted that “homosexuality is not a matter of individual choice” and that research “suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth.”The American Academy of Pediatrics stated in 1993 (updated in 2004) that “homosexuality has existed in most societies for as long as recorded descriptions of sexual beliefs and practices have been available” and that even at that time, “most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice … individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.”There are questions about what specifically causes sexual orientation in general, but most current science acknowledges that it is a complex mixture of biological, environmental, and possibly hormonal factors but that no one chooses an orientation.MYTH # 10Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality.THE ARGUMENTIf people are not born gay, as anti-gay activists claim, then it should be possible for individuals to abandon homosexuality. This view is buttressed among religiously motivated anti-gay activists by the idea that homosexual practice is a sin and humans have the free will needed to reject sinful urges.A number of "ex-gay" religious ministries have sprung up in recent years with the aim of teaching gay people to become heterosexuals, and these have become prime purveyors of the claim that gays and lesbians, with the aid of mental therapy and Christian teachings, can "come out of homosexuality." The now defunct Exodus International, the largest of these ministries, once stated, "You don't have to be gay!" Meanwhile, in a more secular vein, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality describes itself as "a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality."THE FACTS"Reparative" or sexual reorientation therapy — the pseudo-scientific foundation of the ex-gay movement — has been rejected by all the established and reputable American medical, psychological, psychiatric and professional counseling organizations. In 2009, for instance, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution, accompanied by a 138-page report, that repudiated ex-gay therapy. The report concluded that compelling evidence suggested that cases of individuals going from gay to straight were "rare" and that "many individuals continued to experience same-sex sexual attractions" after reparative therapy. The APA resolution added that "there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation" and asked "mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation." The resolution also affirmed that same-sex sexual and romantic feelings are normal.A very large number of professional medical, scientific and counseling organizations in the U.S. and abroad have issued statements regarding the harm that reparative therapy can cause, particularly if it’s based on the assumption that homosexuality is unacceptable. As early as 1993, the American Academy of Pediatrics stated that “[t]herapy directed at specifically changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving change in orientation.”The American Medical Association officially opposes reparative therapy that is “based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based on an a priori assumption that the person should change his/her homosexual orientation.”The Pan-American Health Organization, the world’s oldest international public health agency, issued a statement in 2012 that said, in part: “Services that purport to ‘cure’ people with non-heterosexual sexual orientation lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people.” The statement continues, “In none of its individual manifestations does homosexuality constitute a disorder or an illness, and therefore it requires no cure.”Some of the most striking, if anecdotal, evidence of the ineffectiveness of sexual reorientation therapy has been the numerous failures of some of its most ardent advocates. For example, the founder of Exodus International, Michael Bussee, left the organization in 1979 with a fellow male ex-gay counselor because the two had fallen in love. Other examples include George Rekers, a former board member of NARTH and formerly a leading scholar of the anti-LGBT Christian right who was revealed to have been involved in a same-sex tryst in 2010. John Paulk, former poster child of the massive ex-gay campaign “Love Won Out” in the late 1990s, is now living as a happy gay man. And Robert Spitzer, a preeminent psychiatrist whose 2001 research that seemed to indicate that some gay people had changed their orientation, repudiated his own study in 2012. The Spitzer study had been widely used by anti-LGBT organizations as “proof” that sexual orientation can change.In 2013, Exodus International, formerly one of the largest ex-gay ministries in the world, shut down after its director, Alan Chambers, issued an apology to the LGBT community. Chambers, who is married to a woman, has acknowledged that his same-sex attraction has not changed. At a 2012 conference, he said: “The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them, have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say they could never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction.”1. “We need to protect marriage.”The word “protect” implies that gay people are a threat to the institution of marriage. To imply that including same-sex couples within the definition of marriage will somehow be detrimental or even destructive for the institution is to suggest gay people must be inherently poisonous. It also implies a nefarious gay mafia that is out to wreck marriage for straight people. Naturally if such a mafia existed I would be bound by a code of honour to deny its existence. However, it doesn’t exist.2. “We must preserve traditional marriage.”Given that marriage has always changed to suit the culture of the time and place, I would refrain from ever calling it “traditional”. If marriage was truly traditional, interracial couples would not be allowed to wed, one could marry a child, ceremonies would be arranged by parents to share familial wealth and the Church of England would still be under the authority of the Pope.3. “Marriage is a sacred institution.”The word “sacred” suggests marriage is a solely religious institution. The Office for National Statistics shows how civil, non-religious marriage made up 68 per cent of all marriages in the UK during 2010. Let us not forget matrimony existed long before Jehovah was even a word you weren’t allowed to say.4. “Marriage has always been a bond between one man and one woman.”This declaration ignores the legally married gay couples in Canada, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Belgium, Netherlands, and South Africa. It conveniently forgets the 48 countries where polygamy is still practised. It also omits from history the married gay couples of ancient China and Rome, Mormon polygamy, and the ancient Egyptians who could marry their sisters. The assertion is obviously false.5. “Gay marriage will confuse gender roles.”This hinges on the idea that gender roles are or should be fixed, as dictated by scripture, most often cited for the sake of healthy child development. The love and care homosexual couples routinely provide children are, it would seem, irrelevant. Perhaps it would help to reiterate that gay people are not confused about gender, they are just gay. It is the churches who are deeply confused about gender and sexuality. I would ask them to stop focusing on my genitals, and start paying attention to my humanity.6. “Gay marriage will confuse the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, or ‘mother and ‘father’.”Another form of the previous argument. It is not hard but I’ll say it slowly just in case … married men will refer to themselves … as “husbands”, and married women will refer to themselves … as “wives”. Male parents will be “fathers” and female parents will both be “mothers”. Not so confusing really.7. “Gay people cannot have children and so should not be allowed to marry.”The Archbishop of York John Sentamu used a barely disguised version of this argument in a piece for the Guardian when he referred to “the complementary nature of men and women”. He is insinuating, of course, that homosexual relationships are not complementary by nature because they cannot produce offspring, and therefore they are unnatural and undeserving of the word “marriage”.May I refer him to the elderly or infertile straight couples who cannot produce children? If a complementary relationship hinges on procreative sex, are these relationships unnatural? Should they be allowed to marry?8. “But studies have shown heterosexual parents are better for children.”No, they have not. Dozens of studies have shown gay people to be entirely capable of raising children. While it is true that many reputable studies have shown two-parent families tend to be most beneficial, the gender of the parents has never been shown to matter.The studies cited by actively homophobic organisations like the Coalition for Marriage were funded by anti-gay organisations, or have basic methodology flaws – for example, they would compare married straight couples with un-wed gay couples, or they would take a person who may have had a single curious experience with the same sex and define them as exclusively homosexual. Sometimes, the even more disingenuous will reference studies [PDF] which do not even acknowledge gay parents. Same-sex parents are simply presumed by biased researchers to be equivalent to single parents and step-parents, and therefore use the data interchangeably, which as anyone with an ounce of scientific literacy knows is not the way such studies work.Arguments based on “traditional family” will always be insulting, not just to the healthy, well-adjusted children of gay couples, but to the children raised by single parents, step-parents, grandparents, godparents, foster parents, and siblings.9. “No one has the right to redefine marriage.”Tell that to Henry VIII. When marriage is a civil, legal institution of the state, the citizenship has a right to redefine marriage in accordance with established equality laws.10. “The minority should not have the right to dictate to the majority.”Asking to be included within marriage laws is certainly not equivalent to imposing gay marriage on the majority. No single straight person’s marriage will be affected by letting gay people marry.Another form of the above argument is “Why should we bother changing the law just to cater to 4% of the population?” By this logic, what reason is there to provide any minority equal civil rights?11. “Public opinion polls show most people are against gay marriage.”A petition by the Coalition for Marriage claimed to have 600,000 signatures in opposition to gay marriage in the UK. It should come as no surprise that the directors of the organisation are religious and manipulation of the results was easy. A single person could submit their signature online multiple times providing they used different email addresses (which were not verified). Programs that allow for anonymity of IP addresses also enabled anyone around the world to add their signature.The majority of UK polls demonstrate a majority in favour of gay marriage. These include a 2004 Gallup poll, a 2008 ICM Research poll, a 2009 Populus poll, a 2010 Angus Reid poll, a 2010 Scottish Social Attitudes survey, a 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion survey, and a 2012 YouGov survey.Even if most people were against gay marriage, which polls consistently show is not the case, majority will is no justification for the exclusion of a minority.12. “Why is it so important for gay people to have marriage?”For the same reason it is important to straight people. Our relationships are just as loving and valid as heterosexual relationships, but our current marriage laws suggest it is not. We are equally human and we should be treated by the law as such.13. “Why do gay people have to get society’s approval?”To turn the argument on its head, one simply has to ask why society feels the need to segregate our rights from those of heterosexuals. It has nothing to do with approval, and has everything to do with equality.14. “There are two sides to the argument. Why can’t we compromise?”Should women have compromised their right to vote? One does not compromise equal rights otherwise they are not equal rights.15. “Gay people in the UK already have civil partnerships which provide all the same rights as marriage.”Civil partnerships were born out of politicians pandering to homophobia. A step in the right direction, perhaps, but they are a separate form of recognition that reaffirmed society’s wish to keep homosexuals at arm’s length should we somehow “diminish” true marriage.Type B: The Arguments That Don’t Even Bother to Hide Their HomophobiaWhile we must look closely to spot the homophobia inherent in some arguments against gay marriage, with others the prejudice is barely disguised at all.16. “I am concerned about the impact gay marriage will have on society/schools.”There is no concern here, only prejudice. We can conclude this because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest gay marriage will harm society. Have the 11 countries where gay marriage is legal crumbled yet? Ultimately the argument turns out to be hyperbolic nonsense designed to instil confusion, fear, and mistrust of gay people.17. “Gay marriage is immoral.”If there is something immoral about legally acknowledging the love between two consenting adults, it would help the argument to state precisely what that is. “God says so” is not an argument. And this article, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, is the real “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”.18. “Gay people should not be allowed to marry because they are more likely to be promiscuous.”This claim is based on the degrading preconception that gay people do not feel true love and just have sex with as many people as possible. It is also beside the point - straight couples are not precluded from marriage on the basis they may be unfaithful, so why should gay people?19. “I love my best friend, my brother and my dog. That does not mean we should have the right to marry.”Thank you for reducing the love I have for my long-term partner to friendship, incest or bestiality. May also take the form: “The state should not be blessing every sexual union.”Thank you, again, for reducing my long-term, loving relationship to just sex.Type C: The Really Silly Homophobic Arguments20. “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”Clearly not a Biology graduate.21. “If everybody was gay, mankind would cease to exist.”Ignoring the fact not everyone is gay, and also ignoring the fact gay people can and do have children through donors and surrogates, I actually quite enjoyed the apocalyptic images this argument conjured.22. “Gay rights are fashionable right now.”The Suffragettes famously marched together because they needed an excuse to compare clothing. Civil rights activists looked fabulous with hoses and guns turned on them. Nooses around gay Iranian necks are totally “in” right now. We are all mere lambs of our Queen Gaga.People actually use this argument.23. “The only people who want gay marriage are the liberal elites.”If this was really true, how come hundreds of everyday gay people protest outside anti-gay marriage rallies? How come thousands of people voice their support for gay marriage in polls? I do not imagine there are many people who believe they deserve fewer rights or who desire to be second-class citizens.24. “Gay people do not even want marriage.”Yes, Ann Widdecombe, we do. We do not appreciate you mischaracterising what millions of us do and do not want, and squaring reality to fit your Catholic bigotry.25. “Gay people can already get married – to people of the opposite gender.”This is Michele Bachmann’s demented logic. Yes, gay people can already get married … to people of the opposite gender. No, they are not allowed to marry the people they actually love. This is not just bigotry, it’s also stupidity.26. “There will be drastic consequences for society if we accept gay marriage.”Person A: “Have you been to Canada lately? They have free health care, they play hockey, and they’re very peaceful and polite.”Person B: “That sounds nice.”Person A: “They have gay marriage too.”Person B: “Sounds like Sodom and Gomorrah.”27. “Gay marriage will cause the disestablishment of the church.”Or to put it another way: “If you don’t stop all this silly talk, we will be forced to go away and leave you in peace.” Scary!28. “Gay marriage will lead to polygamy/bestiality/paedophilia/etc.”The truth is that the legalisation of gay marriage will lead to the legalisation of gay marriage. Dire warnings of slippery slopes are scaremongering. In the countries that have so far legalised same-sex marriage, courts have always rejected calls for the legalisation of polygamy.29. “Gay marriage caused the end of the Roman Empire/September 11th/etc.”The Roman Empire disintegrated as barbarians from the north overwhelmed them, forcing the last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustus, to abdicate to the Germanic warlord Odoacer. This had nothing to do with homosexuality.The attacks on the World Trade Center were orchestrated by Al-Qaeda, an extremist Muslim group that detests America. The gay mafia was not involved.30. “You are too emotionally involved to make a rational argument.”Of course I’m angry. Wouldn’t you be if you had to listen to arguments like these? I’m passionate about achieving equality and combating prejudice. But, as everyone should know, passion and reason are complementary.31. “We are in an economic crisis, so we should not be wasting time on gay marriage.”Is it too much to wish for politicians who can multi-task? And for leaders who don’t consider equality a luxury add on?

Q. What was Japan's role in the Cold War?A.Japan always seems invisible within Cold War politics, what role did she play?? by m3ltd0wn02The Myth of the 'Pacifist' Japanese Constitution | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan FocusJapan–United States relations - WikipediaThe United States Marines in the Occupation of JapanDomestic sources of Japanese foreign policyDon't Weaken the U.S.-Japan Alliance, Strengthen It5 Things You May Not Know About the End of World War IIJapan always seems invisible within Cold War politics, what role did she play?? by m3ltd0wn02Certificate of Surrender as a unit of the Third Fleet off Yokohama, Japan for the signing of the agreement. Occupation of Japan - WikipediaInvisibility is not an accident. Japanese involvement within the Cold War was often oblique, even though it was firmly in the US camp. This was in no small measure because of the nature of the US-Japan security relationship. The postwar US-Japan security relationship is one that emerged very quickly in the immediate postwar period, but also quite unexpectedly. Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP), the American occupation government, initially saw the end game for Japan was a demilitarized polity that would delegate security issues to the US. For its part, the emerging Japanese civilian government under the conservative LDP politician PM Yoshida Shigeru pursued its own agenda which intersected with American strategic thought in the evolving Cold War. This partnership though was not entirely free of complications and neither side truly got what they wanted out of their ally.The Dai-Ichi Seimei Building which served as SCAP headquarters, c. 1950"Formless" is the best word to describe American strategic thought with regards to Japan's immediate geopolitical future in the Autumn of 1945. SCAP generally did not envision reforming Japan with an eye to meet American needs. Article 9 in the Japanese Constitution outlawed war as a policy and there was a good deal of SCAP directives aimed at the demilitarization of Japanese society and culture. This was in keeping with much of the wartime planning for East Asia was predicated on both having a Nationalist China as well as Commonwealth forces form a bulwark for US interests, especially as the Cold War started to shape up. Events in China with the resumption of the Civil War as well as the general draw down of the British East of Suez almost immediately meant that the US was lacking a regional power partner in East Asia. This did not mean that American planners immediately considered Japan as the nation that could fill this vacuum. As late March 1949, SCAP chief MacArthur claimed in a newspaper interview that:Japan should be the Switzerland of the Far East and neutral for the same reasons Switzerland is neutral - no matter which side she might join, she would inevitably be destroyed.Pace MacArthur's public statements, both the State Department and the Pentagon were considering rearming Japan and having it as the central regional partner.It took the twin shocks of the victory of the Communists in China and the Korean War to transform these thoughts into action. The latter conflict opened up the frightening possibility that Japan could be invaded and the overstretched US forces would be unable to defend the islands. The Korean invasion alarmed the Japanese government as well and it led to the expansion of the National Police Reserve (NPR), a sort of ersatz military that the US armed with a variety of weapons.The NPR laid the foundations for the later Self-Defense Forces (SDF), but it was not a straight line. Yoshida pursued what later be known as the Yoshida Doctrine, in which the Japanese government would prioritize economic growth while relying upon US power for security. The role Yoshida envisioned for the SDF was one that would supplement the American defense network in Japan. Yoshida had both domestic and international motives for this limited commitment. Domestically, an open move against Article 9 would provide fuel for his left-wing opponents in the Diet. Moreover, Yoshida also recognized that economic growth was also more important for immediate domestic needs. And like his German counterpart Adenauer, Yoshida was adamant that civilian control over the military was essential. As one of the sidelined bureaucrats from the wartime government, Yoshida came from a political milieu that looked askance at militarist rule, especially given the scale of the defeat in 1945. Internationally, Yoshida also recognized that the US arguably needed Japanese bases and its geographic position far more than the US needed Japan to make a costly outlay for rearmament. This was one of the key differences between Yoshida and Adenauer as the German Chancellor and a number of his CDU-CSU allies were more leery of American commitments to West German defense.Thus although the common metaphor of the US-Japanese relationship was spear and shield- with the US able to strike out offensively while the SDF guarded US bases-the reality was often more complicated than such a symbiotic metaphor. Pentagon estimates in the late 1950s and early 1950s evaluated the SDF as a credible deterrence to the Soviets, but not a force that could neither project power abroad or be able to stop a Soviet invasion of Hokkaido if the Soviets pressed them. For these reasons, Washington often considered Japanese rearmament tardy and never as thorough to meet the needs of the Cold War in East Asia, despite the US signing Mutual Cooperation Treaties with Japan in 1952, 1960, and 1970. The escalation of the Vietnam War put a further strain on the US-Japanese relationship as both the Johnson and Nixon administrations expected Japan to act as a regional ally and send troops to South Vietnam as its other allies, South Korea and Australia. This was an issue which Tokyo would not budge on, and earned Japan a good deal of resentment in the US during the 1970s. Kissinger in particular was quite vocal in private with his deriding of the Japanese, at one point calling his Tokyo counterparts "small and petty bookkeepers." Such opprobrium was not limited to the corridors of power in the US as the declining American economy of the 1970s fueled resentment that Japan was profiting off of US defenses by not maintaining an army and instead investing the monies it would have used on defense into automobile and consumer electronics industries.Japan–United States relations - WikipediaThe United States Marines in the Occupation of JapanSuch complaints, which only grew during the Japan-bashing of the 1980s, were more than a tad unfair. Japan, despite its foot-dragging, was rearming and building up its own domestic arms industry, which was not only time-consuming, but expensive. The threat of a wide-scale US post-Vietnam draw-down in the region also forced a greater commitment on Tokyo's part to beef up the SDF. Although the naval and air components of the SDF had practiced joint operations with the US in the 1960s, the ground forces started to so in the 1970s. There was a fear within Tokyo that the Vietnam defeat, coupled with the domestic problems in South Korea during the Park dictatorship could have led to a domino effect in which Japan was isolated in the region. The Belenko MiG-25 defection also added urgency to defense expenditures as fears of Soviet retaliation or a commando raid to destroy the plane did concern SDF chiefs. One of the ironies of the 1980s was that despite the Japan-bashing tone of US domestic politics, the US-Japanese security arrangement was the closest it had ever been to reaching the shield-sword metaphor. The Japanese significantly expanded their air defense and ASW forces and the Japanese PM Suzuki in May 1981 actually called the bilateral relationship a military alliance.The cold war most influential defection: MIG -25 (bestchinanews.com)Suzuki's breaking of this taboo in 1981 underscores the real domestic costs of the Yoshida Doctrine and its various post-Yoshida iterations. In short, the alliance put the LDP in a very awkward position. While the Japanese nationalist right was staunchly anti-communist, ideologues like Ishihara Shintaro excoriated the mainstream LDP champions of the alliance as the lap-dogs of American power. This disgruntlement sometimes exploded into violence, such as the assassination of the left-wing politician Asanuma Inejiro by a right-wing nationalist on national tv or the seppuku of the author Mishima Yukio after his private army tried to take over a SDF military base. Such events, which were widely publicized around the world- the photo of Asanuma's assassination won a Pulitzer- created an embarrassing situation for the LDP. From the perspective of the Japanese left, this security arrangement was Japan being co-opted by American imperialism and militarism. While the extremes of left-wing disgruntlement likewise manifested itself in the terrorism like the Japanese Red Army on the extremes, there was always a danger that the Social Democratic Party could use the sotto voce US alliance as a wedge issue to unseat the LDP and unify the splinter-prone Japanese left. Adding to this, the presence of American forces and bases was incredibly unpopular within Japan. The transformation of Okinawa into a hive network of American bases, the perceived footdragging of US military justice to punish crimes committed on Japanese soil, the association of US bases with vices like prostitution and drugs, as well as the extreme unpopularity of the Vietnam conflict within a broad spectrum of the Japanese electorate also made the alliance a political liability for the ruling governments.Domestic sources of Japanese foreign policyYOSHIDA DOCTRINE (1950’S-1973)Economic Growth is Japan’s main objectiveInvolvement in international political affairs should be avoidedTo guarantee security, Japan will rely on US basesKeep military expenditures lowCOROLLARIES TO YOSHIDA DOCTRINE (OBSERVED FROM 1950’S TO 1970S)SDF will not be dispatched abroadJapan will not become a nuclear powerJapan will not export armsJapan will limit defense spending to 1% GDPWHAT IS NEW: HEISEI MILITARIZATIONHollowing out Article 9Shift from “defensive defense”/“comprehensive defense” to “threat-based defense”/”proportional defense”Upgrading and expanding military forcesWillingness to rely on military solutionsLegitimation of use of military force abroadClose operational integration with US forcesGrowing possibility of weapons of mass destruction“Great power realism”The new nationalismCOLD WAR AND US-JAPAN RELATIONSHIPSoviet Union and China take peace offensive to Japan.Indochina tail spinning caused US uneasinessPresident Eisenhower argues “domino theory”.Japan keystone in containment policy in the Far East.Japan Prepares for Soviet Attack | Cold War Era Documentary | 1954Although the mechanisms of the alliance were at their most functional in the 1980s, there were rumblings in political quarters that the alliance needed to change. Suzuki's successor, Nakasone Yasuhiro struck a more militant line versus the Soviets than his predecessors. While such a stance indicated a success for the alliance, it was also a sign that Japan was making tentative steps away from the Yoshida Doctrine's subservient position accorded to Japan. Greater stridency also indicated that Japan could toe an independent line and Gorbachev and his Foreign Ministry began to hold out the prospect of returning the Kuriles and a formal peace treaty with Japan. These feelers foundered for a number of reasons, not the least of which was still the importance of the alliance for Japan, but the fact that the Soviets made them suggests the new vulnerabilities of the alliance in the bubble economy.The alliance itself went into a form of stasis with the end of the Cold War and the bursting of the bubble in the 1990s. This has imparted a degree of inertia into 1990s and beyond; one of the cliches in news coverage of US-Japan relations is the question of whether or not the Yoshida Doctrine is still relevant. For example, contrast this 1993 NYT piece on Japan to this 2014 Japan Today opinion piece. Although over twenty years of history separates the two articles, they are still asking much the same questions.The Myth of the 'Pacifist' Japanese Constitution | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan FocusThe US-Japanese alliance may have been born out of necessity, but its midwife was a very favorable geopolitical situation. Unlike German rearmament which had to take place amidst quite tense negotiations with Western European powers, the rebirth of the Japanese military was a bilateral affair. The Sino-Soviet split also allowed for a more quiet Cold War in the northern Pacific as the USSR and PRC were more leery of each other than Japan. At points in the 1970s and 80s, both Beijing and Tokyo could put aside wartime legacies to find common accord such as joint protests of Soviet deployments of SS-20 missiles in Siberia. Although there were persistent fears of Korean unification by the DPRK, such a scenario did not come to pass. As odd as it sounds in 2017, during the 1960s and 70s it looked to a good many outside observers in the West that Juche was a more successful model than the ROK's military dictatorship. Fear of Korean unification encouraged Tokyo to hew to the alliance, but did not provide enough of a pretext to radically modify it. Some of these conditions do still apply in post-Cold War East Asia, but others do not. US-Japanese relations now operate in a much more multilateral and interconnected world than the one that birthed it in the late-1940s. While current permutations of the Yoshida Doctrine are still alive, the endurance of the alliance itself should not be taken as a given.Japan record-high budget plan approved for 2018, defense spending swellsFor the first time in 70 years, the Japanese parliament has approved the use of its Military Forces, most notably its Navy and Air Forces, through re-interpretation of its pacifist constitution’s article 9, to allow for ‘pre-emptive’ strikes in the collective defense of its allies like the U.S. Navy’s 7th Fleet. It is interesting to note that the majority of the Japanese public oppose such a move, and as in the U.S., have no real say in the sway of its political power elite spear headed by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and the powerful LDP government.On the surface, the re-engagement of Japan with the world’s most advanced Aegis-class destroyers and F-22 raptors, will raise eyebrows of its Asian neighbors who were victimized by Imperial Japan’s WWII aggressions, and will understandably question what Japan’s true intent is in its sudden rush to loosen the self-imposed military restrictions since the end of WWII. Behind closed doors, this is but one part of the United States’ Asian Pivot strategy in using Japan’s advanced military forces as a proxy for the American containment plan of the rapidly accelerating ‘blue water’ PLA Navy plans for the rise of China and Russia in the Pacific theater. With the tight integration and coordination of similar war fighting ships and equipment, Japan’s Navy is in effect, the U.S. Navy’s 11th Fleet, and supporting the Japanese to allow the potential for foreign conflict involvement increases the containment capacity of the U.S. Naval Command, while allowing Japan to carry the cost of this additional fleet.While the U.S. is delicately balancing allowing its closest Asian ally to restore its full standing military to deploy overseas, after 70 years of suppression from being allowed to be a ‘normal’ country with a standing military, the cooperation and exercises between Japan and its Non-Chinese Asian neighbors should be closely monitored. Most ASEAN and smaller military budget countries in the Pacific and Southeast Asia welcome the counter weight of a U.S.-Australian-Japanese lead Pacific Asian Treaty Organization (PATO), an Asian equivalent of NATO, to form to come to the collective defense of smaller countries like the Philippines or Vietnam from unilateral Chinese Military moves to claim the entire South China Sea and eventually the straight of Malaca, which resource poor Japan finds unacceptable for safe Japanese oil and trade shipment passage.While fiery rhetoric will fly, and exhibits of naval and air military exercises and posturing will increase over the coming quarters, it is in the best interest of both Japan and China to continue to build trust, and grow their economic inter dependence for each’s own future prosperity. With the recent stock market crash in China from mid-June this year, we are seeing signs of economic weakness and correction in the mighty growth engine of China, and the overtures by top diplomats from both countries meeting, and announcing a potential ‘high level’ meeting later this year between President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Abe, are more signs these complex military posturings may also have more than just an American mastermind dimension to them behind closed doors. Keeping America’s military planners appeased, while building on the strengths and trusts between old Asian rivals to pave way for a TPP busting East Asian Union (an Asian version of the EU), with China/Japan as the French/German equivalent on the European continent, will be an interesting development as the U.S. continues to show signs of empire fatigue.Watch for signs of detente in Japanese and Chinese cooperation, especially any form of military exercise cooperation, as critical signs of a move away from the uni-polar U.S. dominated geopolitical sphere we have enjoyed for the past 70 years.Related Article:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/world/asia/japans-lower-house-passes-bills-giving-military-freer-hand-to-fight.htmlRelated Article:http://news.yahoo.com/top-chinese-japanese-diplomats-meet-beijing-100842916.htmlDon't Weaken the U.S.-Japan Alliance, Strengthen ItCOMMENTARY (The National Interest) August 14, 2017The RAND Blog by Scott W. Harold Photo by Viktorcvetkovic/Getty ImagesThe threat environment in Northeast Asia has been shifting in recent years as China's military modernization and assertiveness, North Korea's nuclear and missile provocations, and Russia's turn towards hostility against the United States are fueling a rise in the risk of armed conflict between major powers. Confronting threats as varied as ISIS, al-Qaeda, Iran, and Ebola, some might wonder if the United States has the resources and will to stay engaged and shape the future of security in the Asia-Pacific, including offering extended deterrent guarantees to its Japanese, South Korean, Filipino, Australian, and Thai allies. Others are asking whether U.S. allies are even worth defending. Are they?I believe that the answer is yes, the United States has the resources to shape the future of the Asia-Pacific, and yes, its allies are worth defending. To abandon U.S. alliances would not only be more costly but also ultimately make America less safe at home. While U.S. defense budgets will remain constrained for some years to come, the U.S. military still retains very substantial hardware, training, doctrinal, operational experience, and human capital advantages. In addition, the United States enjoys the support of major allies who provide basing and access, logistical support, and critical enabling capabilities that ultimately make them important force multipliers for the defense of the U.S. homeland as well as its overseas interests and core values.To abandon U.S. alliances would not only be more costly but also make America less safe at home.As the largest status quo power allied with the United States in East Asia, no country plays a more important role than Japan in supporting the rule of law-based international order. If the United States wants to meet the challenges posed by increasingly well-armed, hostile and autocratic governments bent on intimidating the free world, it needs to continue to broaden and deepen its defense cooperation with Japan and states like it. Below I suggest four urgent priority areas for continued improvements: planning and joint training for a variety of contingencies; additional types of military hardware to bolster deterrence; addressing the basing of U.S. forces in Okinawa; and closer cooperation on innovative thinking about deterrence and war-fighting concepts.Forward, TogetherTo date, the two allies have taken a number of important steps both separately and together, but much more work remains to be done. Japan, under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, has reinterpreted Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution to engage in collective self-defense. The Abe administration has also established a National Security Secrets Act; set up a National Security Secretariat to assist with decisionmaking; lifted restrictions on defense exports; shifted the focus of defense planning scenarios from a ground invasion from the north to an air and naval threat from the southwest; and increased the country's defense budget to approximately $40 billion. It has added critical hardware to the inventory of its Self-Defense Forces, including RQ-4 Global Hawk high-altitude Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, and advanced F-35 Lightning II fighters. Tokyo has also inducted helicopter carriers into the Maritime Self-Defense Forces, brought on-line new P1 maritime patrol aircraft, and expanded its submarine fleet from 16 to 22 boats, all while developing a 4,000-man rapid reaction amphibious capability and emplacing radar and anti-ship cruise missiles along the coasts of remote islands in the country's southwest. In November 2015, it announced plans to send 500 Ground Self Defense Force troops to one of these islands, Ishigaki, and in March it activated a radar station on another, Yonaguni Island, to be staffed by 160 Ground Self-Defense soldiers. Both islands are close to the Senkakus that China claims and is seeking to undermine Japanese control over. Ultimately, Tokyo plans to station approximately 10,000 troops across the southwest islands chain to meet this threat.For its part, in 2011 the Obama administration announced that it would “rebalance” to the Asia-Pacific region (PDF), a policy whose military component aims to create a more geographically distributed, operationally resilient, and politically sustainable force posture across the region. The United States is also improving the capabilities it forward deploys in Japan, and has moved up many of its most advanced capabilities, including the F-22 Raptor, MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft to replace the more dated CH-46 Seaknight, an additional AN/TPY-2 radar, Global Hawk UAVs, and P-8maritime patrol aircraft for submarine tracking. In late 2015, the 7th Fleet replaced the aging USS George Washington with the much newer USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier.Bilaterally the allies have also taken important steps together. During his 2014 trip to Japan, President Obama noted that the United States would regard an attack on the Senkakus as triggering Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan mutual defense treaty. Following this, in April 2015, the United States and Japan signed new defense guidelines (PDF) that establish the basis for more effective coordination between the allies, including by establishing a new bilateral planning mechanism, an alliance coordination mechanism, and beginning discussions about cooperation in gray zones at sea, in outer space, and in cyberspace. And in December 2015, Tokyo agreed to increase its annual contributions in support of U.S. forces stationed in Japan, promising up to $8 billion over the next five years. The Department of Defense has calculated that this makes Japan the cheapest nation in the world in which to station U.S. forces, cheaper even than bringing them back to the United States…The remainder of this commentary is available at nationalinterest.org.Scott W. Harold is associate director of the RAND Center for Asia Pacific Policy, a political scientist at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation, and a professor at the Pardee RAND Graduate School.5 Things You May Not Know About the End of World War IIWorld War II, fought from 1939 to 1945, was the deadliest war in history and involved more than 30 countries around the globe. More than 50 million people lost their lives during the war.TOKYO, Japan- Sept. 2, 1945- Allied sailorsand officers watch Army Gen. Douglas MacArthur sign documents during the surrender ceremony aboard USS Missouri. U.S Army photoHere are five things you may not know about Sept. 2, 1945:1. The Instrument of Surrender was signed in Tokyo Bay, Japan.The Instrument of Surrender was actually signed off the coast of Tokyo, Japan. On the morning of Sept. 2, 1945, Japanese representatives signed the surrender document during a ceremony on the deck of the battleship USS Missouri. This day marked the end of World War II.Japanese representatives on board the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay to participate in formal surrender ceremonies on Sept. 2, 1945. U.S. Air Force photo2. The document was signed one month after atomic bombs were dropped on Japan.On Aug. 6, 1945, a U.S. Boeing B-29 aircraft dropped the atomic bomb known as Little Boy on Hiroshima. Three days later, another bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki. This was the first time atomic bombs were used in military operations.3. Army Gen. Douglas MacArthur signed the Instrument of Surrender for the United Nations, and Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz signed for the United States.The rank of five-star, or OF-10, was first established in 1944 and is held during wartime. Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz were two of the nine five-star officers in U.S. military history.4. Commodore Matthew C. Perry’s original flag was present during the signing.On the USS Missouri that day was the original American flag flown in 1853 on the USS Powhatan by Commodore Matthew C. Perry (see in the background of the photo below). Perry flew the flag on the first of his two expeditions to Japan. Perry’s expeditions had resulted in the Convention of Kanagawa, which forced the Japanese to open the country to American trade.Surrender of Japan, Tokyo Bay, Sept. 2, 1945. Army Gen. Douglas MacArthur, supreme Allied commander, reads his speech to open the surrender ceremonies onboard the USS Missouri. Commodore Matthew C. Perry’s original 1853 American flag can be seen in the background. Photo from the Army Signal Corps Collection in the U.S. National Archives5. World War II did not officially end in 1945.Although Sept. 2, 1945, is known as the end of World War II, the state of war formally ended when the treaty of San Francisco came into force on April 20, 1952. It was a peace treaty with Japan.Source:Department of Defense BlogJapanese Military Power | Japan Self-Defense Forces 2017 - 2018SDFSDF: GroundJapan and Germany military expansionWhy China fears Japan’s military