Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 January 22

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 22

Orient vs Occident

Why Human Development Index is higher in the Occident compared to Orient? Why human right is always more respected in the West than in the East? Why civil rights, liberty, justice are more respected in Western Europe and North America compared to eastern democracies? For example a look at Capital punishment in the world shows most countries that continue death penalty are African and Asian.Torture is prevalent in the East, not in the West. I want to know is there any sociological/anthropological explanation behind this? For example, take a look at Western Europe and Russia, both are technologically advanced regions, but when it comes to cultural and social issues like human rights, HDI, liberty, justice, civil rights etc., Europe beats every region on Earth. Why? Great Divergence is a historical phenomenon, but does it till exert influence in today's world? Does Great Divergence have anything to do with the concepts of human rights, liberty and justice? --PlanetEditor (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

First, I question your basic assumptions. Regardless, compare that map with a map showing relative prosperity, and you might see a trend. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Am I hallucinating, or does this question fit a pattern? μηδείς (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a clarification that I am offended by your assumption as I have no relation with that or any other user. --PlanetEditor (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"For example a look at Capital punishment in the world shows most countries that continue death penalty are African and Asian...". Obvious exception is obvious... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The United States", as such, hardly ever applies the death penalty. Some individual states still do. But the condemned are guaranteed a long appeal process, which is likely to be absent in those other countries. And in reality, capital punishment is not all that common in America. Maybe that's why the USA gets a solid blue in that chart. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Canada is blue on the map; the USA is red. And it looks like the USA is in the world top 10 for gross numbers executed, and in the top 20 for executions per capita. Moreover, the USA sentences people to death more than twice as fast as it executes them, leading to large numbers of convicts living out the entirety of their lives under sentence of death, but dying of other causes. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what map you're looking at, but this one has USA as solid blue, like Canada. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The death penalty is irrelevant when it comes to the UN HDI [1], except as it affects live expectancy and other factors (and in reality it may have an advantage since those executed are I expect more likely to be illiterate). We are talking about the death penalty here and so AT was referring to the File:Death Penalty World Map.svg where the US is red, as to be expected because they do retain the death penalty. Note that HDI was only one factor mention by the OP. Nil Einne (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Another interesting factoid, as our Roper v. Simmons notes, the US is in the company of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and China as having executed juvenile offenders since 1990 and the only one of those who had not decided or planned to end the practice until 2005. The last juvenile offender executed in the US was in 2003 List of juvenile offenders executed in the United States. As our Use of capital punishment by country notes, Saudi Arabia and Iran have done so since 2009 despite earlier promises and it seems for a variety of reasons most other countries in the earlier list managed to execute people after 2003 [2], but it's still a small list. Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It bears repeating, however, what Bugs has said, because it calls into light the fact that the United States is distinct, as an entity, from the various states of the United States. Capital punishment by the United States federal government covers the usage by the United States federal government, while Capital punishment in the United States also covers state use of capital punishment. Again, there is a distinction between things done by the Federal Government and things done by the various states, and the difference cannot be ignored in a discussion of this nature. --Jayron32 17:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

But is that a useful distinction, Jayron, when we're comparing events that occur in one country with events that occur in other countries? The agency behind the decision to execute is not relevant in the big picture; what's relevant is that they're all people being executed in America by a justice system that is undeniably American. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure it's a useful distinction. If you're going to go on a shooting rampage, it matters whether you do it in Illinois or in Texas. There's a huge difference in legal systems and in culture between places in the U.S., and it isn't really helpful to consider the U.S. as a monolithic entity when studying this topic. --Jayron32 20:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I really disagree. A sovereign nation is a sovereign nation. If the USA decided again that the death penalty was unconstitutional, executions would cease in Texas. We don't make this kind of special pleading for the German Bundesländer or the Swiss cantons, and not much for the home nations of the UK. If someone asks 'Which western nation executed the greatest proportion of its own citizens last year?', the answer is the USA. The fact that the USA lets local governments decide whether or not to gas, fry, or shoot their criminals is of absolutely no interest to the international situation. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The abolition of the death penalty would probably require a constitutional amendment, and there's not even a hint of discussion along those lines. So what the USA continues to "decide" is that this is a states-rights matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It isn't as simple as the federal government allows the states to decide. Rather, the Federal Government is broadly prevented from deciding. The U.S. government is restricted to acting within its enumerated powers. I know that people from outside of the U.S. have a hard time wrapping their heads around this, but the U.S. has a genuinely divided sovereignty, and the Feds cannot legally act in superceding state laws in many cases. It isn't a case of having the power and choosing not to use it, they actually don't have that power. --Jayron32 03:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The American people, collectively, have arrived at a consensus that each state can decide whether or not to have the death penalty. Unless that consensus changes and an amendment is passed, opponents will have to try to craft constitutional arguments against it. So far they have failed to convince the courts, aside from the early-70s moratorium... and as I recall, that was based on discriminatory application of it, not that it was inherently unconstitutional otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

When did the OP ask about the internal politics and governance of the USA? Let's bring it back to the OP's question. Please list the US states that are part of the West, and those that are part of the East. And you know what I mean by those terms. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This page and section lists the official regions of the U.S. as defined by various agencies. There is no official region known as "The East", but it would include the states that are part of the New England, Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic regions. There is a region listed there as "The West", but it's probably too inclusive; as most people don't think of the Rocky Mountain states as "The West", that terminology is usually confined to the Pacific States, sometimes including Nevada and Idaho. If you had to force me to define the terms "east and west", I would define them as such:

East: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, MarylandVirginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida.

West: Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, maybe Idaho or Nevada.

Regions known as the Rocky Mountain States, Great Plains, Midwest and Deep South are rarely included in either the east or the west. --Jayron32 04:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That's quite an elaborate joke. Let me just get my crowbar here and try to prise it off the floor. I was talking in a global, international sense, naturally. Here's a hint: All of the USA is in the West. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't intended it as a joke. --Jayron32 05:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with AT and JoO here, it's not us that are missing the point. Most of us understand the nature of the US political system. That doesn't change the fact people are executed by the government in the US. And it could be, but hasn't stopped either by the states themselves or by a constitutional amendment, just as basically every country whatever their political system can put an end to the official death penalty.

To use a related example, no one says compulsory sex segregation is okay in Malaysia or doesn't reflect poorly on Malaysia because it's just some states [3] nor that silly guidelines on Chinese new year celebrations are okay because it's only one or some states [4]. Similarly in cases like Pakistan and Nigeria.

Note that the ability of various levels of government to stop such practices is mostly besides the point, the key point is it is happening. (People may occasionally make a distinction between government actions and actions by outside parties which are allowed but aren't done by the government and actions by outside parties which technically aren't allowed but the government turns a blind eye to and actions by outside parties which aren't allowed and the government is trying to stop. But that's a different distinction.)

To use an extreme example, if the US civil war had never happened, the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has never passed and the US had continue to official allow slavery well in to the 20th century if not continuing today no one would be saying the US didn't continue to allow slavery or it didn't reflect poorly on the US because only certain states did it.

It's the same here, if you believe the death penalty reflects poorly on those who practice it, for the purposes of this question it's sufficient to say it is practiced in the US. If you want to look in more depth at the practice in the US vis-a-vis other countries, looking at intricacies like the execution of juvenile offenders, what sort of crimes it is handed out for, the number of people actually executed (probably per capita), the fairness of the justice system etc may all come in to play. (The US comes ahead in a number, but clearly not all of these compared to other countries where the death penalty is still practiced.) The fact that it's only certain US states is a minor detail rarely important in a world analysis. (If one US state regularly executed people including juveniles for minor theft in a court system widely seen as flawed, the fact it was only happening in one US state wouldn't make it a lot better.)

JoO does have a point that in terms of the question, if some of the states would be considered part of the West and some states would be considered part of the rest of the world then the distinction between states would be relevant to the question. But I think we all agree it's not the case.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Americans are not executed by "the government", they are executed by individual state governments. The federal government has no jurisdiction. The only way to stop state-level executions is by amending the US Constitution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That's still staggeringly irrelevant to the question at hand. The USA is a sovereign nation within which criminals may be executed. The UK is not. The fact that both nations have complex internal structures, including in both cases sub-national entities with entirely divergent legal systems, has nothing to do with the OP's question. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Some states claim the right to permanently rid themselves of human trash. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm somewhat amazed at the amount of uneschewed novomundane obfuscation apparent on this thread. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want a serious answer, then I would consider the origin of the modern concepts of human rights, liberty and justice, as opposed to other qualities, such as honour, respect and virtue. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 13:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And where do you think the concept of (for example) 'virtue' originated? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A look at this map shows an interesting fact that the only regions with high HDI are West Europe, North America, Japan, South Korea and Oceania (known as the developed countries). Why? That is my question. There are countries with high GDPs like China, Russia, India, but why can't they have high HDI as opposed to GDP? Why the standard of living in the world's tenth largest economy is much lower than the standard of living of a smaller economy? Why per capita income is higher in the West? I have seen a high HDI is correlated with socio-cultural progressiveness. Is there any explanation from the perspective of cultural anthropology or economics? --PlanetEditor (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think South Korea and Japan are not 'the orient'? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah they belong to the orient. Probably "Developed vs developing" would have been a better section heading. --PlanetEditor (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Then half of your question collapses; the HDI is higher in the developed world because that's what the HDI measures. Gross size of economy is no guide to individual prosperity; if you look at GDP per capita, you'll see a much closer correlation to HDI. As to respect for human rights, while I agree that there is a correlation, I'd suggest that the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights are a huge positive distorting factor here. Local factors also make a big difference. Someone in Bhutan might be worse off on paper than someone in even quite a poor part of the USA, but experience much greater protection for human rights. Poland may not be the world's finest democracy, but it's still awesome compared to neighbouring Belarus. And some things that people think of as less developed may not be: most of the world's most developed countries are monarchies, for example. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I couldn't explain myself properly. You said gross size of economy is unrelated to individual prosperity. True. But economic development is a prerequisite for human development. For economic development, a country needs advanced technology, human resource, and political stability. Both India and the UK have advanced technology, human resource, and political stability. They why HDI in UK is higher than in India? Both China and Luxemberg have technology, manpower, and stable government. Then why Luxemberg has higher HDI than China? What are the factors responsible for disparity in HDI? What are the factors that affect per capita income? Why, despite having the same resources necessary for increasing the quality of life, some countries have high HDI and some countries have low HDI? What is the explanation? --PlanetEditor (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) It's very complicated. You're asking for an explanation for quite a large slice of the fields of economics and human geography. But if I had to pick factors you might want to consider, the following things seem to affect countries especially deeply: (1) proneness to natural disasters - this is true even among the states of the USA, and even more so between countries further afield; (2) the extent and duration of European imperialism in the nation in question, and the relative tidiness with which it ended; (3) the extent to which a country has succeeded in attracting multi-national businesses to base the financial operations there, compared to the propensity of such corporations to acquire their raw materials and primary industrial labour elsewhere; (4) the extent to which Communism, Fascism, Corporatism and other inflexible political ideologies have inhibited development for non-pragmatic reasons, or have harmed social cohesion in the longer term; (5) the extent to which official endorsement of specific religious or philosophical positions has helped or hindered development. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. This explanation has vastly increased my understanding of this topic. But I'm still waiting for an explanation of the cultural difference between developed and developing-underdeveloped countries. Except for a few religious states like Saudi Arabia, what we know as western tradition such as respect for civil rights and human right, is still prevalent in developed countries including Japan (which is not western country). I am well aware of the book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond, but have not got a chance to read it. Also Japan is an interesting case as it is very prone to natural disasters, but still one of the most advanced economies in the world. --PlanetEditor (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

In Japan's case, I'd say its more or less total resistance to European imperialism was a major factor, followed by its close involvement with Prussia/Germany in the 19th century and the USA in the 20th. (This in spite of its own imperialist expansionism in the early 20th century.) Japan is also much less prone to tropical diseases than other Asian nations, which is important, and I've seen it argued that the national fondness for tea has further driven down disease levels. I believe Diamond's work is well-regarded in this area, although I've not read it myself. Beyond this, you're well into a field of both complex and quite highly contested study - beyond the scope of this desk to give even helpfully indicative answers. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Also what I have seen is that Americans in general have a greater tendency to support civil rights and question authority, while people from countries like Russia have a greater tendency to oblige authority and oppose individual freedom. For example, after arrest of Pussy Riot members, most Russians were supportive of court order, while the international opinion was largely for freedom of expression. --PlanetEditor (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I broadly agree with you. However, the USA produced HUAC, the USA PATRIOT Act, the highest execution rate in the western world, drone strikes against its own citizens without trial, the internment of Japanese citizens during WW2, the Kent State shootings... it's easy to go on. Equally, the UK, which is also regarded as a very free, archetypically western nation, is a monarchy with an established church, some of the toughest gun controls in the world, a state-funded broadcaster, a free-for-all when it comes to CCTV (which contrasts sharply with tight regulation of CCTV in, eg, Sweden), the Official Secrets Act under which it's potentially a criminal offence for me even to tell you whether or not I know an official secret, and a libel regime so biased in favour of litigants that 'libel tourists' come here from abroad to sue their fellow-countryfolk. And I really like the UK and the USA - it's just hard to produce clear definitions of things like progress and liberty. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(after ec) You may find the book The Geography of Thought by Richard Nisbett interesting on this subject. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC) You may also like to investigate the work of Geert Hofstede. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"...drone strikes against its own citizens without trial..." Got a link for that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Anwar al-Awlaki. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I see. I thought you meant we were bombing communes in the San Fernando Valley or something. Well, we could have killed Benedict Arnold, too, if we had had drones in the 18th century. US citizen or not, if someone sets himself up as an enemy of the US, sits in a war zone, and helps make war on the US, then he's fair game for military targeting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It sure would be nice to have a Supreme Court ruling or at least a federal law passed that specifies that, and clearly defines the circumstances under which that action can be taken; as opposed to the status quo in which the office of the president has unilaterally assumed that power. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 18:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to file a case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The cognitive dissonance at work here is amazing. (Oh wait...no it isn't.) Adam Bishop (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The majority of the answer is less convoluted than the above makes it seem. Human rights is a distinctly Western concept--Western in origin, in inspiration (see Enlightenment and constitutional monarchy), and in first adopters. It makes complete sense that the inventors and first adopters of any idea are more likely to believe in that idea than strangers on the other side of the globe. You might as well ask why Islamic fundamentalism is concentrated in the Middle East and not in Peru. If you're really asking why other countries haven't adopted Western values, the first answer is that they have, and in overwhelming numbers. The number of stable, human-rights-respecting democracies today is far larger than in 1989, before the collapse of the Soviet bloc; it's significantly larger than in 2010, before the Arab Spring; and it's certainly larger than in 1960, before the first wave of decolonization that put former colonies into the hands of thugs. The second answer is a combination of dictatorships spreading anti-Western propaganda, traditional values, and religion. Religion has especially been a problem in Islamic countries, spreading hatred and intolerance of the West even more effectively than America's support for Israel and support of Arab dictators. --140.180.255.25 (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Alex, what are you referring to by CCTV? μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Closed-circuit television. The distinction is that in Sweden, there is no CCTV in public places; there aren't even speed cameras, just radar guns. My contact told me this was due to anti-surveillance legislation. Privately-owned, publicly-accessible places like shops may operate cameras, but must warn visitors that they do so. Here in the UK, by contrast, government agencies use a great deal of CCTV, and private bodies can operate cameras overlooking public places with impunity. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

In general, the theory in the USA seems to be that if you're out in the open, you're fair game for observation. It cuts in various directions. One example is the video that happened to pick up McVeigh's rental truck on the way to its destination in Oklahoma City. There's also the Rodney King incident, in which cops were shown beating up on King. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't a security camera which was appropriated by the authorities, however. That was a private citizen who saw the police beating the shit out of a man and decided on his own to tape it. --Jayron32 03:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

On Sweden: There are strict regulations on CCTV but they are not uncommon in public places. You generally need a permit from the County if the camera will cover a public place, including some buildings where the public has access (there are exceptions for shops, banks and the like). Speed cameras have existed for some years (the Swedish article) but were very controversial when they were introduced. Sjö (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Moral panic and societies of the World

Hi!, I am from Japan and I'm an otaku and was once a hikikomori. My family helped me to recover. My question comes about after the murder in 2003 committed by Hiroyuki Tsuchida against his mother, he killed her with a baseball bat in order to 'not hesitate' when killing more people. He was arrested before he could do that. He was both otaku and hikikomori and like in the case of Tsutomu Miyazaki, there was a renewed wave of moral panic against otakus. Has it ever happened in your societies with other social groups? Thank. Kotjap (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons controversies. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask this again, because I think it's relevant to the question: how do these allegedly-Japanese-speecific terms like 'otaku' and 'hikikomori' differ from English-language terms like 'geek', 'shut-in' or 'agoraphobe'?

But I agree with TOAT: the D&D controversies are a good example, that I remember well from the time. There's also perennial hysteria about the effect of violent films and video games - for instance, in connection with the Newtown/Sandy Hook massacre. And today the BBC is reporting [5] that MP Diane Abbott is warning everyone about 'pornification', even though there's virtually no evidence and the only large-scale statistical evidence is of people's beliefs about the facts, not the facts themselves. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Alex, the difference is that here in Japan it's massive. Kotjap (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have comparative figures to show that? Or is the idea that 'otaku' and 'hikikomori' are more distinctive to Japan than elsewhere itself the product of a moral panic? (Or something else, of course - I wish to avoid false dichotomies.) AlexTiefling (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The article the OP linked above gives a variety of figure for Japan, but not anywhere else although it does say 'People who have all the characteristics of a Hikikomori have also begun to emerge in France and the USA' source to a French source. However the statistics don't really explain what they mean. For example, are they only referring to people who rarely, if ever, leave their houses? Or people with less severe forms? As noted above, there is a figure of 2.2% of the population of the US having agoraphobia but it's almost definitely the case that the vast majority of these are not the form that they hardly ever leave their houses. Nil Einne (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hikkis are a relatively specifically Japanese phenomena, though I could point you to any number of Western Otaku hikkis by reference to online communities. Compared to shut-ins and agorophobes the avoidance of the immediate family while still living with them is an important differentiation. Regarding "Otaku" its radically different to "geek" culture. In part geek culture was always viewed as socially productive, see the US science scare of the late 1950s as a result of Sputnik. In part "geek" culture has been reclaimed as "cool" in conditional circumstances. Otaku don't necessarily have the connection technophilic competence that "geeks" have. Imagine if western rail fans were demonised after a couple of domestic murders or rapes. Western "Otaku" rarely are, though again it is possible to draw a distinction, mainly around access to doijinshi culture. User:Shii would be best placed to help here. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

When did semiconductor manufacturing in China first overtake manufacturing in the US?

I ask this in the Humanities section because it's a business question, not about the technical details of the product. 20.137.2.50 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Still, semiconductor sales would be more appropriate on the Computer Desk. StuRat (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Does Foundry model#Foundry sales leaders by year help? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Julian Lloyd-Webber

How many wives and children does he have? Kittybrewster ☎ 17:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Without checking, I can say he has at most one wife. But he may have had earlier ones, to whom he is not currently married. His article says he's had two wives and two children: a son from his first wife, and a daughter from his current wife. Do you have any reason to doubt that, Kitty? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I suspect that he only has the one wife right now and it appears from this from March 2012 that it is #4. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That says he is on marriage no. 4. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a deadline for U.S. troops in Japan or not?

Is there or not? Kotjap (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Not one I've ever heard of, although the official occupation of Japan ended many years ago (April 28, 1952), so Japan can evict US troops whenever it wants. However, since they rather benefit from the protection of US troops against enemies like North Korea and China, this would seem to be unwise. StuRat (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If you manage to convince yours to leave, please explain me how to do it, and I'll try with mine. --pma 21:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I would think they bring money in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The only US military base I'm aware of without the blessing of the local government is Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where the US had a long-term lease with Castro's predecessor, and refuses to go. See United States Navy in Vieques, Puerto Rico for an example of where the locals did kick the US out of a military base. StuRat (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The 1954 Security Treaty Between the United States and Japan is open-ended. Article IV states, “This Treaty shall expire whenever in the opinion of the Governments of the United States of America and Japan there shall have come into force such United Nations arrangements or such alternative individual or collective security dispositions as will satisfactorily provide for the maintenance by the United Nations or otherwise of international peace and security in the Japan Area.” DOR (HK) (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I,m looking for a political word, partially defined below

When one government controls or highly influences a foreign government by means other than military force or occupation(physical contact), instead using threat, fear, intimidation or ?. Not colonialism, imperialism, annexation, occupation. HELP, 72.86.146.153 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hegemony? --Jayron32 20:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• It would help if you could give an example of what you mean. μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Is Finlandization what you have in mind? John M Baker (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Lateral pressure theory? Satellite state? --PlanetEditor (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

There's neocolonialism. There are also types of diplomacy, like actual or threatened trade embargoes. StuRat (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Vassal state? --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

See Client state. --PlanetEditor (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Gunboat diplomacy is mostly about threats. Sjö (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)