首先，虽然很多人在谈论主权时是认为主权这个概念是十分虔诚、神圣不可侵犯的，但实际上主权独立的定义是一直处在浮动中的，取决于统治者的需要，也是可以微调或改变的。 我们可以观察到一种崇拜国家纯洁性的叙述。 它提出这样一个观点：外国势力与本国国家的接触越少，国家就越纯洁。 在这样的观念下，才会认为如果一个国家被外国势力“污染”，公民就应该感到羞耻，因为外国势力总是有潜在的危险，或者说“狼子野心”。 但如果是这样的话，朝鲜由于拒绝外国资本，则可以在这种观念下获得更高的排名。在这种情况下，有一群人会说：因为经济的发展的必然性，我们有必要开放。
然而事实上，经济合作与政治、军事合作之间并没有真正的界限。 如果你需要与外资合作，你必须承认不同国家之间存在普遍的法律和纪律，人们有可能相互相信和信任。 如果你坚持认为经济合作比军事合作更安全，那么朝鲜可以说经济合作也会危及朝鲜的国家主权，因为外国势力想要消灭朝鲜的（共产主义）政权的趋势是永久性的。 实际上，在改革开放之前，经济合作的主张会被视为国家的叛徒和资产阶级的代表。 甚至与外国人接触也会被视为不洁和可疑。 现代经济建立在大规模人口之间的分工与合作之上，这是常识。
但中国大陆陷入了是否应该承认普世价值的两难境地。 要维持经济的发展，就应该坚持普世价值，在一定程度上放弃纯粹的叙事观点，否则，统治政权的合法性将受到冲击。 但如果真正坚持普世价值，摒弃原有叙事，其合法性仍将受到挑战。 宣传系统的工作难点在于在两极之间取得平衡。 但可以看出，平衡点正在朝着强化国家主义叙事的方向发展。 这个问题是隐藏在当前政治结构中的根本问题，应该在34年前解决。 类似的困境也出现在晚清时期。 这并不乐观。
第二，同理，这个问题之所以能够成立，需要基于一个重要的假设，即国家的武装力量（不仅限于军队，还包括常规执法力量等）必须是 能够比外国力量更好地保护人民的安全（各种），只有当这个假设成立时，你主权独立的优越感才能成立。 但是有一种情况是：一国自己的军队压迫自己的人民，这个问题其实回避了一个反而更现实的问题——如果国家的军队也来欺压自己的人民，那这种优越感岂不是彻底消失了？ 显然，一个国家的武装部队虽然和你是同一国籍，但并不代表它一定会保护你的利益。 只有当这台机器掌握在受监督的政府手中，并且通过透明公开的法律程序授权和允许它的行为时，你才能说这台暴力机器是为你服务的，否则它就具有压迫性。
所以问题的关键不再是军队是否和你有相同的国籍，而是军队是否有一个公开透明的机制进行监督。 具体来说，当你行使一些法律认可的权利时，比如想拿回你的积蓄、你的工资，这支军队是在保护你的权利，还是在无视你的权利？ 当你不同意政府时，军队会严格保持中立立场，还是会明确表态？ 我们说侵略军是邪恶的，殖民主义是坏的。 主要原因是侵略军或殖民者没有保护被占区或殖民地人民的财产权和生命权，尤其重要的是这种侵权行为无法通过法律程序予以纠正。 至于驻日美军是否属于上述侵略军，则见仁见智。 如果美军能够在大阪火车站阻止日本工人前往东京请愿，或者禁止千叶县的农民烧煤，那么这确实是一件值得日本民众好好反思的事情。
I think this kind of sense of shame that a man should feel shame when his country has a stationed foreign army is very strange.
Firstly, though many people are devout and have a holy sense when they are talking about sovereignty, actually the definition of the independence of sovereignty is floating and depend on the need of the governor, it can also be calculated and changed. We can observe a narrative that worships the purity of the state. It proposes such a dimension: the less contact between a foreign power and its own state, the more pure the state is. If a state is "polluted" by a foreign power, the citizens should be shame because foreign power is always dangerous potentially. But if so, North Korea can get a higher rank under this narrative due to its rejection of foreign capital. In this case, some people will say it is necessary to opening-up because of the development of the economy.
However, in fact, there is no real boundary between economic cooperation and military cooperation. If you need to cooperate with foreign capital, you must admit that there exists a universal law and discipline between different countries, and people have a possibility to believe and trust each other. If you insist that economic cooperation is safer than military cooperation, then North Korea can say economic cooperation will be also dangerous to the sovereignty, because of the permanent tendency that foreign force wants to eliminate us. Actually, before the reform and opening up, the proposition of economic cooperation will be viewed as a traitor to the state and representative of the bourgeois. Even contact with a foreigner will be viewed as impure and suspicious. It is common sense that the modern economy builds on the division of labor and cooperation between a large-scale population.
But China falls into a dilemma that if it should admit universal values. To maintain the development of the economy, it should insist on universal discipline and give up the narrative of purity to a certain extent, otherwise, the legitimacy of domination will be shocked. But if it truly insists on universal discipline and abandons the original narrative, its legitimacy will still be challenged. The propaganda system's working difficulty is to make a balance between the two poles. But it can be seen that the balanced point is moving in the direction of strengthening the statism narrative. This issue is the root trouble that conceals in the current political structure which should be solved before 34 years. A similar dilemma also emerged in the late Qing Dynasty. It is not optimistic.
Second, In the same way, the reason why this question can be established needs to be based on an important assumption, that is, the country's armed forces (not limited to the army, but also conventional law enforcement forces, etc.) must be able to protect the safety of the people better than foreign force, Only when this assumption is true, your sense of superiority can be established. But there is a situation that one state's own army oppresses one's own people, this question is actually avoided, but it is a more real problem. If the country's army also oppresses its own people, wouldn't this sense of superiority completely disappear? Obviously, though a country's armed forces are of the same nationality as you, it does not mean that it will definitely protect your interests. Only when this machine is in the hands of a supervised government, and its actions are authorized and permitted through transparent and open legal procedures, you can say that this violent machine is serving you, otherwise, it has an oppressive nature.
So the crux of the issue is no longer whether the armed forces have the same nationality as you, but whether the armed forces are supervised by an open and transparent mechanism. Specifically, when you exercise some legally recognized rights, such as wanting to get back your savings and your wages, is this armed force protecting your rights or ignoring your rights? When you disagree with the government, will the armed forces strictly maintain a neutral position, or will they clearly express their views? We say that the invading army is evil and that colonialism is bad. The primary reason is that the invading army or the colonists do not protect the property rights and the right to life of the people in the occupied areas or colonies, what is especially important is that this kind of infringement cannot be corrected by legal procedures. As for whether the American troops stationed in Japan belong to the above-mentioned aggressor army, it is a matter of opinion. If the U.S. military can stop workers from going to Tokyo to petition at the Osaka railway station or prohibit farmers in Chiba from burning coal, then this is indeed something worthy of reflection by the Japanese people.