Manner over Matter

Reading Obama’s book over the last couple of weeks, one of the things that struck me was his grasp of foreign policy.

It wasn’t so much that he had a plethora of innovative solutions to foreign conflicts/rogue states, or a brilliant new theory on international diplomacy. What is clear from his writing though, is that Mr Obama  possesses not only a very good understanding the world as it is, but also understands that in foreign policy, image is King.

"George, this smile...it'll even win over ol' Mahmoud. It could've done Saddam real quick too. You should try it with those arabs down south sometime."

We don’t need a debate to conclude that Bush has made a mess of America’s image. In the last eight years, Bush has made America just about as popular as Iran. Obama on the other hand, has probably increased the popularity of America threefold simply by getting elected. The man is a master at communications and image-crafting. If anything, it is this skill that was primarily responsible for his election, and is probably the most significant difference between presidents 43 and 44.

Number forty-three has made a number of intensely difficult decisions over the last eight years. On a fundamental level though, most of those decisions are quite logical (minus iraq, yes) – surveillance, fighting the taleban, negotiating with Pyongyang, for example. Bush though, had two problems; he went to extremes and he had no clue how to explain or portray his decisions. On the basic level of national security see, neither Obama nor any other American  president could have afforded to differ very much, or risk being labeled an appeaser or weakling.  As Newsweek writes, “The flaw of the Bush-Cheney administration may have been less in what they did than in the way they did it.”  So don’t expect  earthshaking change in policy, per se.

On the topic of acting unilaterally in self-defense, for example, Obama states that “we have the right to take unilateral military action to eliminate an imminent threat to our security.”  – that sounds awfully like W. The truth is, most American presidents would state that without blinking an eyelid, even though the statement above  basically justifies the Iraq war.

Or take surveillance. Obama, in fact, voted for amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) – one that allows a continuation of warrant-less wiretapping, albeit with more judicial oversight.  And while it is difficult to conclude the extent to which surveillance has prevented a second terrorist outbreak in America, it is in truth a very logical, and necessary step to prevention. So, whilst it remains an uncomfortable truth, it is a reality that a world with terrorism must face up to.

Later in his book, Obama says this on the need for multilateralism: “Why conduct ourselves in this way? Because nobody benefits more than we do from the observance of  ‘international rules of the road’ “. It is not the multilateral slant that is worth noting here, but the reason for the multilaterism – he understands multilateralism must be adhered to not merely because of its ideals, but because it will benefits the US as well. He understands that world public opinion really does matter, because foreign governments are also at the mercy of public opinion back home.

So I don’t think we can expect a world of difference in the ‘what’ of obama’s foreign policy. There will be a difference in the ‘way’, though.  Take the horror that is Gaza at this moment. We know that Obama is pro-Israeli. Yet notice the silence from Obama over the current Arab-Israeli conflict? He knows shooting his mouth of in a show firm support will simply lose the middle-east  battle he’s trying to win (and the rest of the liberal minded world too). And while I confess I don’t know what he will do when Jan 20 comes and he is forced to take a stand, Obama has already done something that hasn’t really been an option for Bush –  showing restraint.

Barack Obama’s greatest gift remains his ability to work the media. It requires a discretion of speech, a penchant for good impressions and the ability to juggle polarazing demands. These, I happen to think, are not unlike the fundamentals of diplomacy and foreign affairs. Thus, for all the pre-election criticism of inexperience and a weakness in foreign affairs, Barack Obama may just turn out to be a foreign policy genius.

– T.S.

December Break

Dear readers,

 

This December, we’ve decided to take a break from writing on The Lookout. Do watch out for more articles come 2009 though!

 

We wish you a blessed Christmas and happy holidays.

 

Alastair

thelookout.wordpress.com

Editor

This Is Not Great Depression 2.0

Before comparisons are drawn, important historical distinctions must be made

“The worst economic crisis since the Great Depression”. If you’re reading this statement, this is probably not the first time which you’ve come across these words. Interestingly enough, imputing this on Google search will yield a total of 94,100 hits, showing how pervasive such sentiments have become among people.

The picture is in black-and-white for a reason

My concern is not with the statement itself, which is correct. Since 1929, there has been no economic crisis that has matched the scale of the current one. My concern is when people take this to mean that the new Great Depression has come, bringing to mind images of the past: scores of unemployed workers milling around, families queuing in front of soup kitchens, runs on banks as people scramble for money. Any predictions that are made on this scale must immediately be denounced as false prophecies.

The main similarity between the current crisis and the 1929 crisis is the extent to which financial markets have been ravaged. In 1929, excessive speculation in the stock market created a bubble that burst and damaged confidence everywhere. In 2007, poorly monitored sub-prime loans created a housing bubble that likewise burst and damaged markets.

Beyond this point though, the narrative changes. In 1930, in response to the crisis, the US administration enacted the the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, believing that protectionism would solve their woes. As history would later demonstrate, this was a grave error, setting into motion a beggar-thy-neighbour policy that only threw the world into further depression.

In contrast, notice how little protectionist reflex countries have shown in recent events. On the contrary, acknowledging their mutual dependence, world leaders were quick to rally together in a number of summits to discuss solutions to the crisis: the G20 summit, the gathering of notable trade officials in London, and most recently, APEC’s meeting in Peru. Not only was international cooperation witnessed between political leaders; leaders in other fields also demonstrated a similar unity, such as when heads of central banks gathered to mutually back credit. This change in worldview, from unilateralism to multilateralism, is an important historical contrast that merits our attention.

Cynics will be quick to point that such summits are mere talk shops, yielding little tangible solutions. However, while this is true, it does reveal a more important fact: that world leaders are at least on the same level in principle, understanding each other’s need to survive. Even the US has shown an unusual willingness to cede its hegemony, acknowledging the shift of power to emerging economies. The climate in the early 30’s was the opposite, a climate of fear, suspicion and growing resentment, eventually giving way to extremist regimes like Nazi Germany and a belligerent Japan. Where the financial crisis in 1929 left a world beaten and divided, the financial crisis now has left a world similarly beaten, but united.

This is not to say that times ahead will not be bad. The effects of the crisis so far have only shown itself in the financial sector; only time will show how badly the real economy will be affected. No one is doubting that the crisis will prove to be a deep one; but as long as favourable relations are maintained between key countries and protectionist instincts aren’t acted upon, we should not witness history repeating itself.

Therefore, there is still hope in the midst of the crisis. Expect stormy weather ahead, but don’t look to your history textbooks for any help.

-A.S.

Fleas In A Jar

The lid is slowly being uncovered. But why are the fleas still dancing inside?

In his National Day Rally speech this year, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong promised a series of initiatives that would “progressively open up” Singapore’s political space, acknowledging the need for the government to keep in tandem with a more educated, globalized public. Such measures would include things like lifting bans on political videos and relaxing rules concerning usage of the Speaker’s Corner, hopefully encouraging greater debate and political participation among Singaporeans.

Three months later, a spot check is due. And here’s the writer’s verdict: nothing much’s changed. Surprised? Despite a spike in activity around the Speaker’s Corner, and maybe one or two more dissenting voices, Singapore’s still very much the same as before.

One may argue that it’s too early to make a call. Political liberalisation is a process that takes many years, and we’re still in its nascent stages. If so, allow me to make a prediction then: even if other political avenues are opened up significantly, Singapore will still be the same as before. Even without the lid, the fleas will still be dancing inside the jar.

Understanding why this is so requires some knowledge of Singapore’s political and social history. Singapore was born in tough circumstances, annexed from Malaysia in 1965 with little natural resources. Thus, tough leadership was required. The People’s Action Party (PAP) built its regime upon a doctrine of survival, where social and political freedoms were sacrificed for economic expediency. So, as the government focused on increasing productivity, raising technology levels, creating jobs, personal liberties were suppressed, and anybody who opposed this agenda was forcibly dealt with.

Surely enough, the PAP’s strategy has been very successful. It prided itself as a government that could deliver results, so critics were silenced by the dramatic changes that took place, as the sleepy colony transformed into a modern city. But more importantly though, beyond just effecting external changes, the PAP also raised a generation of self-reliant, pragmatic and resourceful Singaporeans. Therefore, providing more than just political leadership, the PAP helped to define our values as citizens. Things like freedom of speech, civil society and human rights are seen as “Western concepts”, whereas things like job security, economic competitiveness and efficiency are prized as our core needs.

The PAP and me

Such PAP-inspired psyche can be seen in the recent activities at the Speaker’s Corner. Traditionally, the Speaker’s Corner acts an avenue for political expression in most countries; but in Singapore, it is a place where economic grievances are voiced. The most exciting event so far, for instance, was a rally held by investors affected by the financial fallout. The forum section in the newspapers is also another example, where little or nothing is said about the ruling polity. The Sunday Times has recently called us a “petition nation”; the description is apt, as our form of civil society mainly involves providing feedback about everyday concerns.

Therefore, ask any Singaporean whether he would like greater freedom of speech, and the reply would be: “I’ll take that, if it helps to pay my electricity bills.” No matter how much our political liberties our expanded, no change will ever come. The new generation has never even tasted what its like to have expanded freedoms, eroding whatever appeal the opposition will ever have. So unless the PAP performs a huge strategic error, the opposition will probably never win. We’re like the fleas inside the jar, where our pattern of behaviour has been established by the government, passing on from each generation to the next.

So basically, in other words, you don’t need to look forward to the next big rally to see the PAP. Just do some soul searching, and you’ll find them deep within you.

-A.S.

(This article was originally published at the Online Citizen.)