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.

Ode to America

Few people would have predicted America’s dramatic fall from grace in the last ten years; from the early 1990’s where everything red, white and blue was celebrated and emulated, to the current post-Iraq global zeitgeist that condemns anything remotely American. The pervasiveness of the anti-American sentiment is so immense that pop culture has done a 180-degree turn from pro-Americanism towards anti-Americanism – it is now ‘cool’ to mock the hypocrisies of the bumbling nation and its slow-witted president.

Like, yuck right?

Examples are abundant in explaining this fall from grace. One of which is America’s startling cultural arrogance towards the world – seen most prominently in Iraq and Afghanistan. Double standards also become obvious once national interests are not aligned with ideology; while democracy is needed in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are allowed to continue absolute regimes. Its international behavior also reeks of hypocrisy. While on one hand it demands adherence to law and the democratic process in international institutions, it nevertheless ignores the UNSC’s decision not to invade Iraq. Despite passionate campaigns for human rights, it remains unflinching over Guantanamo. And while the US declares itself the global peacekeeper, it unashamedly ignores the Kyoto protocol, and remains opaque in its aid donations. The list goes on.

At the end of this it seems perfectly justifiable to continue slamming America. After all, they have brought it upon themselves. Yet, while the condemnations seem merited, we cannot be narrow-minded and myopic in our view of America, and instead remember its larger contribution to civilisation.

A fairly important piece of paper, as Nicholas Cage would attest.

Firstly, the United States has bucked the trend of History. Every great civilisation since the beginning of time has sought to consolidate its power by assimilating foreign territory into its empire. Be it the Assyrians, the Persians, the Romans, the British and their colonial empire – each superpower set out to make foreign territory their own. Admittedly some allowed different cultures to flourish, as did the Persians, while others, such as the British, exploited resources in conquered lands. Yet American agenda was different. The Declaration of Independence was founded on ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’, an ideology that sought to make America the great helper, rather than the great conqueror. The pinnacle of these principles was seen most vividly in the liberation of East Germany, and, more subtly, in the rise of China and in other parts of Asia, where peoples have been inspired and motivated to work towards these freedoms.

America in some ways is also a victim of its own unqualified success. Its vision to offer ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ and ‘free’ the world has been overwhelmingly successful – a success that it maybe wasn’t prepared for. Perhaps America did not realise that extending freedoms to the world would mean that nations and its peoples are free to pursue whatever form of society and practices they chose to – and not only American ones. Still, from Bollywood to Jay Chou, the unique cultures of different nations have had room to flourish, and ultimately, America has had a crucial part to play in providing those opportunities, whether intentionally or not.

Lastly, before we condemn American society to the doldrums, it must be remembered that to a large extent, many countries subconsciously aim to emulate the American lifestyle. The Chinese pursue diluted versions of the American dream. The immense wealth in Dubai is spent creating breathtaking hotels and casinos in the Arabian Desert. Sound familiar? American Universities are still vanguards of academia and research – institutions people around the world aspire to enter. Thus while the liberal American culture can be criticized for its decadence and superciliousness, it must be acknowledged that for a long time it has set the standard for human society, one that many still aspire towards.

Whether this decade proves to be the last breaths of ‘Pax Americana’, or merely a part of the ebb and flow of a great nation remains to be seen. America has indeed erred greatly in the last ten years, considerably more than before. But as much as a change in leadership and a change in mindset in America are crucial, the world should remember the good as well as the bad.

– T.S.

‘Clinical’ Politics

In the last 50 years, with the rise and fall of communism, and the end of the cold war, Kishore Mahbubani writes that Western countries have been on an ‘ideological crusade’; champions of the need for liberal democracy. Nevertheless a noble ideal, recent history has suggested that a ‘liberal, multi-party democracy’, of the American, British and French sort is not a case of ‘one-size-fits-all’.

In Jeffrey Sachs’ End of Poverty, he identifies the need for a more ‘clinical’ approach to developmental economics. By ‘clinical’, he suggests that economists learn from Doctors and apply a ‘differential diagnosis’ , and, rather than prescribe antibiotics to every patient on the basis that it worked for the first one, meticulously analyse a patient’s symptoms and condition, reach a diagnosis, and only then draft out a treatment plan catered to the patient’s needs. Now, this same ‘clinical approach’ to developmental economics may also be the right approach to take towards politics and governance. Events in Thailand, South Korea and China have shown that finding the right ‘governmental diagnosis’ seems to depend on two aspects of a nation; the scale of economic development, and its cultural and historical traditions.

" Boss, I think I know why the office is empty."

South Korea’s recent protests over the US beef deal reveal the influence that cultural and historical traditions of a nation have on a system of governance. The Koreans are a tenacious people, fiercely loyal and united, as evidenced both in war and football world cups. Strong nationalism can be quickly aroused – in the beef case, warranted, at least initially – but the nationalism can also go overboard. The protests in South Korea are against President Lee’s insensitivity, not his integrity. Such long, angry protests would seem justifiable on allegations of corruption, but not on a President recently elected by a huge margin, and who has apologised (twice), ensured high safety standards, and reshuffled his cabinet. It a case of where, Jonathan Tepperman writes, ‘too much democracy’ has served to undermine the government.

One idea that could explain this is the inherent differences in Asian-western values. A very broad generalisation (limitations noted) is that Western nations tend to be far more individualistic – and this has evolved since the advent of democracy during the classical Greek era – they place society in the context of the individual, and thus the demand for human rights and freedoms. Asian values, however, have a stronger emphasis on the community at large – Buddhism advocates a rejection of self; Confucianism exhorts respect for the family unit and strong governance – placing the individual in the context of society. As such, in Korea, when the welfare of the community appears threatened, irregardless by whom, this basic community will stand up in staunch defense.

"Oil Prices? Let me figure out Ronaldinho's first.."

Nonetheless, if South Korea demonstrates how history and culture can come into conflict with a liberal democracy, Thailand is representative of how a liberal democracy in a poorly developed country (economically) becomes counter-effective for its people. Economic growth is significant because, more than just increases in wealth, it serves to empower and educate. Furthermore, it takes considerable time for a nation to adapt to a liberal democracy, not only needing a change in the people’s attitudes and awareness, but time for political and institutional infrastructure to develop. In Thailand one sees a country with an immense divide in wealth. Thaksin has exploited populist measures inclined towards the rural areas, and the failure of economic growth to spread from the cosmopolitan cities has undermined the strength of the democratic vote. The democratic system is currently in a mess; planned coups, proxy parties and allegations abound – another indicator that proper democratic process has yet to be entrenched in mindset – has diverted the government’s focus from serious issues such as rocketing oil prices and a possible financial crisis.

"Hu did it?"

China, on the other hand, having firmly resisted western overtures, proves to be a positive illustration of adaptive politics. Admittedly, the Chinese system has its shortcomings, but of late, they have been more impressive than oppressive. The Chinese response to the Sichuan disaster has been remarkable; better, arguably than US response to Katrina. The government has opened up ‘corruption hotlines’, and are receiving many calls from unhappy citizens. Chinese Netizens are also a force to be reckoned with; President Hu’s recent foray into an internet-powered forum is testament to that. Thus while there are many aspects of Beijing governance that one can find contentious, their recent performance has disputed the aloofness of authoritarian governments.

China illustrates the idea of diagnosis-based government style well; they have chosen to employ, as LKY says, ‘capitalist methods of generating growth’ and ‘[spending] in an egalitarian way’ to the benefit of the country. Nevertheless, whilst development and culture appear to necessitate adaptive governance, central tenets, such as the rule of law, effectiveness, integrity and accountability must always exist. It is noteworthy, however, that economies and cultures do evolve, and the corollary is that governments will do so as well. Perhaps China someday will indeed adopt a system similar to a liberal democracy, for it is undoubtedly a virtuous and idealistic system. Or perhaps a new system of governance will be forged, one that is of even greater idealism than a liberal democracy. Nevertheless, in the present, not every country is prepared for, or for that matter, suited to a liberal democracy.

Western nations should realise that that square pegs are very difficult to fit into round holes.

-T.S.