Obama's potential opportunities for peace

Obama's potential opportunities for peace
Updated: 2012-11-23 21:30
By Han Dongping ( chinadaily.com.cn)

PART     TWO


It refused to respect the Asian people's desire for freedom from outside interference in their own affairs. More importantly, the role the US chose to play in Asia at the time was destructive rather than constructive, and divisive rather than unifying. It sought to divide in order to gain.

It seems that the Obama administration has not learned a lesson from the failures of past US administrations. It still plans to play a more destructive than constructive role. The rise of China has benefitted the Asian countries, particularly South East Asian Countries tremendously in recent years.

But the US sees the rise of China as a threat, and seeks to check China's rise. Right now, the US has tried to utilize the territorial disputes concerning the South China Sea to stir trouble in the region in order to further its own interests. Some of the countries in the region, driven by short term interests, have welcomed US involvement in these regional disputes. But these countries should be aware of the consequences of serving as someone else's pawn. It is easy to invite the devil into your house but much more difficult to remove him later.

The Asian Countries are beginning to play more significant roles in the world's economy. And this growth will only continue to increase if they learn to peacefully resolve their differences without outside involvement. More importantly, Asian countries should never forget the harm that outsiders have done to them in the past, and they should work hard together to avoid the circumstances in which the outsiders utilize Asian country as pawns for their own gain.

President Obama should not attempt to play a divisive role in Asia. The Asian people have seen enough American wars on their land, and Asian people are still recovering from the destruction American military operations have caused in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

President Obama promised the American people change during his campaign in 2008. He received the Nobel Peace Prize because of his campaign rhetoric for peace. Instead, his policy of troop surges in Afghanistan disappointed many people both inside and outside the United States.

Yes, President Obama was elected for a second term, but in many ways, that was more on account of the fact that the alternative was far worse, rather than any real satisfaction with the job President Obama had done thus far.

The people in the US want you to be an agent for peace. The people in Asia and in the whole world want the US to be a peaceful and constructive force. Now is President Obama's opportunity to redeem himself and make good on his claims for peace.

The author is a Professor of Warren Wilson College in the US.

Obama's potential opportunities for peace

Obama's potential opportunities for peace
Updated: 2012-11-23 21:30
By Han Dongping ( chinadaily.com.cn)

PART     ONE

Obama's potential opportunities for peaceIn the wake of his successful reelection campaign, President Obama embarked on his trip to South East Asia to attend the Summit of the Association of South East Asian Nations held in Cambodia. Along the way, he visited Thailand, an important ally of the US and also became the first American president in history to visit Myanmar and Cambodia.

The Obama Administration has stated that a return to Asia would be the focus of its foreign policy for some time now. Most world media covering Obama's visit to South East Asia believe that this visit is a significant component of the Obama administration's foreign policy. A Washington Post commentary openly suggested that the objective of Obama's trip was to check China's growing influence in that part of the world.

For the past 60 years, the US has had a very troubled history in Asia and South East Asia. It started in supporting the unpopular nationalist government in the Chinese Civil War. After investing billions of dollars in the unpopular Jiang Family Regime, US foreign policy in China failed miserably when Jiang was kicked out of mainland China in 1949. In order to save its face and to provide a lifeline for the Jiang regime, the US involved itself in the Korean civil war and backed the unpopular and losing South Korean Regime under the mantle of the United Nations.

As the US-led UN forces crossed the 38th parallel and approached the Chinese border, the Chinese Government was forced to send volunteers to Korea in an effort to protect the integrity of its border. Outgunned, the Chinese volunteers, in collaboration with North Korean forces, pushed the US-led UN forces back to the 38th parallel where the civil war started, and forced the US to sign a cease fire. As a matter of fact, the cease fire still stands today in Korea, where the US still maintains close to one hundred military bases.

The US refused to learn its lesson from the Korean War, and soon got itself involved in the internal affairs of Vietnam. It first supported the French in its mission to reclaim its former colony after WWII. When the French were defeated by the North Vietnamese, the Americans took over where the French left off.

Starting from 1954, the US involvement in Vietnam gradually escalated, from sending military advisors to de facto war after falsely claiming that North Vietnam fired at American gunboats in 1964. The US dropped more bombs in Vietnam than all the warring parties combined during WWII, and after spending hundreds of billions of dollars and incurring hundreds of thousands casualties, it still could not have its way in Vietnam. In the end, the US had to leave Vietnam in disgrace and dishonor in 1975.

The US floundered in Asia in the past because of a combination of arrogance toward and ignorance of Asia and Asian people. At the time, it was overconfident from its victory in WWII, and its superpower position in the world with 75 percent of the world's gold, and 50 percent of world GDP.

PRC bus drivers acknowledge citizenship has privileges

The one day strike by the PRC drivers for SMRT buses caused a stir like a storm in a tea cup. It was greeted with cheers when it was announced. It was something that no one thought would happen in this peaceful and richest island in the world. It was more entertaining than anything else and with SMRT involved, gave it a more hilarious twist.

What was the issue for the strike. According to reports, the PRC drivers were unhappy that they were doing the same jobs as Malaysian drivers but were paid less. If this is factually correct, then management would have to answer for it. A word of caution, in such a situation, one must compare apple with apple. Is the nature of work similar? Are seniority and performance factors included? Are the PRC drivers being provided with free or subsidized accommodation that the Malaysian drivers were not? One has to take into account the whole compensation package and other relevant factors into consideration before making a judgement.

One interesting point raised by the PRC drivers is that they don’t mind being paid less than Sinkies, an acknowledgement that this is Sinkie country. And this point is relevant. Citizenship has its advantages. Otherwise might as well throw the piece of paper into the dustbin or flush it down the loo.

Sinkies must know that this is their country and they must not be treated otherwise, to be discriminated or disadvantage in their own countries by foreigners. Any thinking foreigner here must take note that this is Sinkeland and Sinkies must be the top dogs and not the other way. Is this the case? Are companies and organizations discriminating against Sinkies or treating Sinkies unfairly or favouring instead foreigners? I will faint if this is so. But looking at so many public comments praising foreigners, this could be the reality and daft Sinkies dumbly accept this situation as their fate.

Thank you PRC drivers, for reminding the Sinkies that this is their home, their country and they should be treated better than others.

Hidden soldier no move 按兵不动

This seems to be the strategy of the Workers party lately. Though there are many hot issues in the media and social media, in the Natcon, the WP apparently is no where to be seen or heard. I was getting a bit worried about the party and why they were not engaging the people in any way. I thought something untoward could have happened. The only thing I can think of is a deliberate strategy of not wanting to be in the news, play safe or play whatever you like, not to be in any controversy, just look after their constituencies, attend Parliament, and wait for the next GE while consolidating the party administration and position.

This ‘hidden soldier no move’ strategy is a strategy, but by not participating in any issue or conversation, it is kind of like a default to allow other parties to gain ground and presence, and some may even comment negatively that the Party is inactive.

In my view this is not necessarily a good strategy. A political party cannot be cut off from the people by disengaging, by not being involved in public issues, and by being silent. Maybe I am wrong and they have been talking and talking, except not being reported in the media. Whichever or whatever the reasons for this inactivity and reticent, it is not going to be good for the party. The SDP is apparently taking the initiative to champion the causes of the people which is something that the WP should be doing. SDP’s involvement is giving it a very high profile of being in the politics.

With its resources and the number of MPs elected and in Parliament, whatever its strategy, WP cannot afford not to engage and not to be seen and heard. They can’t be adopting this ‘Hidden soldier no move’ strategy for the next 4 years and to lose the ground and the goodwill it has gained since the last GE and by election. It may even become a negative point for the WP as an issue in the GE.

Let’s hope the WP is not facing any problem and thus unable to engage the people more actively and participate in national affairs in a more conspicuous way.

Singapore a model for China to fight corruption

In the latest CNA programme, Perspective, on China, the issue of corruption was thoroughly discussed by an eminent panel of professors that include Tommy Koh, Kishore Mabubani, a James Tang from SMU and a Huang Jing from the LKY School of Public Policy.

The most prominent point in the discussion came from Tommy Koh, that China would not be able to curb corruption like Singapore. He pointed out 3 factors that made Singapore’s fight against corruption a success. One, the rule of law, two, govt leaders that smell clean, and three, a ruthless regime to tackle corruption.

China’s rule of law is always found to be lacking. Did they have any law at all, or is their law fictional? Tommy also brought out the legend of Justice Bao of the Sung Dynasty who was the epitome of law and order many centuries ago. As for Chinese leaders to smell as clean as our leaders, this can only be done if they are paid millions instead of the being paid like impoverish peasants. With their kind of pay, it is just too tempting and natural to be corrupt. A low down Sinkie civil servant would likely be paid more than the President and Prime Minister of China. China should take this advice and pay their top leaders handsomely like Sin so that they would not be tempted to be corrupt. Singapore is the best model to adopt.

As for ruthlessness in tackling corruption, Chinese death penalty cannot be compared to the ruthlessness of the things Singapore had done? Sorry, I missed the points as to what were so ruthless in our regime that make the firing squad looks so tame. I also cannot recall anything that is more ruthless than the death penalty for corruption in Singapore. Or is it that death penalty is not ruthless enough?

I am not up to it intellectually or may not know the workings of our system to suggest what is best for China. I think what Tommy suggested make good sense. China must learn from us if they are thinking of eradicating corruption in the govt, to be corruption free like Sin City.