Undiplomatic

4 February 2010 Charles J. Brown
03:14 pm

Be Afraid. Vewy Afraid.

I missed this when it came out last week. My friends over at Human Rights First respond to Liz Cheney’s “Keep America Safe” group’s love for fearmongering:

It continues to amaze me that a radical sect within the Republican party insists that we no longer can afford to live by our own laws. It shouldn’t, but it does.

We’ve seen a huge uptick in spam here at Undip, so I’ve put in place a new filter, which I hope will give me more time to actually blog. That said, please let me know if you are unable to comment — just email me at the address on the left.

Final SOTU thoughts

Obama never said “the state of our union is strong.” That took tremendous guts — because it’s the truth.

All in all a very strong speech. But the closing line — “I don’t quit” — was not the best reframing of his views.

What did you think?

SOTU IX

Obama calls for a repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. About time. And Robert Gates stood and applauded. That gives me hope that maybe — just maybe — Senate Republicans won’t try to kill it.

Nah.

SOTU VII

National security/foreign policy time.

First focus is on combating terrorism, prohibiting torture, building alliances. Reiterates Afghanistan policy. Shot of Joint Chiefs not applauding. Most Americans won’t realize they, like SCOTUS, don’t applaud.

Pledges to get all combat troops out of Iraq “by the end of this office.” Does that mean 2008 or 2012? Have to say that his comments on Iraq are true, but it certainly is different from what Americans are seeing and reading about Iraq right now.

Tepid response to arms control measures.

His human rights language wasn’t anything new. Striking that some Republicans refused to stand and applaud Obama’s call to stand by human freedom and dignity. Are they able to be gracious about anything?

All in all, his foreign policy section was less rousing, less rhetorical, and thus less compelling. He really didn’t break any new ground.

SOTU VII

Loved the line about everyone in Washington thinks that “every day is election day” My wife just loved that. Hope that MSM grabs it, but I doubt it.

And now he’s calling out his own party for failing to solve problems. And calls out Republicans for relying on super-majority.

Both of those statements took pretty big huevos.

SOTU VI

I’m not really an expert on health care reform, so I’ll take a pass on talking about it. But it is striking that Obama has learned strategic communications/framing 101: don’t repeat your opponents’ arguments. Obama focused on what needs to be done, not what the arguments are against the current plan. Very smart. And very difficult for Republicans to counter.

He did it again in the section on the deficit.

SOTU V

No offense to Obama, but when will DC start having politicians fix our education system and stop talking about how we need to fix it now? It’s been, what, four decades now that we’ve been falling behind other countries. When will Washington actually do something about it?

Obama deserves some credit for the steps he’s already taken — especially regarding student loans. But if there’s any better example of our political system’s inability to tackle big issues, I can’t think of it.

SOTU IV

First foreign policy issues mentioned are economic — fair trade, ending tax breaks for companies exporting jobs, free trade agreements.

SOTU III

Please tell me our elected officials didn’t just chant “we’re number one! we’re number one!”

Are these guys completely incapable of conducting a serious conversation/dialogue/debate?

SOTU II

Interesting to see Republicans not applauding for fees for Wall Street or tax cuts. I’m guessing they wouldn’t applaud if Obama brought out puppies and babies next.

SOTU I

It’s a very sober opening. Emphasis on the fact that we are still in a crisis, and that Americans are unhappy with Washington. It’s a strong opening, but risky. He’s basically calling out Washington — and himself — for failing to set aside partisanship to address the crisis at hand. A very good start.

And now comes the pep talk.

SOTU

I’ll be tweeting it and offering occasional blog commentary tonight — albeit with a break so I can put Kate to bed.

I don’t think he’ll do this, but I would love to Obama call out legislators on both sides of the aisle for their unwillingness to govern. It would be audacious, and it could reverse his slide in the polls. But — and it’s a pretty significant but — if it doesn’t, he will have almost guaranteed the failure not only of health care but also of his entire legislative agenda.

In any case, more to come soon.

Obama One Year On: A Foreign Policy Report Card

Over at Care2, my other blog home, I have an analysis of Obama’s first year as foreign policymaker-in-chief. A highlight:

In no area is this more true than in foreign policy, where Obama has managed to change the way the United States engages the rest of the world. In contrast to the Bush Administration, which tried to dictate terms, Obama has recognized the limits of American power and the potential of American leadership. Or as he put it in his inaugural address, “we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.”. . .

What Obama has done is pursue a foreign policy based on sound strategic principles and coherent tactics. It has emphasized both innovation and results, rewarding creativity and encouraging critical thinking. Realism has trumped ideology, and principles have trumped “interests.” Call it pragmatic idealism, if you must apply a label.

This approach is not unprecedented in American history. It. . .reflects the creativity and flexibility of the postwar Truman Administration, which, under the leadership of men like George Marshall and Dean Acheson, had to build new foreign policy and national security institutions virtually from scratch.

It therefore is possible that, to use Acheson’s famous phrase, we are once again “present at the creation” of a new paradigm, one that focuses on what the United States can do for the world, not what the world can do for the United States. Thanks to the financial crisis, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now Haiti, it will take more time than originally envisioned. But in the end, Obama has the opportunity to remake the way the United States pursues its interests in the world.

You can find the whole thing, including my grades on issues ranging from Afghanistan to nukes, here.

Guest Post: A Marshall Plan for Haiti?

The following guest post was written by Jacob Francois, an entrepreneur with over eighteen years experience in the financial services industry, and owner of Lakay Financial International, Inc. in addition to reaching out to the Haitian and Haitian-American communities via appearances on radio and television, Mr. François has served 7 years as a board member and two years as president of the Haitian-American Community Association (HACA) located in Chicago. He is also founder of Project 2000 International, a non-profit organization dedicated to providing assistance to Haitian children. The organization is responsible for securing donations in-kind, as well as monetary donations to purchase whatever is necessary to facilitate the education (school supplies, uniforms, shoes, etc.) of these youngsters whose families would otherwise be unable to provide these necessities for them. For more information about these organizations, please follow the above links.

Haiti has been struck by a terrible catastrophe far beyond its economic capacity. Immediate humanitarian assistance is essential, but Haiti will need more that just relief if it is to rebuild and prosper. For this reason, we at the Haitian Priorities Project propose a “Marshall Plan” for Haiti:

$5 billion to help the Haitian people rebuild their livelihood
$2 billion earmarked for the private sector
$1 billion for a 1500-megawatt electrical plant
$1.5 billion to rebuild various government compounds in the 10 departments
$1 billion for a communication system capable of providing at least 1 million land lines
$3 billion to rebuild 5,000 km of roads, connectors, sewers and provide garbage collection
$1 billion for 10 national airports in 10 departments
$1 billion for the agricultural sector
$2 billion for the school sector
$2.5 billion for economic development programs
$700 million for heavy machinery

In all, $20.7 billion per year for three years could put Haiti back on the path to becoming a modern nation. If we put this amount is the context of the United States GDP for 2009, the amount is less than 1/100th of 1 percent of the United States GDP.

The Marshall Plan from its inception, was known as the European Recovery Program, (ERP). The first phase of the program started in 1948 and ran through 1952. The United States implemented the ERP as a tool for rebuilding and creating a stronger economic foundation for countries in Western Europe.

Given the destruction of its infrastructure, Haiti would benefit from a similar plan, which could be dubbed the Haiti Recovery Plan (HRP), and without which Haiti may never be a viable nation.

Haiti is the most impoverished country in the Western Hemisphere with 80 percent of the population living under the poverty line and 54 percent in abject poverty. Two-thirds of all Haitians depend on the agricultural sector, mainly small-scale subsistence farming, and remain vulnerable to damage from frequent natural disasters, exacerbated by the country’s widespread deforestation.

The economy has shown some signs of recovery in recent years, registering positive growth since 2005 after the ravages of hurricane Jeanne in 2004. Several hurricanes damaged the entire system in 2008 as well as the transportation infrastructure and agricultural sector. Haiti has enough natural resources to build a viable nation, although capital investment is lacking and some natural resources possessed by Haiti are deemed strategic reserves to the United States. Haiti has bauxite, copper, calcium carbonate, gold, marble, hydropower and oil.

US economic engagement under the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement (HOPE) Act, passed in December 2006, has boosted apparel exports and investment by providing tariff-free access to the US. HOPE II, passed in October 2008, has further improved the export environment for the apparel sector by extending most favored nation preferences to 2018; the apparel sector accounts for two-thirds of Haitian exports and about 8 percent of GDP. Remittances are the primary source of foreign exchange, equaling more than 15 percent of GDP and about twice the earnings from exports.

Haiti suffers from high inflation, a lack of investment, limited infrastructure, and a severe trade deficit. In 2005, Haiti paid its arrears to the World Bank, paving the way for reengagement with the Bank. Haiti has received debt forgiveness for about $525 million of its debt through the Highly-Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) initiative by mid-2009. The government relies on formal international economic assistance for fiscal sustainability.

The United States and France have a moral obligation to correct the wrongs against Haiti dating back to 1824, four years after the Monroe Doctrine was initiated. In 1824, France sent 65 ships to Haitian ports threatening to take the country back to slavery if an agreement was not signed to start paying 100 million francs to France on a yearly basis. At the time, Haiti had to shut down all government services including all the schools. This action had a profound impact on Haiti’s development and on all subsequent government efforts to build viable institutions.

Without substantial new investment, Haiti will never come out of its terrible position. A government operating with less than $2 billion a year, of which 60% is from bilateral aid, will never be able to respond to the needs of a population of 10 million people.

The United States has in particular been helpful. At this juncture, however, if substantial investment is not made in Haiti, the epidemic of boat people to Florida will continue for a long time.

Our plea is to appeal to the humane compassion we know to exist in the Unites States, France, Canada, Venezuela, and all other countries to make their investments in the framework that was stated above in a length of time not to exceed three years. Otherwise, the spiral of misery will continue in Haiti for another two hundred years.

Photo: UNDP Flickr Photostream using a CC 2.0 license

Haiti: Devastation Beyond Comprehension

Imagine, for a moment, that 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina had devastated not merely New York/Arlington or New Orleans but the entire country. That’s what the people of Haiti face today: a tragedy almost beyond comprehension, one that may dwarf any other recent natural disaster.

If some reports are accurate, hundreds of thousands may be dead as many may be missing today because a devastating 7.0 earthquake rocked Port-au-Prince and most of the country on Tuesday. The loss of life, widespread devastation, and collapse of government and society on a national level is nearly complete. Those who could have responded to this tragedy — including the UN Mission to Haiti and international relief NGOs — are among its victims.

Such devastation is almost beyond our comprehension, especially in a place like Haiti, a star-crossed island country of sheer misery and destitution on a good day. The world is now responding with a massive outpouring of emergency aid, rescue teams, and mobile hospitals. They must move quickly to rescue thousands who are alive but trapped in the rubble, and do so when almost all infrastructure has disappeared.

President Barack Obama announced yesterday morning that the U.S. government will provide its full support to the people of Haiti in assisting in rescue and recovery of hundreds of thousands of people and provide food, water and medicine immediately. Using the Joint Southern Command to manage logistics, USAID, led by its new administrator, Dr. Rajiv Shah, will lead and coordinate the USG’s humanitarian response.

Hillary Clinton, who had just left for a week-long trip to the Pacific rim, cancelled her trip, but not before heading to a military base in Honolulu to coordinate the State Department’s response. She soberly remarked that Haiti had just come through some terrible events of “biblical proportions” in recent years, including hurricanes and mudslides, only to be victimized again by another unimaginable and devastating natural disaster.

President Rene Preval, the president of Haiti, now homeless himself, was able to notify his ambassador to the U.S. reporting that he and his family were alive, but he was unable to contact his cabinet members. Haiti’s capital, Port-au-Prince has been described as virtual dust, with the Presidential palace in total collapse, as well as most of the government buildings. Preval described the macabre scene in an interview with the Miami Herald:

“Parliament has collapsed. The tax office has collapsed. Schools have collapsed. Hospitals have collapsed,” he said. “There are a lot of schools that have a lot of dead people in them.” He said the Roman Catholic archbishop of Port-au-Prince is among the dead and that the head of the U.N. peacekeeping mission, Tunisian diplomat Hedi Annabi, is missing.”

Most hospitals are believed to be non-functioning, and water and electricity are virtually non-existent, according to media reports. Injured persons and other survivors are said to be lying in the streets, afraid of returning to their homes, due to strong after shocks, while others have been digging people out by hand to rescue those trapped in the rubble. Police, medical personnel and ambulances have been noticeable by their marked absence on the streets.

The European Union is sending 3 million euros in relief aid; China is providing search teams and the Swiss Red Cross is sending one million Swiss francs. Canada, France and Germany are contributing search teams and money. Hundreds of non-governmental relief agencies from around the world are responding to the crisis.

The Fairfax County, Virginia Fire Department was one of the first responders to fly into Haiti. Fortunately, the airport is functional, but the road between Port au Prince and the airport is still unpassable. U.S. Army engineers will be attending to the airport damage, minimal in comparison to the overall devastation. I know the Army engineers will provide some relief to the Haitian people who are existing in one of the most desperate situations on Earth.

If you haven’t taken action yet, please do what you can. CBS has put together a comprehensive list of agencies you can support.

Photo: UNDP Flickr photostream using CC 2.0

Return of the Native

Well, I’m back.

Thirty-four days after my last post.

Let’s just say that reality has a funny way of intruding in unexpected ways, and there is no greater reality than two wonderful children during the holidays. And as much as I love you, gentle readers (and even not-so-gentle trolls), watching Greta enjoy her first fully-aware Christmas was an absolute hoot — and a far better use of my time than anything I could have done here.

I know a lot has happened over the past month, and I wouldn’t blame you if you’ve turned elsewhere for some foreign policy blog goodness. I hope we can make it up to you. We’ll start with the tragedy of Haiti, specifically a post from my colleague Tanya, who once worked there.

Thanks for your patience — more soon.

Thought for the Day

I have to say that I’d never see a president talk about just war theory in a major address.

Happy Human Rights Day. Apologies for the dearth of posting lately — life is, as you know, complicated.

Reading between the Lines: Obama’s Sotto Voce Message to Pakistan

One other observation — one that I don’t think I’ve seen elsewhere. Twice in the speech, Obama talked about the danger of nuclear weapons. The first was during his arguments on why this is a necessary war:

The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

The second was toward the end, when he made a brief reference to his campaign to reduce the world’s stockpile of nuclear weapons:

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons — true security will come for those who reject them.

You can bet that our friends in Islamabad heard the implied message here: we will not let your nukes fall into the hands of extremists, and if I have my way, we will do everything we can to ensure that you don’t get to keep your nukes no matter who is in charge.

The Pakistani military is, I’m sure, really really unhappy about this. Keep in mind that they view everything through the lens of what they see as India’s existential threat to Pakistan. They already regard U.S. policy in Afghanistan as nothing less than a covert attempt to help India encircle Pakistan (really — I’m not making this up). And now Obama has made it clear he’s going to do what he can to take away their toys.

This is not going to help the Zadari Administration, which already has lost all credibility with the military because of its close relationship with the U.S.

Photo: US Department of Energy archives.

The Speech

My thoughts on the speech are up over at Care2, my other blog home. An excerpt:

[Obama] laid out a clear strategy, refuted the key arguments against his approach, and reminded everyone of why this is a war we must fight. Equally importantly, he served notice to both Kabul and Islamabad that Bush’s blank check strategy is over. And he did not pull punches when it came to acknowledging both governments’ corruption and ineptitude. . .

Of course, the speech was the (relatively) easy part. The much harder part — actually implementing the strategy as outlined, but also doing it successfully — will take years, and no matter how good Obama’s intentions, may ultimately fail. This is now Obama’s war. It doesn’t matter that Bush got us into it. It only matters how (and when) the President manages to get us out.

You can read the whole thing here.

Tweet

I’ll be live tweeting President Obama’s Afghanistan speech tonight. You can follow me here.

Afghanistan: The Right’s Alternate Reality

It’s a good thing that Republicans are so appalled at Obama’s decision to send 34,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. After all, it’s smaller not as big as insignificant compared to significantly larger than the Bush surge of 21,000 troops in Iraq.

Maybe they’ll have the chance to fix it someday. After all, as Dick Cheney reminded us today, it’s not like it’s their fault or anything.

In a 90-minute interview at his suburban Washington house, Cheney said the president’s “agonizing” about Afghanistan strategy “has consequences for your forces in the field.”

“I begin to get nervous when I see the commander in chief making decisions apparently for what I would describe as small ‘p’ political reasons, where he’s trying to balance off different competing groups in society,” Cheney said.

“Every time he delays, defers, debates, changes his position, it begins to raise questions: Is the commander in chief really behind what they’ve been asked to do?”

. . .But Cheney rejected any suggestion that Obama had to decide on a new strategy for Afghanistan because the one employed by the previous administration failed.

Cheney was asked if he thinks the Bush administration bears any responsibility for the disintegration of Afghanistan because of the attention and resources that were diverted to Iraq. “I basically don’t,” he replied without elaborating.

These guys really have entered an Orwellian alternate reality, where torture is the rule of law and failure is success.

Vote Republican — it’s all for the double plus good.

Photo: Two guys who have absolutely no responsibility for the mess in Afghanistan. Really. We swear. Via Wikipedia

Guinea: The Next Civil War in Africa?

Things are getting weirder — and much worse — in Guinea, home to Dadis Camara, Africa’s newest megalomaniac nutjob. Mark Weston over at Global Dashboard reports today that the UN is putting contingency plans in place should a civil war break:

[A UN World Food Program official told Weston that h]e is going [to the Senegal-Guinea border] to investigate whether there are sufficient telecoms and internet facilities there, in case war breaks out in Guinea and a flood of refugees pours into Senegal. Similar preparations are taking place in Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Sierra Leone and Liberia.

The UN’s caution may be well-founded. Guinea’s increasingly-unhinged leader, Dadis Camara, has recruited South African mercenaries to train his supporters in the art of war, in case the majority Peul population decides it has had enough of him and moves to unseat him from power. I asked the WFP man what the Senegalese government’s position is. He said that the president, Abdoulaye Wade, supported Camara when he took over last December, and has maintained a discreet silence since. “Guinea is rich in resources,” he explained. “It doesn’t pay to antagonise those who control them.”

If Senegal, one of the region’s few stable democracies, should decide to turn a blind eye to Camara’s misdeeds in order to ensure access to its oil and gas, it would not be alone. As Tanya reported last month, the Chinese were happy to sign a a $7 billion infrastructure bauxite and oil exploitation exploration deal with the Camara regime just days after his soldiers went on a rampage, beating, shooting, and publicly raping fellow citizens who were participating in a peaceful opposition protest. Guinea has the largest bauxite deposits in the world and may have one of the largest unexplored oil fields. It also is one of the poorest nations in Africa where people live on less than $1 per day.

Roughly four weeks from now, Camara will mark the anniversary of his first year in power. Given his increasingly erratic behavior, he may use that day to move against the opposition. It might be useful for new U.S. Ambassador Patricia Moeller to stop by the President’s office and reiterate the U.S. position that he should step aside and permit elections.

Photo: Reuters file photo (low res) via Daylife, used under doctrine of fair use: Coup leader Moussa Dadis Camara waves to crowds as he is driven through the streets of Conakry in this December 24, 2008 picture. Thousands of Guineans on Wednesday cheered the young army captain chosen as de facto head of state by the military junta that took over the West African country in a coup after the death of President Lansana Conte. Picture taken December 24, 2008.

New Poll — So What Do You Think of Obama’s Trip to Asia?

I just put up a new poll — what do you think of Obama’s trip to Asia?

Loading ...

If you can’t see the poll above (meaning you, my beloved RSS-readers), you can find it in the right-hand column on the Undip homepage.

Vote early and vote often — it will send a strong message to the government of China of America’s robust democracy.

Or not.

But please vote anyway.

Photo: via U.S. Consulate, Shanghai

Inside Baseball: Embassy Beijing’s Public Diplomacy 0.0

While (and I use this term quite loosely) researching my previous post on Obama, China, and the vast media conspiracy against media’s poor coverage of his recent trip, I ran across the U.S. Embassy/Beijing’s website. Take a look at this screenshot of the English-language version of the home page:

This is sad — I know grade school kids who could produce better code than this (full disclosure: I sure as hell couldn’t). More importantly, reading this is likely to convince Chinese that the United States is hopelessly boring and backwards.

To be fair, I’m not sure if this is true of the Mandarin version of this site, given that I don’t read Mandarin. But given the fact that its looks to be different, I’m guessing — given the Great Firewall — it’s even more anodyne. And as far as I can tell, there’s no Cantonese version. I guess the assumption is that everyone reads Mandarin.

Let me offer one example. There was a lot of snarky commentary in the U.S. media about the Shanghai town hall and the fact that it wasn’t shown throughout China. Well guess where else Chinese can’t see it? Yep. The Embassy Beijing site has no video. No link to video. Not even a photo. Only the text.

Sometime the page is so bad that it borders on the comical (and potentially, at least to the prickly Chinese, offensive). Here’s a shot of one small part of the English-language version of the home page — it’s part of a list of “warden messages,” which basically are travel warnings for U.S. citizens:

Whoops.

There are supposed to be two separate travel warnings — one on security measures in the lead-up to the 60th anniversary of the founding of the PRC and one on concerns about reports of pneumonic plague. But somehow somebody conflated them. So now October 1 is the National Day Holiday Plague.

Please explain this to me. Shouldn’t we want to make the United States look interesting and exciting? And make the presentation of that information eye-catching? It’s great that the State Department website is all glam and web 2.0 and everything, but if this is what our embassy in Beijing is doing, then the main targets of our public diplomacy — the Chinese people — aren’t really getting the message.

For what it’s worth, Embassy Beijing site appears to be the exception, not the rule. Home pages for the U.S. embassies in Italy, India, and even Papua New Guinea have better content, are better designed, and incorporate social media. In fact, even the Shanghai consulate has a better site (including photos and links to the video of the Shanghai town hall meeting).

The new U.S. Ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman seems to understand the importance of the intertubes — it was he, after all, who posed the Great Firewall question to Obama during the Shanghai town hall. here’s hoping that he takes a minute to tell his staff to fix this mess.

(By the way, I also checked out the English-language home page for the Chinese Embassy in D.C., and it’s just as bad. But that’s certainly no excuse for the USG’s terrible presentation and content.)

Obama, China, and the Media’s Noob Kremlinologists

Over at the Atlantic, the always perceptive Jim Fallows has done a series of posts (1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5) on the utter failure of the traveling press to report accurately on Obama’s China trip. Fallows main point is that the MSM “manufactured” the perception that the trip was a disaster when in fact it was a relative success. As Fallows notes, the media focused on two elements of the trip — its visuals (e.g. Obama bowing to the Emperor and the joint Hu-Obama press conference where Obama didn’t take questions) and the final joint U.S.-China communique (in which Obama failed to secure any “concessions”) — that are almost never favorable to a U.S. president.

I think that the first reason for this — and one that Fallows doesn’t raise — is that MSM (and for that matter new media) coverage of summits is not unlike the now-dead art of Kremlinology: its practitioners are attempting to parse out trends and conclusions from a very limited data set. If all you have to work with is a series of photo ops and official communiques, then it’s awfully hard to make anything more than the most superficial observations. And given the fact that you’re largely guessing, chances are that you’re going to get it wrong a big part of the time. The one difference between today’s media and yesterday’s Soviet experts is that the media is doing it constantly and near instantly. As a result, its reading of the tea leaves is even less accurate than those now-discredited Kremlin parade-watchers.

Fallows quotes U.S. Ambassador Jon Huntsman’s reaction to tthe coverage:

I attended all those meetings that President Obama had with Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao,” Huntsman said, referring to the Chinese president and premier. “I’ve got to say some of the reporting I saw afterward was off the mark. I saw sweeping comments about things that apparently weren’t talked about, when they were discussed in great detail in the meetings,” he said.

The problem for the media, of course, is that they’re not in those meetings. (If they were, it would have produced the exact outcome they so blithely reported as reality.) So reporters are stuck — they can tell the truth (”we have no idea what happened”) and look like noobs, or they can speculate (as most did in this case) and try to look wise.

Moral of the story: given the choice between looking like a noob and looking like a reporter, almost every White House reporter is going to choose the latter, even if s/he doesn’t know what s/he’s talking about.

The second reason is, as both Fallows and Howard French note, is that the press now covers the White House as if everything it does is a campaign event. Now on one level, this is true, but sometimes — particularly when it comes to foreign policy summits — it isn’t. But given the habits and tendencies of the media to regard everything as political, it’s almost impossible for them to change their frame of reference. French calls it “instant scorekeeping,” noting that “[e]verything [the press writes] is shot through this prism of short-term political calculation as opposed to thinking seriously about stuff.”

I think that part of the problem is not especially China-related but strikes me as a reflection of something that’s happening in the culture, particularly in the news culture, partially in response to the habits of television coverage and the increased pressures that come from digital media. There’s a growing reflex of instant punditry and reflexive reaction that works counter to more meaningful analysis. We’re in a state where we’re very often privileging the gut or the knee, as in knee-jerk, rather than thinking more meaningfully about things.

I think French (and Fallows) hit the nail on the head, but they miss one thing here: one of the reasons the White House press corps uses the campaign frame is that almost every news outlet now assigns its most able campaign reporters to cover the White House (Chuck Todd, white courtesy phone please). As one White House insider put it to Fallows (on background, of course),

I don’t care if someone criticizes us, I just would like it to be accurate and in context. I fear I am learning that is not the skill of some in the White House Press corps. They are experts on horse races, and so that is the way everything is cast.

I’m only surprised that this official is surprised. If you’re a reporter, and you’ve splent the past year/months/decade covering campaigns, then you’re going to look at everything as a campaign. It’s a manifestation of cynicism, and while unhelpful, it certainly is obvious to anyone able to step back and look at the broader question of how the media covers everything.

The third reason is related to the media’s role as a collective expression of a more generalized national uneasiness about the perceived decline in America’s role in the world. French, again:

The piece that really relates directly to China, I think, and the signals I get from this coverage are equally distressing. The unstated element for me in all of this coverage of Obama’s visit is a kind of hysterical insecurity in the American mind about the possibility—or reality, depending on how you look at it—of American decline. China being the most obvious and immediate symbol of American vulnerability and decline. You put these two things together, the hysterical insta-pundit on the one hand and the hysterical anxiety on the other hand, you end up with this kind of coverage that says essentially that Obama goes to China and doesn’t get instant, public, overt gratification on issues A through Zed and therefore it was a failed trip, or we’re losing ground to China or we have no more standing or we have no more clout or the Chinese moment is upon us—any number of variations on this decline-related theme. . . .

That leads us to the fourth and final reason: the MSM’s long slow slide into parochialism. French again:

To the extent that the American media embarks on this trip with some version of this very familiar storyline—that Obama, this great celebrity, this great speaker, this media star, this grand personality, is going to stroll through China and win the day—to the extent that they bought into that storyline and expected it to function, at any meaningful levels shows an extraordinary misunderstanding of China. You can fault that storyline on many other levels, but it shows a total misunderstanding of China. The Chinese doesn’t want to be part of our storyline.

The reality is that the MSM views everything through the prism of the United States. Their coverage of Obama’s trip reminds me of an old National Lampoon parody of local newspapers (be sure to read the sub-head on the story “Two Dacron Women Feared Missing in Volcanic Disaster”):

John Judis at the New Republic demonstrates just how bad this has become in his commentary on the South Korea leg of Obama’s trip (apologies for quoting at length, but I think it’s worth it):

If you are like me, you can’t name the second largest city in South Korea, you’re not within five or ten million of how many people live there, and you’re not sure how South Korea is currently getting on with China and Japan. So you need help. Both the Post and the Times focus not on South Korea per se, but on Obama’s taking a “stern tone” toward North Korea in his discussions with the South Koreans. The Post suggests that the two sides have agreed to a “new approach,” which will reject “endless, inconclusive disarmament negotiations” with the North. OK, pardon me if I yawn. Haven’t I read this story about forty-two times since 1995 or so. Having read the two stories I came away with exactly nothing.

Now let’s look at the Financial Times story by Christian Oliver and Edward Luce, which is about one-third the size of the other pieces. The headline reads, “Seoul trades on better ties with Beijing than Washington.” Hmm. That’s interesting and says something important about the balance of power in Asia and the world. Now here are the opening paragraphs:

When George Bush senior visited Seoul as US president 20 years ago, things were simple – the US was the undisputed main ally and trade partner. Astonishingly, there was only one weekly flight from South Korea to China, the communist foe.

Barack Obama on Wednesday visits a South Korea where the US is no longer the only show in town. China is now the main trade partner, with 642 flights each week. While the US is still the chief political ally, Mr. Obama’s cheery soundbites on Korean issues are not convincing Seoul that Washington is dedicating enough thought to the peninsula.

One flight versus 642 flights – that’s a small detail that tells a large story about South Korea and China. And what of the rest of the story? In the other newspapers, I learned that the U.S. is going to “satisfy” the demand of the North to send a “high-level” envoy by dispatching Stephen Bosworth to Pyongyang. But in the Financial Times, I learn that China is sending its premier Wen Jiabao and that diplomats in Seoul are not convinced that Bosworth, “a part-time diplomat, keeping a university teaching job in the US,” is the “right man for the job.”. . .

All in all, you get in one-third the length three times more interesting information than in the Times and Post articles, and it’s epitomized in the lead paragraphs comparing the number of flights that now run weekly between China and South Korea.

I’d even take it a step further: the FT reported on how South Korea had changed in the last twenty years (a story you rarely see — the media reserves that particular frame for its coverage of China), while the NYT and WaPo reported on how the U.S. position on North Korea hasn’t changed in the past twenty weeks.

Journalism used to be the first draft of history. Now it’s little more than a post-it note.

(An aside about Photo 1: Is the White House embarrassed about the trip? I could not find a single photo showing Obama with Hu Jintao or speaking to students in Shanghai. The only photos were of the students themselves, Obama at the Forbidden City, and Obama’s motorcade (???) heading to the Great Wall. I had to get this crappy shot from our friends at Dipnote.)

Climate Change: Oh the Irony

From a 1961 magazine ad by Humble Energy, one of two companies that later merged to become Exxon (h/t):

In addition to the blatantly self-evident irony of the ad, I’d add a secondary one: the company now known as Exxon, once was called “Humble” Energy.

Quick Hits: In Search of Lost Time (with apologies to Proust)

So as you’ve probably noticed (or maybe not), I haven’t been around much lately. Well, I”ve been around, just not blogging. My job has been fairly intense, but the reality is that it’s my darling girls and not (just) my recent deadlines that have been eating up all my time — to my great delight and joy. Kate, our newest, is just learning to smile, and Greta is celebrating her third birthday today. So needless to say, I’ve not been that intent on finding time to blog (or, for that matter, to keep up with the news).

Things are a bit calmer now, though, though I need to head home for Greta’s party. So for now, just a couple of quick hits on recent news events:

1. Obama’s trip to China: Not his best moment. I think the Chinese largely outmaneuvered him, stage managing his public appearances and making it difficult for him to break out from the image they were manufacturing. The press conference was particularly awkward. That said, I thought his town hall appearance was terrific, and like Jim Fallows, I believe that the students there got the message behind his nuanced remarks, which pushed the envelope a bit.

2. Obama’s bow in Japan: The most manufactured news moment in recent memory. I find it amusing that those on the right who have spent so much time screaming about this are the same folks who get apocalpytic when Obama refuses to bow to their constant angry demands. What’s next? Oh, I know! Obama isn’t Kenyan — he’s Japanese!! Sheesh.

3. Afghanistan: Go read Spencer Ackerman’s story on why the U.S. doesn’t have the troops to meet McCrystal’s request for 40,000 new troops. Go now. Really. I’ll wait. If Spencer is correct, then the reality is that we don’t have the troops that our commander on the ground says we need to win the war — unless we put at risk our entire force structure. I wonder whether anyone will ask McCain, Kyl, and the other Republicans who have been demanding that the Obama Administration go all in whether they are willing to do so even if it compromises American capability/readiness to handle a flare-up elsewhere.

4. KSM to NYC: Why are right-wingers so freaking afraid of our own justice system’s supposed incapacity to try bad guys? Are these guys really afraid that Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and the other 9/11 conspirators really will have the ability to cause fire to rain down on NY? The way I see it, they can’t have it both ways. If the Bush Administration really did decapitate al Qaeda (without, um, killing its leaders I guess), then why should we be afraid taking these guys on — and doing it in a way that says to the world “we’re not afraid of you”? As Ezra Klein noted today, KSM is not Magneto. He has no superpowers — except, perhaps, the ability to encourage Republicans to fear-monger everything.

5. Ukraine: I’ve been to about 40 countries in my travels. There’s only one I’ll never go back to. And it’s not Sudan. Here’s one reason why.

Image: Wikipedia

The Slipperiest Slope Of All

One of life’s simple pleasures is savoring the concise reasoning and clear writing of The Economist. I have often felt in no-man’s land between the left and the right of American politics, and perhaps that is why the economically conservative and socially liberal editorial slant of that publication holds particular appeal to me. However, Democrats and Republicans seem to be united on one thing: their opposition to personal liberty, one of the founding principles of our nation. They differ on which aspects of their fellow citizens’ lives they want the government to control, or perhaps on which level of government they want to have that control, but everyone seems to want more government action and control, not less.

Which is why the quote I read today while eating my lunch almost made me choke, as it emanated from a Republican, whose party in theory should be a bit more receptive to the argument of limiting government action in people’s lives to the least degree necessary. The article discussed recent activities in Maricopa County, Arizona, by the publicity-loving sheriff Joe Arpaio. The ironic section was as follows:

To his critics this attitude proves that the sheriff is running amok. Mr Arpaio is in his fifth term and enjoys stunning voter approval in polls, but Mr Gordon compares his practices to those of racist sheriffs in the Jim Crow South: “being elected doesn’t make it right.”

There are also charges that Mr Arpaio employs McCarthyist tactics against his critics, intimidating and harassing county officials, legislators or journalists with bogus investigations and charges. One senior state legislator, a fellow Republican, says that “Arpaio is out of control” but is afraid to go on the record.

Mr Arpaio, as is his wont, seems to gloat at such accusations. “Do I go after people? Yes,” he says. But “why are they concerned if they have nothing to hide?”

Now, understand what he is saying here. He is not talking about going after alleged illegal immigrants or potential criminals. No, as a government official he is talking about using official power to intimidate and silence people who question what limits there should be on his use of that power. And his rationale is one that has fooled many people who otherwise proclaim to believe in “small government:” if you have nothing to hide, then you don’t have to worry about excessive government intrusion into people’s lives. I can’t say any better why this is wrong than did The Economist itself in a recent book review:

It is this complacency that Mr Grayling, with passion and elegance, takes on. He describes the if-you-have-nothing-to-hide argument as “one of the most seductive betrayals of liberty” imaginable. The assumption behind it is, he says, “that the authorities will always be benign; will always reliably identify and interfere with genuinely bad people only; will never find themselves engaging in ‘mission creep’, with more and more uses to put their new powers and capabilities to; will not redefine crimes, nor redefine various behaviours or views now regarded as acceptable, to extend the range of things for which people can be placed under suspicion—and so considerably on.”

As members of a society that continues to struggle to find the right balance between personal liberties and certain restrictions of those liberties that are necessary to help with policing and homeland security, we must recognize that we can’t have everything, that such a balancing act along many dimensions does exist, and all citizens must engage in the collective debate regarding where that balance lands.

But members of the government, whose powers are under review during those debates and who thus might naturally want to curtail any restrictions of their professional freedoms, should remember what Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address: government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Not some of the people, and certainly not in the name of some tyranny of the majority.

Mr. Arpaio might think that the electorate’s decision to grant him authority translates into unlimited power. It does not. In our political system, popularity and authority do not mean you get to trample on fundamental rights. It’s a a fundamental civics lesson that all our politicians might want to re-learn.

Please Visit Hakodate Soon, As Giant Squids are about to Obliterate Us

Okay, this has to be the oddest tourism promotion video ever:

According to Pink Tentacle (h/t), residents of Hakodate eat a lot of squid, so the local Chamber of Commerce/Tourism Promotion Board/Surrealist Film Collective thought it might be fun to use that fact to promote their fair city:

The invaders here are alien cephalopods from the planet Ikaaru, who seek revenge on the people of Hakodate for eating too much squid. The aliens hijack an enlarged version of Hakodate’s tourism mascot — a mechanical squid named “Ikabo,” which was built by Future University-Hakodate (FUN) in 2007 — and send it on a rampage through the city. . . .

A pair of giant robots are called into action to protect Hakodate’s precious historical buildings from destruction. Hakodate’s Goryōkaku Tower transforms into a deadly fighting machine, while an enormous Chūkū Dogū (a treasured 3,200-year-old hollow clay figurine unearthed in Hokkaidō in 1975) awakens from a deep slumber. . .

The city’s star-shaped Goryōkaku fortress also joins the fight. After coming under attack, the fortress rises up from the flames and takes off like a giant spaceship.

I guess the idea you should visit Hakodate before a race of evil alien squid and giant building robots destroy it in order to save the city from destruction is an interesting approach to tourism, but it does beg the question: why would I want to visit somewhere if its landmarks have been destroyed during an invasion of evil super-intelligent alien squid? And if they haven’t yet been destroyed, why would I want to visit it if, as a subsequent video hints, a new fleet of evil super-intelligent alien squid ships are on their way to try again?

Nothing like getting caught in the crossfire between evil super-intelligent alien squid and giant building transformer robots to ruin a vacation. Maybe the Hakodate tourism surrealistic collective should have looked somewhere else for help:

Pink Tentacle has parts two and three of the Hakodate saga here

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Contact Me

Blogroll

Polls

Admin

Archive