Three years after the Sept. 11 terrorist assaults on New York and Washington, two seemingly contradictory currents run through the veins of America, currents that will affect the US' relations with every nation in Asia.
The first is a mingling of nationalism and patriotism, which are closely related but not the same thing. This stream is perhaps best illuminated by the widely repeated phrase "you are either with us or with the terrorists," sometimes expressed as "you are either with us or against us."
The second current is a torrent of divisiveness accompanied by a decline in civility. Senator John McCain underlined this discord, the worst since the turbulent Vietnam era, with an eloquent plea when he addressed the Republican convention: "We are Americans first, Americans last, Americans always."
These two currents were not generated by this year's presidential election campaign but that contest, which has turned into a nasty, mudslinging match, has accentuated them.
The currents will surely surge through the debates in Congress, which reconvened last week, and will be in session until a few weeks before the Nov. 2 election.
For Asians, it will be important to recognize in coming months, no matter who wins the US presidency, that these conflicting currents will influence decisions in US foreign and security policy -- and may well make those policies inconsistent.
The US has often been accused of "unilateralism," or acting alone. The record shows that rarely to have been the case. Rather, the US has been nationalistic, giving priority to its own national interests and less weight to those of other nations.
Moreover, Americans appear to have become largely immune to criticism from other nations. The first cousin of nationalism, patriotism, or love of country, can been seen in the polls in which Americans express pride in the US, in flags flying in front of homes, bumper stickers on cars, and a renewed fervor in singing the national anthem. That zeal has subsided a bit since the emotionally charged days following Sept. 11, but not by much.
Shortly after Sept. 11, the Pew Center for the People and the Press in Washington said its surveys showed the terrorist attacks had "once again elevated the importance of nationhood" among Americans. Samuel Huntington, the Harvard scholar who has written extensively about the American search for identity, took that a step further, finding that US nationalism is "devoted to the preservation and enhancement of those qualities that have defined America from its inception."
Another scholar, Minxin Pei, of the Carnegie Endowment in Washington, has asserted that American nationalism was defined "by a belief in the supremacy of US democratic ideals."
"Americans not only take enormous pride in their values," Pei wrote, "but also regard them as universally applicable."
He cited a poll showing that 79 percent of Americans agreed: "It's good that American ideas and customs are spreading around the world."
McCain was more pointed: "As we've been a good friend to other countries in moments of shared perils, so we have good reason to expect their solidarity with us in this struggle" against terror.
In contrast, the unity that clicked into place on Sept. 11 has disappeared into a valley of division. Americans are experiencing a rupture that has been aggravated by bitter accusations and an absence of the willingness to compromise that had long been a mark of US democracy. This split appears to be rooted in the Vietnam era when Americans in their 20s clashed over the morality of the war in Southeast Asia.
Today, the issues are different but the people are the same, now being in their 50s and running the country as political leaders, government officials, military officers, business executives, university professors and news editors.
The US seems to be divided into three clusters: a large, conservative, religious right wing; an equally large, liberal, secular left wing; and a smaller, bewildered, hapless gaggle of independents. The rightists and leftists differ sharply, among many other things, over abortion, homosexual marriage, gun control, the death penalty for crimes, how to fight the war on terror, and the size and role of government -- and none will brook a compromise.
Little wonder that Americans can't even agree on whether the country is headed in the right or wrong direction, splitting almost equally on that issue. It was this dissension that McCain addressed in his plea for unity: "We must, whatever our disagreements, stick together in this great challenge of our time."
Richard Halloran is a freelance writer based in Hawaii.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry