At 12pm on Jan. 20, the US will have experienced 16 years of contentious, divisive and mediocre government. This bleak period will have been evenly split, to the day and hour, between Democrats led by former US president Bill Clinton and Republicans by US President George W. Bush.
That dismal record will test president-elect Barack Obama, who takes office that day, as much or more than the economic recession, the issues of immigration, energy, education and healthcare; the bog of Iraq and Afghanistan; the latest flare-up between Israelis and Palestinians and a litany of difficulties that almost any schoolboy could recite.
Moreover, the new president’s task will be hard because only 33 percent of eligible voters in the US cast their ballots for him. The rest either didn’t vote, or voted for Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican candidate, or voted for Ralph Nader or Bob Barr or candidates from other parties. Obama cannot claim a mandate to ram through his proposals.
Nevertheless, all Americans, even those who didn’t vote for him, should wish Obama well and hope that his presidency is successful, if for no other reason than the US cannot afford another four or eight years of discordant, second-rate government.
The same wish should be true for allies and friends of the US. Despite the US’ troubles, the constructive application of US power is still vital to the well-being of nations from the UK to South Africa to Japan. Further, potential adversaries such as China should hope that Obama can steer a course that serves the US’ interests as well as preclude armed conflict.
It won’t be easy. Witness the alleged corrupt schemes of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to fill the Senate seat being vacated by Obama. The governor has been charged with conspiracy and bribery and driven the already turbulent politics of Chicago to a new low as he has defied widespread calls for his resignation, including from Obama.
Or the bitter parting shot from Bob Herbert, a liberal columnist for the New York Times who wrote last week: “I don’t think he [President Bush] should be allowed to slip quietly out of town. There should be a great hue and cry — a loud, collective angry howl, demonstrations with signs and bullhorns and fiery speeches — over the damage he’s done to this country.”
In sharp contrast, there are signs that civility might return to US public life. From all reports, Bush has gone out of his way to have officials of his administration brief those of the new administration to help them get started. For his part, Obama has been careful not to presume on Bush’s responsibilities and prerogatives as president. More than once he has said the US can have only one president at a time.
Similarly, Bill Kristol, a conservative with unquestioned credentials, said in another column in the New York Times: “I look forward to Obama’s inauguration with a surprising degree of hope and good cheer.”
Noting that Obama will be sworn in with President Abraham Lincoln’s Bible, Kristol said: “Obama could do a lot worse than study Lincoln and learn from him.”
In Asia, the incoming administration will be confronted immediately with a looming crisis between India and Pakistan caused by the attack in late November on Mumbai, the financial center of India, presumably by Pakistani terrorists.
A conflict between India and Pakistan would jeopardize US military operations in Afghanistan. A main supply route from the Pakistani port of Karachi through the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan has already been cut either by Taliban militants or Pakistani troops pursuing the terrorists.
In a larger context, several US administrations have tried to treat India and Pakistan in an even-handed manner but have not acquired enough influence to restrain either. A complication is the posture of China, long an ally of Pakistan and a rival with India, and the fact that both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons.
On his Web site, www.change.gov, Obama does not mention India and says only that Pakistan will be held “accountable for security in the border region with Afghanistan.”
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii.
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
RSS