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.
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
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
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing