New Mandala

18 responses so far ↓

• 1 Frank // Nov 6, 2008 at 5:55 pm

  The fact of the matter is no one really knows, as Obama is sort of a blank slate that supporters paint their dreams on. That said, your last bullet point is most relevant. Democratic Party inertia tends towards preaching to countries outside the West on how to implement supposedly correct policies in areas such as labor, environmental, minimum wage, social policy, goverment structure, etc – without the use of military force- but with a heavy dose of Political Correctness (i.e. propaganda). Also, ASEAN relations may worsen as Democrats tend to resist meeting with Burmese officials in any sort of fourm.

• 2 Stephen // Nov 6, 2008 at 10:08 pm

  “Democrats tend to resist meeting with Burmese officials in any sort of forum.”

  Frank, I don’t think that’s really the case (or at least not any more so than it is for Republicans). It was Condoleezza Rice who named Burma an “outpost of tyranny,” and it was George W. (and especially Laura) Bush’s hard-line non-negotiation stance on Burma that made this current US administration the darling of Burma’s exiled pro-democracy movement.

  I don’t see why Obama’s argument for negotiation and against isolation with regards to Iran (another “outpost of tyranny”) should be fundamentally different for Burma. If anything, we may see a decrease in US government support (financial or otherwise) for exiled pro-democracy groups. Although, the current economic crisis would also be a significant factor for this (c.f. Ashley South’s recent article).

  The Nation’s Kavi Chongkittavorn had this to say on the matter earlier this week:

  In the foreseeable future, the Burmese crisis would remain high on agenda between Asean and the West. It remains to be seen how the Obama administration can make a breakthrough on Burma. His advisors said the US need to work with Asean on Burma to ensure that Rangoon lives up to its obligations as a member of Asean. It is easier said than done.

  Both US and EU have up until now imposed the toughest sanction regime against the Burmese junta and its leaders. That hard-lined approach would not change in coming months unless the Rangoon regime has made an extraordinary compromise.

  However, the aftermath of cyclone Nargis has given unique opportunities for Asean and international communities including US and UN-related agencies to work together in designing and implementing rescue, rehabilitation and recovery plans. Growing recommendations are that this cooperation, albeit flawed, should continue or even intensify to draw in the Burmese regime.

• 3 aiontay // Nov 6, 2008 at 11:51 pm

  I’m afraid I don’t have much of a substantive comment to make, but just to note that last night German friend, who is very involved with Burmese ethnic groups, called me last night from Bangkok to congratulate me on Obama’s win. He gone to a party the night before to celebrate. At the very least, Obama has attention of the international community.

  It should also be noted that McCain and other Republicans Senators have taken a hard line towards Burma, and most of them have retained their seats, so that has to be factored in as well.

  Finally, I’ll share a funny email a friend at work got from an African American old Marine friend. The email said that since the US didn’t follow through with the promise after the Civil War to give the ex-slaves forty acres and a mule, they’d settle for 50 States and the White House.

• 4 Andrew Walker // Nov 7, 2008 at 9:38 am

  Here is an article by Shawn Crispin on “What Obama means to Bangkok”.

• 5 bystander // Nov 7, 2008 at 12:51 pm

  Not very much. He will have his hands full with other much more urgent problems. Since the bilateral relationship have been fairly steady, Thailand will be low priorities.

  Not very much is at stake for USA in Southeast Asia, to be honest. Maybe some terrorism issues, but Obama grew up in Indonesia, I think that will help with the relationship a bit. The question of Burma, well, China is the one you should talk to, not USA.

• 6 jonfernquest // Nov 7, 2008 at 6:38 pm

  I’m certainly no Bush fan but the Sean Crispin analysis has all the markings of conspiracy theory, weaving together disparate sorts of “evidence” into a complicated potpourri intended to elicit a highly emotional response. One moment the US is covertly pushing events in the Thaksin administration then the next moment inexplicably China is driving policy hinting that the coup may have been at the behest of the US.

  I thought it was the role of academics to fact check and possibly disprove such complicated and at least from a logical standpoint counterintuitive explanations.The more reasonable explanation is that the US public is preoccupied by a host of other issues. As this blog showed there was attempted Congressional action against coup-makers.

  The precedent of the Great Depression and Smoot-Hawley Act will keep the US president and his skilled economic advisors from erecting trade barriers:

  “What the crash mainly precipitated was a raft of wrongheaded policies that did major damage to the economy — beginning with the disastrous retreat into protectionism marked by the passage of the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which passed the House in May 1929 and the Senate in March 1930, and was signed into law by Hoover in June 1930. As prices fell, Smoot-Hawley doubled the effective tariff duties on a wide range of manufactures and agricultural products. It triggered the beggar-thy-neighbor policies of countervailing tariffs that caused the international economy to collapse. Some have argued that the increasing likelihood that the Smoot-Hawley tariff would pass was a major contributing factor to the stock-market collapse in the fall of 1929.” (Five Myths About the Great Depression: Herbert Hoover was no proponent of laissez-faire.By ANDREW B. WILSON, Wall Street Journal, 04-11-08)

• 7 Hla Oo // Nov 8, 2008 at 11:33 am

  In Rangoon, the mad Generals and the Business Community appear to have gladly taken the news of first the American Financial Crisis and now Obama’s win as the God sent good news.

  Long depressed property prices have suddenly shot up and people with big money are seen to be committing their long term business plans again. My family has a two-storey shop house in the middle of busy Indian Town and we’ve been trying to sell the house for US$ 300,000 for last two years and the highest serious offer was 280,000 only.

  Last month a Chinese businessman offered 300,000 and Just yesterday three buyers showed up and offered 350,000 out of the blue. The brokers are now encouraging us to raise the price to US$ 400,000.

  Their reason was that the rumored American invasion won’t be coming and the dark shadow of general uncertainty has been suddenly lifted and the business in Burma will be good again as long as a democratic black president with strong and sympathetic links in Indonesia and Kenya is in the White House.

  Ironically, Burmese generals must be the only ones who are very happy about the Financial Crisis in America.

• 8 Frank // Nov 8, 2008 at 4:27 pm

  With regards to US Foreign Policy, many countries around the world can be divided into 2 camps: ones with “Humanitarian Issues” and ones who are a “National Security Threat”. Democrats tend to be more aggressive/belligerent to countries of the former, while Republicans tend to be more aggressive/belligerent to countries of the latter. So, US policy towards Iran, North Korea, and Cuba has a good chance of being more conciliatory, and policy towards Sudan and Burma more hostile under Obama. I didn’t want to get into the Burma issue; I brought it up vis-à-vis ASEAN. There is more of a chance that the new Administration will bully countries like Thailand and Singapore into not dealing with Burma – an action that no country in Europe or North America would undertake if Burma were on their border.
  By the way, I agree that the Crispin article is seriously flawed.

• 9 Michael // Nov 8, 2008 at 5:47 pm

  I’ve seen plenty of evidence to show that Bangkok people in general are pleased to see Obama in and the Republicans out. On the day of the election everyone in my workplace was following the election results, with the sort of fervour usually attached to football. This included not only the people upstairs in offices, but also the drivers & maintenance workers (M & F), whose domain we invade for a smoke. Most of the latter come from rural provinces. Everyone was genuinely jubilant when the result was announced. Similarly with the people in my condo block and around the markets (Rajawat) in the lower-middle-class/working-class part of Dusit where I live.

  One very close friend, who is from Isan, compared the election with that of Thaksin – “..we waited in very long queues…a change in history of Thailand…”

  My feeling is that although ordinary Thais are fed up with the bullying of U.S., and see the election of Obama as an encouraging sign that things are changing for world peace and possibly the economy (”…the Americans fire money…”), it is due to the fact that his candidature has given a voice to the hitherto disaffected, who have now decided to participate, rather than that the Democrats are merely, under normal circumstances, a better party for the underdog.

• 10 Ralph Kramden // Nov 10, 2008 at 3:42 am

  Frank refers to Crispin’s piece being “seriously flawed.” I am wondering if he can say a bit more about the problems he sees with the article.

• 11 jonfernquest // Nov 11, 2008 at 4:49 pm

  You should read the G20 communique coming out on the 15th November that vows collectively not to take a protectionist stance. The G7 will probably follow and do the same I would guess:

  http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2008/11/the-g-20-communiqu-of-november-15th.html

• 12 Ron // Nov 13, 2008 at 12:49 am

  The election of Barack Obama as America’s first African-American President will be a real test, not only for White America, but also for the rest of the world in accepting a Black man as a leader of the most powerful and influential nation on the planet.

  The test for White America will be one of real “sincerity” in “really” accepting President Obama as “their” President.

  Despite the excitement over his nomination, America still has deep rooted problems with racism and White supremacy that may not be so apparent to those living in other lands. These will not go away over night.

  Most White folk who voted for Obama did so for selfish reasons: They did so for what he could do for “them”; to rescue “them” from job loss and home foreclosure. It was not primarily for the good of all Americans . Whites in America have for generations held positions of “privilege” in America and, indeed, the world. A luxury non-White Americans did not – and still- do not have. This will be a very difficult for White Americans share.

  That many White Americans still do not understand the “Black” experience in America and growing up Black in America was seen at the handling of Barack Obama’s association with Rev. Wright and the congregation he belonged to.

  The Black church in America has been (and still is) a voice for social inequalities and injustices in America. Barack Obama was raised in such an environment but he was essentially asked to disassociate himself from Rev. Wright and his church family. Wow!

  That act was like asking him to stop being who he is: A Black man from humble beginnings. That act told most African Americans that White America still harbors deep-beneath-the-skin paranoia, suspicion, and disinterest in Black folk. It was almost as if they wanted to stand Barack Obama up, dust the Black off of him and paint him White.

  The test for the rest of the world, especially in “some” places in Asia, will be one of “acceptance.” As a world traveler, I know that White folk are looked up to as a standard to be followed. The several years I spent in Thailand, this was very evident. You do not see commercials or advertisements on billboards, TV, and magazines with Black people in them. Dark skin is not a preferred color (not even among their own). It is a very difficult thing for a Black person to get a job as a teacher; many Thai parents do not want their children taught by Blacks. Black people, in general, are viewed as “unintelligent” and “incapable” of positions of leadership. White folk are viewed as the “masters of the universe” in many ways. To such an extent that many Thais go to great lengths to change their skin color and avoid being tanned by the sun. I believe that many of these prejudices where introduced into Thailand by White folk who for generations have visited and lived in the country.

  So, will Barack Obama “really” be respected in this part of the world? This will be a real test.

  I am proud of President Obama’s election. I am proud that he has presented himself as a family man; not one with a silver spoon up his backside as many Presidents before him have.

  Barack Obama, as a Black man, knows the deal with the “real” causes of what ails American society. He will not be able to fix them all. In fact, only a few, if he is lucky.

  The status quo in America will somehow find away to “Take Back (White) America.

  The bottom line is this: America is a very much so racially intolerant and suffers from the dreaded disease of White Supremacy; and if White America cannot mold Barack Obama into what “they” want him to be, they will quickly turn on him.

  I equate it to a Black person buying a house in an all White neighborhood. White folks in those neighborhoods don’t like; and once that Black person moves in, he will be watched like a hawk; and in some cases even harassed until he can’t take the harassment anymore and moves out.

  Well, the White House is such a closed community. Barack Obama will be watched and scrutinized more than any President to occupy that position; and for one reason: The color of his skin.

  I hope he makes it for four years. I hope he will not age 20 years. I hope.

• 13 Ralph Kramden // Nov 14, 2008 at 8:45 am

  jonfernquest should go to the Rodrik original which states: “So here is what I hope the final communiqué will say:
  ‘We, the leaders of the G20 nations,…”.

• 14 jonfernquest // Nov 14, 2008 at 3:56 pm

  Ralph Kramden: “jonfernquest should go to the Rodrik original which states: “So here is what I hope the final communiqué will say: We, the leaders of the G20 nations,…”.”

  Ralph Kramden (sic) should read the Dani Rodrik blog posting made after the original which states:

  “Everyone knows that the final communiqués of summits held by political leaders are written way in advance by their “sherpas.” Through my contacts in the Bush administration I have managed to get my hand on the communiqué that will be issued at the conclusion of the G-20 summit being held on November 15th in Washington, DC. Here is how it reads:…”

  This may be a joke or not. Anyway, there is still clearly anxiety from both sides. That the US under Obama may react with protectionism or that emerging markets may reast this way (Google: “doomsday scenario of protectionism dani rodrik economist’s view”)

• 15 Ralph Kramden // Nov 15, 2008 at 8:39 am

  So jonfernquest thinks that Rodrik’s piece, which he hoped would be an outcome is being taken up in its entirety by the G20 leaders? And he only thinks Rodrik is pulling lots of legs? But thanks for the wonderful insights.

  Obama is not taking part in the G20 meetings and has only observers there so doomsday or not, it hardly seems likely that Obama is the man to look at in this context. Suddenly reincarnated free trader Bush seems to have been in the driver’s seat for a while. All the scuttlebutt about Obama as a protectionist is not much different from the same positioning games that took place when Clinton came in. What a protectionist he turned out to be! And the Clinton Dems were remarkably better economic managers than either of the Bush’s administrations pre- and post- his terms in office.

  No doubt economic circumstances might direct some of the policy direction of Washington (and lots of other places), but the idea that Obama is ideologically protectionist is not underpinned by much evidence from his speeches and writings.

  jonfernquest might read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Honeymooners.

• 16 Ralph Kramden // Nov 17, 2008 at 3:54 am

  The actual communique is at (amongst other places): http://www.sofiaecho.com/article/the-g20-summit-the-declaration-in-full/id_33000/catid_66

• 17 robb cadwell // Nov 24, 2008 at 1:56 am

  I recently recieved this email from someone in Singapore.

  “Was incredible how excited people here were over the recent elections (all rooting for Obama), more so than over our own (since a large percentage of eligible voters don’t get to vote anyway). Singaporeans in the US were sending SMSes & emails back to family & friends in Singapore as the results unfolded. & the Americans working in my institute were walking through the labs yelling that Obama had won. A lot of work for the new admin to do & mess to clear…but still, thank you from this part of the world.”

• 18 Charles F. // Nov 24, 2008 at 4:24 pm

  Let’s see how much cheering the Koolaid drinkers are doing six months from now when Obama is neck deep in problems with no viable solutions.
  He is surrounding himself with the same morally bankrupt people who previously worked for Clinton. How’s that for “Change”?

  If the U.S. suffers a major – or even minor – terrorist attack during Obama’s term in office, the citizenry will be yelling, “Off with his head” and reconsidering their vote.

  By the way, a 52% to 48% victory isn’t a mandate by any stretch of the imagination. Almost half the population think he’s a charlatan – it wouldn’t take much to tip the scale back the other way.

Leave a Comment