×

Loading...
Ad by
  • 推荐 OXIO 加拿大高速网络,最低月费仅$40. 使用推荐码 RCR37MB 可获得一个月的免费服务
Ad by
  • 推荐 OXIO 加拿大高速网络,最低月费仅$40. 使用推荐码 RCR37MB 可获得一个月的免费服务

President Obama Didn't Impress Asia -- China and others know exactly how to take advantage of a 'post-American' President. By John Bolton

本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Barack Obama's first visit to Asia since his inauguration was one of the most disappointing trips by any U.S. president to the region in decades, especially given media-generated expectations that "Obamamania" would make it yet another triumphal progression. It was a journey of startlingly few concrete accomplishments, demonstrable proof that neither personal popularity nor media deference really means much in the hard world of international affairs.

The contrast between Asia's reception for Obama and Europe's is significant. Although considered a global phenomenon, Obamamania's real center is Europe. There, Mr. Obama reigns as a "post-American" president, a multilateralist carbon copy of a European social democrat. Asians operate under no such illusions, notwithstanding the "Oba-Mao" T shirts briefly on sale in China. Whatever Mr. Obama's allure in Europe, Asian leaders want to know what he means for peace and security in their region. On that score, opinion poll ratings mean little.

What the president lacked in popular adulation, however, he more than made up for in self-adulation. In Asia, he labeled himself "America's first Pacific president," ignoring over a century of contrary evidence. The Pacific has been important to America since the Empress of China became the first trading ship from the newly independent country to reach the Far East in 1784. Theodore Roosevelt created a new Pacific country (Panama) and started construction on the Panama Canal to ensure that America's navy could move rapidly from its traditional Atlantic bases to meet Pacific challenges. William Howard Taft did not merely live on Pacific islands as a boy, like Obama, but actually governed several thousand of them as Governor-General of the Philippines in 1901-1903. Dwight Eisenhower served in Manila from 1935 to 1939, and five other presidents wore their country's uniform in the Pacific theater during World War II—two of whom, John F. Kennedy and George H.W. Bush, very nearly perished in the effort.

View Full Image

AFP

Not quite seeing eye to eye: Barack Obama meets with Premier Wen Jiabao in Beijing.
But it was on matters of substance where Mr. Obama's trip truly was a disappointment. On economics, the president displayed the Democratic Party's ambivalence toward free trade, even in an economic downtown, motivated by fear of labor-union opposition. On environmental and climate change issues, China, entirely predictably, reaffirmed its refusal to agree to carbon-emission limitations, and Mr. Obama had to concede in Singapore that the entire effort to craft a binding, post-Kyoto international agreement in Copenhagen had come to a complete halt.

On U.S. national security, Mr. Obama came away from Beijing empty-handed in his efforts to constrain both the Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons programs, meaning that instability in the Middle East and East Asia will surely grow. In Japan, Mr. Obama discussed contentious issues like U.S. forces based on Okinawa, but did not seem in his public comments to understand what he and the new Japanese government had agreed to. Ironically, his warmest reception, despite his free-trade ambivalence, was in South Korea, where President Lee Myung-bak has reversed a decade-long pattern by taking a harder line on North Korea than Washington.

Overall, President Obama surely suffered his worst setbacks in Beijing, on trade and economics, on climate change, and on security issues. CNN analyst David Gergen, no conservative himself, compared Mr. Obama's China meetings to Kennedy's disastrous 1961 encounter with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna, a clear indicator of how poorly the Obama visit was seen at home. The perception that Mr. Obama is weak has already begun to emerge even in Europe, for example with French President Nicholas Sarkozy, and if it emerges in Asia as well, Obama and the U.S. will suffer gravely.

Many media analysts attributed the lack of significant agreements in Beijing to the "rising China, declining America" hypothesis, which suits their ideological proclivities. But any objective analysis would show that it was much more Mr. Obama's submissiveness and much less a new Chinese assertiveness that made the difference. Mr. Obama simply seems unable or unwilling to defend U.S. interests strongly and effectively, either because he feels them unworthy of defense, or because he is untroubled by their diminution.

Of course, most Americans believe they elect presidents who will vigorously represent their global interests, rather than electing Platonic guardians who defend them only when they comport with his grander vision of a just world. Foreign leaders, whether friends or adversaries, expect the same. If, by contrast, Mr. Obama continues to behave as a "post-American" president, China and others will know exactly how to take advantage of him.更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
Report

Replies, comments and Discussions:

  • 枫下茶话 / 政治经济 / President Obama Didn't Impress Asia -- China and others know exactly how to take advantage of a 'post-American' President. By John Bolton
    本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Barack Obama's first visit to Asia since his inauguration was one of the most disappointing trips by any U.S. president to the region in decades, especially given media-generated expectations that "Obamamania" would make it yet another triumphal progression. It was a journey of startlingly few concrete accomplishments, demonstrable proof that neither personal popularity nor media deference really means much in the hard world of international affairs.

    The contrast between Asia's reception for Obama and Europe's is significant. Although considered a global phenomenon, Obamamania's real center is Europe. There, Mr. Obama reigns as a "post-American" president, a multilateralist carbon copy of a European social democrat. Asians operate under no such illusions, notwithstanding the "Oba-Mao" T shirts briefly on sale in China. Whatever Mr. Obama's allure in Europe, Asian leaders want to know what he means for peace and security in their region. On that score, opinion poll ratings mean little.

    What the president lacked in popular adulation, however, he more than made up for in self-adulation. In Asia, he labeled himself "America's first Pacific president," ignoring over a century of contrary evidence. The Pacific has been important to America since the Empress of China became the first trading ship from the newly independent country to reach the Far East in 1784. Theodore Roosevelt created a new Pacific country (Panama) and started construction on the Panama Canal to ensure that America's navy could move rapidly from its traditional Atlantic bases to meet Pacific challenges. William Howard Taft did not merely live on Pacific islands as a boy, like Obama, but actually governed several thousand of them as Governor-General of the Philippines in 1901-1903. Dwight Eisenhower served in Manila from 1935 to 1939, and five other presidents wore their country's uniform in the Pacific theater during World War II—two of whom, John F. Kennedy and George H.W. Bush, very nearly perished in the effort.

    View Full Image

    AFP

    Not quite seeing eye to eye: Barack Obama meets with Premier Wen Jiabao in Beijing.
    But it was on matters of substance where Mr. Obama's trip truly was a disappointment. On economics, the president displayed the Democratic Party's ambivalence toward free trade, even in an economic downtown, motivated by fear of labor-union opposition. On environmental and climate change issues, China, entirely predictably, reaffirmed its refusal to agree to carbon-emission limitations, and Mr. Obama had to concede in Singapore that the entire effort to craft a binding, post-Kyoto international agreement in Copenhagen had come to a complete halt.

    On U.S. national security, Mr. Obama came away from Beijing empty-handed in his efforts to constrain both the Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons programs, meaning that instability in the Middle East and East Asia will surely grow. In Japan, Mr. Obama discussed contentious issues like U.S. forces based on Okinawa, but did not seem in his public comments to understand what he and the new Japanese government had agreed to. Ironically, his warmest reception, despite his free-trade ambivalence, was in South Korea, where President Lee Myung-bak has reversed a decade-long pattern by taking a harder line on North Korea than Washington.

    Overall, President Obama surely suffered his worst setbacks in Beijing, on trade and economics, on climate change, and on security issues. CNN analyst David Gergen, no conservative himself, compared Mr. Obama's China meetings to Kennedy's disastrous 1961 encounter with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna, a clear indicator of how poorly the Obama visit was seen at home. The perception that Mr. Obama is weak has already begun to emerge even in Europe, for example with French President Nicholas Sarkozy, and if it emerges in Asia as well, Obama and the U.S. will suffer gravely.

    Many media analysts attributed the lack of significant agreements in Beijing to the "rising China, declining America" hypothesis, which suits their ideological proclivities. But any objective analysis would show that it was much more Mr. Obama's submissiveness and much less a new Chinese assertiveness that made the difference. Mr. Obama simply seems unable or unwilling to defend U.S. interests strongly and effectively, either because he feels them unworthy of defense, or because he is untroubled by their diminution.

    Of course, most Americans believe they elect presidents who will vigorously represent their global interests, rather than electing Platonic guardians who defend them only when they comport with his grander vision of a just world. Foreign leaders, whether friends or adversaries, expect the same. If, by contrast, Mr. Obama continues to behave as a "post-American" president, China and others will know exactly how to take advantage of him.更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
    • President Reagan's speech at FuDan University in 1984 -
      本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛I would like to tell you something about us, and also share something of my own values.

      First of all, America is really many Americas. We call ourselves a nation of immigrants, and that's truly what we are. We have drawn people from every corner of the Earth. We're composed of virtually every race and religion, and not in small numbers, but large. We have a statue in New York Harbor that speaks of this, a statue of a woman holding a torch of welcome to those who enter our country to become Americans. She has greeted millions upon millions of immigrants to our country. She welcomes them still. She represents our open door.

      All of the immigrants who came to us brought their own music, literature, customs, and ideas. And the marvelous thing, a thing of which we're proud, is they did not have to relinquish these things in order to fit in. In fact, what they brought to America became American. And this diversity has more than enriched us; it has literally shaped us.

      This tradition -- the tradition of new immigrants adding to the sum total of what we are -- is not a thing of the past. New immigrants are still bringing their talents and improving the quality of American life. Let me name a few -- I think you'll know their names.

      In America, Wang computers have become a fixture in offices throughout the country. They are the product of the energy and brilliance of Mr. An Wang, who himself is the product of a Shanghai university.

      The faces of our cities shine with the gleaming buildings of Mr. I.M. Pei, who first became interested in architecture as a student here in Shanghai.

      What we know of the universe and the fundamental nature of matter has been expanded by the Nobel Prize winning scientist, Dr. Lee Tsung-Dao, who was born in Shanghai.

      We admire these men; we honor them; and we salute you for what you gave them that helped make them great.

      Sometimes in America, some of our people may disagree with each other. We are often a highly disputatious nation. We rather like to argue. We are free to disagree among ourselves, and we do. But we always hold together as a society. We've held together for more than 200 years, because we're united by certain things in which we all believe, things to which we've quietly pledged our deepest loyalties. I draw your special attention to what I'm about to say, because it's so important to an understanding of my country.

      We believe in the dignity of each man, woman, and child. Our entire system is founded on an appreciation of the special genius of each individual, and of his special right to make his own decisions and lead his own life.

      We believe -- and we believe it so deeply that Americans know these words by heart -- we believe ``that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among those are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'' Take an American student or teacher aside later today and ask if he or she hasn't committed those words to memory. They are from the document by which we created our nation, the Declaration of Independence.

      We elect our government by the vote of the people. That is how we choose our Congress and our President. We say of our country, ``Here the People Rule,'' and it is so.

      Let me tell you something of the American character. You might think that with such a varied nation there couldn't be one character, but in many fundamental ways there is.

      We are a fairminded people. We're taught not to take what belongs to others. Many of us, as I said, are the children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren of immigrants, and from them we learned something of hard labor. As a nation we toiled up from poverty, and no people on Earth are more worthy to be trusted than those who have worked hard for what they have. None is less inclined to take what is not theirs.

      We're idealists. Americans love freedom, and we've fought and died to protect the freedom of others. When the armies of fascism swept Europe four decades ago, the American people fought at great cost to defend the countries under assault.

      When the armies of fascism swept Asia, we fought with you to stop them. And some of you listening today remember those days, remember when our General Jimmy Doolittle and his squadron came halfway around the world to help. Some of those pilots landed in China. You remember those brave young men. You hid them and cared for them and bound up their wounds. You saved many of their lives.

      When the Second World War was won, the United States voluntarily withdrew from the faraway places in which we had fought. We kept no permanent armies of occupation. We didn't take an inch of territory, nor do we occupy one today. Our record of respect for the freedom and independence of others is clear.

      We're a compassionate people. When the war ended we helped rebuild our allies -- and our enemies as well. We did this because we wanted to help the innocent victims of bad governments and bad policies, and because, if they prospered, peace would be more secure.

      We're an optimistic people. Like you, we inherited a vast land of endless skies, tall mountains, rich fields, and open prairies. It made us see the possibilities in everything. It made us hopeful. And we devised an economic system that rewarded individual effort, that gave us good reason for hope.

      We love peace. We hate war. We think -- and always have -- that war is a great sin, a woeful waste. We wish to be at peace with our neighbors. We want to live in harmony with friends.

      There is one other part of our national character I wish to speak of. Religion and faith are very important to us. We're a nation of many religions. But most Americans derive their religious belief from the Bible of Moses, who delivered a people from slavery; the Bible of Jesus Christ, who told us to love thy neighbor as thyself, to do unto your neighbor as you would have him do unto you.

      And this, too, has formed us. It's why we wish well for others. It's why it grieves us when we hear of people who cannot live up to their full potential and who cannot live in peace.

      We invite you to know us. That is the beginning of friendship between people. And friendship between people is the basis for friendship between governments.

      The silence between our governments has ended. In the past 12 years, our people have become reacquainted, and now our relationship is maturing. And we're at the point where we can build the basis for a lasting friendship.

      Now, you know, as I do, that there's much that naturally divides us: time and space, different languages and values, different cultures and histories, and political systems that are fundamentally different. It would be foolish not to acknowledge these differences. There's no point in hiding the truth for the sake of a friendship, for a friendship based on fiction will not long withstand the rigors of this world.

      But let us, for a moment, put aside the words that name our differences and think what we have in common. We are two great and huge nations on opposite sides of the globe. We are both countries of great vitality and strength. You are the most populous country on Earth; we are the most technologically developed. Each of us holds a special weight in our respective sides of the world.

      There exists between us a kind of equipoise. Those of you who are engineering students will perhaps appreciate that term. It speaks of a fine and special balance.更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
      • Reagan's message to Obama: Be not afraid to speak of America, its values -- the values that made America and made it great. When anti-democratic forces give you a chance to speak out seize it, loudly and proudly.
        Use the bully pulpit to advance these timeless, universal ideals.
        Of course, doing so requires believing in those principles, in the mind, the heart, and in the gut. A believer needs to be a true believer before he can proclaim liberty to the captives.
    • 难道美国人就应该走到哪捞到哪吗, 什么SHIT啊