|
|
|
February 01, 2004
If only we had politics as usual
On Friday I sat on a meeting of a group of Americans who were trying to formulate a sensible foreign policy platform for the Democratic Party for the 21st century- especially since the Democrats don't really have a coherent foreign policy platform right now. The document they have produced so far was very interesting, and I especially admired how ideals and values are the focus of the platform. On Saturday I attended a Singapore society event ('Prata and Politics') which was basically a dinner and debate. The topic of the evening was the viability of opposition in Singapore politics. The speakers were well versed in debating ability and most had a very thorough knowledge of Singapore politics, and it was very interesting to hear what they had to say. What struck me later was the main difference in the two events. Despite having two sets of people who were articulate, intelligent, and knowledgeable, the first group sincerely believed that they had the ability to change American politics, requiring only strength of will, conviction and perseverence to succeed. The second group didn't believe for a second that anything they said would make a difference- no matter what they did or didn't do, the Singapore government would continue as it always did, and nothing would change until the government decides to change. The political activism and involvement which I have experienced here and in the USA is incredible and inspiring, and I cannot but help to look on it with a certain amount of envy that students in Singapore don't have the same idealism and activism. Every one is too comfortable and not willing to risk the status quo. Here, on the other hand, most recently we had the long battle against top-up fees. The passion of the student protestors was unmistakeable, if- in my opinion- misguided. In America, the Democratic primaries have been occupying the news, and it's been thoroughly fascinating watching the process from here, particularly with friends who are so knowledgeable to guide me. It's even led me to ask: who would I support for the US Presidency? Which candidate would be best for Singapore- and best for me? I must firstly declare my inherent bias: of all the Democratic candidates, only one is a fellow soldier, Rhodes Scholar and competitive swimmer (I wonder which stroke he swam?). Top of his class at West Point and NATO commander in Europe, Wesley Clark is my sentimental favourite. I like his character and background. You can't argue with his intelligent, talent, courage, conviction and character. If I could vote (and why not? Who gets the Presidency affects us in Singapore as much as any American!), I would vote Clark. However, in a hard-headed evaluation of the issues, Clark comes out short. On economic/foreign policy issues (i.e. issues which affect Singapore), the closest match with my beliefs is John Kerry. Pro-immigration, wants to support and extend free trade, favours engagement and trade with China, supports multilateral cooperative internationalism, strongly favours working with the UN and seeking multilateral solutions to conflicts, and seeks to reduce US military spending. The candidates I am completely opposed to are Kucinich and Edwards- both are against free trade, with Kucinich speaking out against the FTA with Singapore, and they both want to get tough on China, among other things. On personal issues, however, Howard Dean appears to be the best match: He's in favour of abortion, same-sex civil unions, seperate of church and state (esp. in schools), universal health care, the death penalty, progressive taxation, the environment, and medical marijuana, for example. Of course, Kerry and Dean agree on many issues, which makes a choice difficult. However, not only does a candidate's opinions on foreign policy and free trade issues means a lot more to me (I'm not planning to live in the US), but Kerry agrees with me more on the personal issues than Dean does on the economic/foreign policy issues. While his position on personal issues seems decent enough to me, as is his foreign policy stance, I would like it if Clark comes out and articulates his economic platform more. I haven't got a clear idea of his position on China, and his "I'm in favour of fair trade, not free trade" statement has implications I 'm not sure of. On the one hand, he talks about "open borders" but on the other, he talks about enforcing labour and environmental standards everywhere. I'm going to have to set aside Clark for the time being. So, my dear readers, for Democratic nominee for President of the USA, thum.org endorses John F. Kerry. Posted by pj at 09:19 AM
|
|
|
| o |
But when I think about it, I'm probably still voting Clark. So much for being hard-headed.
PJ spoke on February 1, 2004 09:58 AMThe ostensible role of the WTO is to regulate trade,prevent trade wars and protect the interest of poor nations.In reality,WTO implements and enforces globally the same agenda the World Bank and the IMF have imposed on most of the developing world.Rather than protecting people's health,safety,livelyhood and culture,the WTO's free trade rules undermine these basic human rights in order to consolidate the power and wealth of a small corporate elite.
The Seattle Coalition in Nov 1999 proved that.The WTO meeting broke down nt becoz of the massive demonstrations, but becoz many developing countries joined the massive opposition to the WTO's undemocratic regime tat was goin on behind the scenes.The major powers within WTO bullied the delegates,excluding delegates representing these developing countries from critical meetings and presssured them to sign a secretly negotiated agreement.
Mayb that is Clark's position on fair trade.This is perspective(as a Singaporean).
GOOOO PATRIOTS!
shindig spoke on February 2, 2004 03:44 PMWho *are* these people? Why won't you people take a moment to identify yourselves?
Okay, ZR- I think you are a bit confused about the nature of the WTO. The WTO is not meant to "protect the interest of poor nations". Its mandate is to promote trade... that's pretty much it. The thing about the WTO is that every member in theory agrees to abide by its rulings. Changes to rules are agreed to by concensus- which, again in theory, means that it has to be unanimous and that every state has a veto. So every member has agreed to its rules. If anything, the WTO's failing is that it is hyper-democratic: too much democracy, not too little. The other important thing to remember about the WTO is that it is intergovernmental, not supragovernmental. It is meant to resolve disputes between states, by acting as a referee, and does not judge morality or ideals- only the letter by the which agreements are signed.
If the WTO is so bad, why then are so many governments rushing to sign up? Consider the alternative- a self-help system, with no enforcement. Then strength would rule. Small countries would have no recourse, no one to turn to to settle disputes. Is that better?
It is true a culture of secrecy exists in the WTO. That's because all governments have something to hide- big or small. They don't want to make it public that they cravenly submitting to the interests of big business, for example. Small countries have their own interests which they are not going to talk about either. When negotiations fail, they're not going to declare that it was their fault. They are going to scream that it was a conspiracy by the major parties.
I don't buy into conspiracy theories or secretly negotiated agreements. That's giving states too much credit. All states have their own interests, all states are selfish, money talks, politics is local, and no one is ever going to admit- or even believe- that it was their fault. Those things I believe.
So if Clark is talking about fair trade, it's probably because he needs the votes from the unions who are unhappy about cheap labour taking away jobs in other parts of the world, not about some conspiracy; and when industrialised countries pressure developing countries, or vice-versa, it's about trade barriers, tariffs, subsidies, or something along that vein.
PJ spoke on February 2, 2004 05:47 PMSay... how come the minute you decide to endorse Kerry, thum.org endorses him. I still have a small part in thum.org, and I demand to be heard. It's my right!! Anyhow, since it's a 1-1 vote, I suppose administrator gets to choose, so it doesn't matter. But I demand to be heard!!
(Help, help, I'm being repressed!!)
Darth Squeaker spoke on February 4, 2004 04:51 AMI own and pay for thum.org. You are merely a worker who I permit to look after part of my domain for me. I am King; you are but an inisignificant part of thum.org with no voice whatsoever.
(Be quiet! I COMMAND you to be quiet! Bloody peasant!)
PJ spoke on February 4, 2004 10:07 AMSince when did you acquire the right to vote in American elections?
They talk about presidential elections being personality contests rather than about issues, but I do wonder how much that statement applies to primaries, especially the ones not decided by a caucus. Does having a smaller and (presumably) more involved, better informed electorate warp the results?
Much as I recognise and agree with your observations about the political involvement of youth in America vs. youth in Singapore, I do wonder how involved the Americans really are, especially in the light of Dean's having been lauded for actually motivating American youth to get involved in the electoral process.
Not having done any real research into the issue aside from following the news religiously, I tend to favour Dean on the strength of that factor. If in fact he can get the silent 50% to the polls, then he represents the best hope for a democratic swing in Congress as well.
eclectician spoke on February 9, 2004 04:56 PMWe *should* have the right to vote in the American elections! What the US President does affects us just as much as it affects Joe Blow in Anytown, USA. But even as much as this was a purely theoretical discussion, who knows? My endorsement may nudge a previous uninformed or undecided American to check out Kerry, Dean or Clark.
As to your point about American youth being involved- that wasn't my intention to argue that American youth is more involved. I was comparing informed American youth vs. informed Singaporean youth, and how the former group sincerely believes change is possible and the latter group doesn't at all. Probably the vast majority of American youth is not informed or involved with politics, just as the vast majority of Singapore youth aren't, but those who have a good idea of what's going on believe that their involvement can change things, whereas the informed Singaporeans don't believe so at all.
Finally, Dean has revolutionised his campaign by use of the internet, and campaigned strongly on anti-Bush, left-wing sentiment, but I think that Americans are coming out primarily because a) A lot of Americans really hate Bush; b) they realise after Florida 2000 that voter apathy will get you nowhere- that their vote really does matter; and c) they really hate Bush. If there's a reason why more Americans are coming to the polls, I think it's because the man in the White House has governed as an extremely polarising conservative right-winger, angering and frustrating everyone else. Dean has taken advantage of that for his campaign, but look where it's gotten him. Stick a fork in him; he's done. It'll be Kerry-Edwards to face Bush-Cheney, I think (although I hope Clark takes the South and we see Kerry-Clark!).
PJ spoke on February 9, 2004 07:18 PM