Obama and his critics

S P SETH

President Barack Obama has been dogged with charges that he is a weak and indecisive leader, especially in foreign and defence affairs. He tends to give the impression, his critics allege, that the US is no longer a strong global leader. He talks tough but is reluctant to take action when required. The famous example is about Syria when Obama laid down a ‘red line’ warning Damascus that its use of chemical weapons would invite American military retaliation; but settled for the Bashar regime, under Russian sponsorship, to get rid of their chemical stockpiles in an agreed time frame. Another recent example is the events in Ukraine, his critics point out, where Russia occupied Crimea and is said to be encouraging, if not sponsoring, separatism in eastern Ukraine, despite US warning of consequences.

At the same time, China is seen as doing its own stuff in South China Sea and East China Sea unmindful of US criticism and commitment to stand by its regional allies, like the Philippines and Japan. To Obama’s critics at home and abroad, the US writ no longer runs like it used to. Indeed, it is being flouted at will. In other words, the US is no longer the ‘indispensable’ nation that many Americans, including President Obama, still believe to be the case. Indeed, Vali Nasr, once a senior adviser to ambassador Richard Holbrooke whom Obama appointed as his special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan and is now a senior academic, has written a book titled, The Dispensable Nation: American Foreign Policy in Retreat. While the book is largely a critique of Obama’s policy in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Nasr also makes the broader point that by signaling a withdrawal from “the exuberant American desire to lead the world”, Obama has enabled China to have strategic advantage for which the US might pay a heavy price in the future.  Nasr is not the only critic. Obama faces criticism on this score and generally on foreign affairs from his political opponents as well as some in his own party.

And this continues to rile Obama. He, therefore, took the opportunity of the graduation ceremony at West Point military academy to rebut his critics and unveil his policy and vision for the rest of his term. Obama’s task is rather hard as he is presiding over a declining curve in the US power. But one wouldn’t expect him to concede it. The West Point address is, therefore, linguistic juggling to put the best spin on it. And he does it by emphasizing the need and validity of an array of options, diplomatic and others, to deal with issues confronting the US and its allies. Responding to the widely held view about the US decline, Obama has this answer: “In fact, by most measures, America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world. Those who argue otherwise—who suggest that America is in decline, or has seen its global leadership slip away—are either misreading history or engaged in partisan [in the US] politics…” And for critics like Vali Nasser calling America the dispensable nation, Obama reiterates that, “The United States is the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed, and will likely be true for the century to come.” And on another American truism, he said, “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being…”

Nobody is suggesting that the US is not powerful. It still remains the most powerful country in the world. The suggestion is that, in relative terms, its writ is challenged now and then. Take China’s projection of power in South China and East China Sea. The US is highly critical of it for destabilizing the region and has reaffirmed its treaty commitments to its allies. But look back to the mid-nineties when China sought to intimidate Taiwan militarily from holding its presidential election, which led the US to dispatch its naval carriers that had the desired effect of cooling down China. While now it would seem that China is daring the US but Washington would rather not take the bait.

Obama does make the point though that, “Regional aggression that goes unchecked—in southern Ukraine, the South China Sea, or anywhere else in the world, will ultimately impact on our allies, and could draw in our military.” He has cautioned, though, that this “… is not to say that every problem has a military solution.” Elaborating, he said, “Since World War 11, some of our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint, but from our willingness to rush into military adventures---without thinking through the consequences; without building international support and legitimacy for our action, or leveling with the American people about the sacrifice required…” He was thus telling his critics that his restraint on the use of military power first and foremost, without first exploring other avenues like diplomacy and other non-military means, is not a sign of weakness but a more considered way of conducting US foreign and defence policies. His critics in the US, and they are many, think that by sending these signals he is advertising US weakness and encouraging America’s enemies to not take it seriously. And they point to the forceful assertion by China of its sovereignty claims in South China Sea, Russia’s encouragement of separatism in Ukraine, consolidation of Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria, and the Iranian nuclear issue and to weave it all into a narrative of weak US signals to deal with these challenges head on.

While showing his preference for dealing with multiple global issues through non-military means and by building multilateral coalitions Obama, however, made it clear that the US wouldn’t hesitate to use force, if necessary. But even in these situations, “…we still need to ask tough questions about whether our action is proportional, effective and just. International opinion matters…” All this seems eminently sensible, but not to his critics who find his hedging of all sorts as a clear sign of America’s lack of resolve and weakness for its enemies to exploit.

But what sort of threat does America face? According to Obama, “… for the foreseeable future, the most direct threat to America at home and abroad remains terrorism. But a strategy that involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks is naïve and unsustainable.” And how to deal with it? Obama believes that, “…we must shift our counter-terrorism strategy--- drawing on the successes and shortcomings of our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan—to more effectively partner with countries where terrorist networks seek a foothold.” Is droning of suspected terrorists in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen and possibly others, part of such collaborative strategy? Obama is silent on this.

Despite Obama’s heroic attempt to portray that, “America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world”, his belaboured rebuttal of his critics tends to reinforce it. It is in times like this when the long reigning supremacy of one superpower (the US) is under challenge from another (China) that the world is in great danger of a conflagration from competing and contending power interests. The First World War is a telling example of this.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au 

Thailand: the land of coups

S P SETH

Thailand is living up to its notoriety as the land of coups. There have been about 12 successful military coups in the country since the thirties, and a few unsuccessful ones too—an estimated 19 in all, give or take a few. The recent one with the army taking over the running of the country might, therefore, fall into a familiar pattern. However, this one appears to have been carefully crafted over a few months as part of a concerted plan by the country’s elite establishment, comprising the military, opposition Democrat Party and elements of the monarchy, to depose the country’s duly elected government led by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. The country’s Bangkok-based elite establishment never came to terms with the results of Thailand’s periodic elections over the last decade, which regularly returned to power the Shinawatras, first the brother, Thaksin Shinawatra  (deposed in a coup in 2006 and forced into exile to escape his conviction on corruption charges) and lately his sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, who won a landslide victory in 2011 election.

The well-orchestrated and organized protests against her government started  last November when she sought to push through legislation, which would have the effect of pardoning her brother to enable him to return to Thailand at some appropriate time. The organized chaos thus created gave the army an opportunity to equate the protesting crowds with the government that was not functional, being rendered so by the powerful forces ranged against it. The organizers of the chaos and their foot soldiers, the Yellow Shirts, held the government to ransom demanding its replacement by an appointed prime minister. Since Yingluck refused to oblige, the courts were coopted to convict her for some bizarre reason of preferring the appointment of one official over another after she became prime minister. This would hardly constitute an offence to bring down an elected prime minister. But the government still refused to go as they appointed another cabinet minister to act as prime minister to replace Yingluck.

At the same time, the supporters of the government, the Red Shirts, were assembling for large-scale protests. The army could no longer play shadow games of neutrality and decided to come out by staging a coup, and rounding up government ministers and others critical of the military’s action. The opposition Democrat Party, having done its allotted role of creating chaos and helping the army to get rid of Yingluck Shinawatra, has now withdrawn joyous that they have accomplished their objective. Yingluck was seen as her brother’s proxy in the prime minister’s seat who was believed to be governing the country through remote control. The powerful hold of the Shinawatra dynasty over voters in the country’s rural and regional belt in the north was secured through provision of health care, economic subsidies and cheap loans. Which is held against the deposed prime minister, among other things.  Because the Shinawatras have such a popular hold on the rural voters, the Bangkok-based establishment believe that Thailand is not cut out for democracy. But the removal of the Yingluck government needed a game plan, and that is where the opposition Democrat Party, regularly trounced in elections, came into the picture with its self-appointed leader, Suthep Thaugsuban, putting himself in the lead role of staging and leading protests by Yellow Shirts as supporters of the monarchy.

The leader of the army coup, General Prayuth Chan-ocha, has evoked some archaic hundred years’ old law to assume sweeping powers, including the right to arrest anyone and everyone that challenges the army rule. The military junta has named itself the National Council for Peace and Order, reminding one of the dreadful Burmese military junta calling itself, the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) that ran amuck for a long time. It looks like the Thai army rule is going to be around for a fairly long time, now that they have secured the endorsement of the ailing 86-year old Thai king. This will make Thailand’s venerated monarchy increasingly partisan and controversial in a polarized country.

There is something quite odious about this new coup, with the coup leader talking of setting up “reconciliation” centres so that people with different “ideologies” can be reformed under army’s dispensation or else sent to detention centres. Putting an Orwellian spin on detentions of political leaders, General Prayuth reportedly said they were staying together “to love and be at peace” with each other. The army has taken on itself the task of ‘saving the country’, characterising the protesting Red Shirts and other critics of the army as unpatriotic. As for the journalists, particularly the foreign correspondents, one army officer reportedly said that, “Foreign correspondents are scoundrels. They are here to sell Thailand.”

The country is deeply polarized, with the north and northeast region angry at the power garb by the military and the country’s Bangkok-based establishment. The deposed government’s supporters, the Red Shirts, will particularly face the army’s wrath if they continue with their protests while the Yellow Shirts, keen to get rid of the Yingluck government, had all the time in the world to create chaos thus providing the army an excuse and opportunity to stage the coup. The army might succeed in suppressing the pro-democracy forces but it will not solve the core problem of how to make Thailand governable through democratic institutions without the army staging periodic coups in the name of the king and the country.

Thailand stands at a crossroad. There are two scenarios that might further prolong the country’s agony. First, there has been some talk of setting up a Thai government in exile under the leadership of the former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra or with his support. Second, with the army’s hard line approach likely to lead to violence and killings of the Red Shirts, the anti-army movement might go underground to start an insurrection that is likely to do much damage to the Thai economy, damaging investor confidence and drying up the lucrative tourist trade.

While the army has a lot to answer for its actions, one might mention that the Shinawatra family, particularly Thaksin Shinwatra, was not an ideal democratic leader. Starting his career as a policeman and going on to become a billionaire telecom tycoon; he made use of his position as prime minister to further enrich himself and his family through questionable means. He was authoritarian and sought to stifle opposition and media through fear. But the best counter for the opposition and the forces ranged against him is to win over the people and not to rely on the army to stage a coup (s). 

Note: This article first appeared in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au      

India and Modi

S P SETH

Narendra Modi of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is India’s new prime minister. His election is remarkable for a number of reasons. First, it is the first time that the BJP has won power on its own, without any need for a coalition. Which means that Modi has a mandate to pursue his agenda, with main focus on economic growth. Second, this time much of the caste and community configuration that has been a dominant feature of Indian elections, has not been that prominent. Modi has won this election for his BJP party and not the other way around. His election has made BJP into a national party. Though its Hindutva (Hindu nationalism) brand has won it many votes but it was largely Modi’s message of economic growth and resurgence that won him votaries even among those who are not inclined towards Hindutva. Modi and his advisers were able to skillfully cobble together a narrative of the economic wonders he had done as chief minister of Gujarat and that he will replicate them nationally; even when that narrative was questioned by some.

Third, it is important to realize that elections generally have an inbuilt anti-incumbency factor. They are, therefore, there for the government to lose rather than for the opposition to win. And in India’s recent elections, the Congress-led coalition was so unpopular that the people were keen to get rid of it. And in Modi there was a charismatic leader with a message of Indian resurgence—a choice between a new future and a discredited past. Fourth, Modi’s personal story of his rise from a ‘chaiwala’ to chief minister of Gujarat and now the country’s prime minister, resonated with many and won over the country’s lower castes and communities to his banner. He sounded very much like one of them. Besides, there were no stories of corruption and malfeasance around him.

Even with so many pluses around him, there is need to keep Modi’s victory in perspective. For instance, he and his BJP won in a first-past-the post electoral system where it got majority seats in the national parliament by polling only an overall vote of about 31 per cent. In other words, nearly 70 per cent of the votes polled were fragmented among the Congress party (which lost power), regional outfits and other groups. Therefore, Modi’s victory, though quite significant, doesn’t reflect the real picture. But that is the way the first-past-the post electoral system works. It is true that the Congress Party led by Sonia Gandhi and her son, Rahul Gandhi, suffered a rout in terms of parliamentary seats. However, despite all its woes, it still managed to poll nationally about 20 per cent of the votes. Therefore, it still is an electoral force, second only to the BJP. How it goes from here is difficult to predict at this low point in its fortunes but it would be naive to write off the Congress party completely, especially when one considers the tasks ahead for Modi.

Modi has been built up by his PR machine and the business groups behind him as a messiah who will transform India where most, if not all of its citizens, will become well-off. Which is a herculean task that even Modi, with all the hype around him, is not likely to pull off. In other words, expectations from Modi’s victory are so high that, sooner rather than later, many people will feel cheated. Even Modi’s record as a high achiever as chief minister of Gujarat is questioned by some, with the poor in that state having missed out in a big way. Besides, India is much more heterogeneous to be reduced to the example (successful or otherwise) of one state. The policies of special incentives for businesses that worked in Gujarat might not be replicated in its entirety elsewhere. And going by Modi’s political temperament, he is likely to have difficulty dealing with people who do not share his political views. 

If his government tries to grab land from tribals and farmers for industrial and mining interests or ride rough shod with labour unions and a myriad other things, this might create social unrest over a wide swath of the country. And considering that his support base consists of about 30 per cent of the voters, there are a lot of people who are not in sync with him. Initially, though, he might be able to create a sense of hope with a series of measures designed to encourage investments leading to a hike in stock market indicators. But India needs foreign investments on a large scale to rebuild and restructure its infrastructure and simultaneously invest in human capital to support such nation building.

However, foreign investors need a good return on their capital and to do that India’s highly subsidized economy will need to be freed up to charge consumers higher prices that the country’s poor and needy will not be able to afford. This has the potential for widespread unrest over time. In India’s noisy and democratic political culture (which is not a bad thing), it won’t work to hand over directives from the top and expect results. It is a messy business of negotiating and compromising with a whole host of intermediaries and groups to get things moving. Modi only has the Gujarat model before him and whether or not it really worked the way the narrative is spun is still open to question. 

In other words, for any government to function, much less perform to heightened expectations, it has to be inclusive. But Modi’s Hindutva (Hindu nationalism) is hardly inclusive, by its very definition. It tends towards excluding India’s large Muslim minority of 150 million people. He already bears the stigma of the 2002 Gujarat riots where Muslims were targeted, though an investigation by the  Supreme Court found that Modi had no case to answer. He blamed the media for the smear campaign against him. But the riots happened under his watch as Gujarat’s chief minister. There is an argument by BJP supporters that the Gujarat riots were provoked by the burning of a train of Hindu pilgrims by some Muslim miscreants. But to hold a community hostage for the crimes of a few is abhorrent.

If the BJP and the Modi government want to become really inclusive, it will need to reach out to the Muslim population of India. The Hindutva might work with some people as a national ideology but by its very definition it is not inclusive. And in a secular Indian democracy, whatever is not inclusive will cause serious problems and obstacles to nation building.

Note: This article first appeared in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au