Left Flank

It's not just that the Democrats will nominate the first African-American person to be president, or that Senator Obama put down Senator Clinton's race-baiting campaign (both links via bjkeefe's "Racial Politics") in Midwest states. Both of these remarkable feats are just the aftershocks of a larger dynamic:

MR. RUSSERT: But, Gerry and John, we're going to have big difference on the big issues. John McCain will say, "We're going to stay in Iraq"; Barack Obama say, "Get out." Barack Obama will say, "Roll back the Bush tax cuts on the top income earners"; John McCain will say, "Keep it going." John McCain will say, "No national healthcare as such"; Barack Obama will say, "national healthcare." Every issue, people are going to have to make a big choice, a big decision. John McCain will say, "No conversations with Iran, period"; Obama will say, "We'll talk to our adversaries." Big differences.

MR. SEIB: Oh, absolutely. You know, I spent some time at Obama headquarters on Friday and that was a lot of the discussion there. You know, people don't realize yet, there's going to be real policy debate in this campaign. This is about to become a real divide between two candidates of different views. Healthcare, I think, is the best example. And in the Hamas episode, which we were just discussing, there is yet another element that was in there, embedded in there, that you didn't mention. We've seen in our Wall Street Journal/NBC News polling all year, the one area where Republicans can still claim an advantage is national security and military affairs. The McCain people are going to go at that time and time again, and that's why John McCain jumped on the Hamas statement so quickly.

Come September, Americans might actually have to consider very divergent platforms on prominent issues, like health care reform and the Iraq War. The next administration's initiatives on economic issues, like fiscal policy, pensions, and trade, will affect whether Americans divide into coalitions, on one hand, based around haves and have-not's, color and white, pluralistic and mainstream, or conceivably two post-realignment parties haggling over minor tactical policies.

The only question is whether the Democratic and Republican nominees will spend September flooding the airwaves with negative ads, or debates.

Could beef start a war?

As I was sitting here in Busan, working on a paper about natural resources and civil war and listening to news of South Korean protests against the importation of American beef, I discovered the War of the Farrapos. According to the Correlates of War database, this civil war between Brazilians resulted in over 200,000 deaths on both sides and lasted ten years. The cause was trade.

The uprising is believed to have began due to the difference between the economy of Rio Grande do Sul and the rest of the country. Unlike the other provinces, the state economy focused in the internal market rather than exporting commodities, the state's main product, the charque (bovine dried and salted meat), suffering badly from the competition of charque imported from Uruguay and Argentina, which had free access to Brazilian market while the gauchos were charged high tariffs inside Brazil.

Crazy, huh? Maybe, but Seoul Searcher thinks South Koreans are even crazier.

Incidentally, watching and reading about the protests against American beef imports, I was quite mystified by the meek, almost inaudible, protests, much less action, against harmful products imported from China. So many Chinese goods, including foodstuff as well as toys, have been scientifically proven to be toxic and harmful to our health and yet not a «boo» has been uttered against their import.

Does this mean that we, Koreans, are such a gullible people that we can only react when the biased media and some unconscionable politicians and entertainers spread groundless rumors and unalloyed lies? Yes, this, I am afraid, is true to a large extent.

But what makes us so gullible? Are we collectively naïve or stupid so that we can easily be manipulated and swayed by politicians or other interest groups? I don't think so. We may be often blinded by or made to believe in something because of monetary and material greed, but never because of naivety or stupidity.

If anything, Koreans, on the whole, are very emotional and hasty rather than coolly rational and deliberate in making judgments on any social and political issue. And let's face it, we are also a pretty insecure and paranoiac bunch of people as we have long been suffering from an inferiority complex.

Because of these regrettable national traits, we easily become prey to the demagoguery of a few unscrupulous people who have their own ax to grind or political hay to make at our expense. But we are smart enough and are living in an advanced society where we should be able to make our own judgments and decisions based on objective facts, not just listen to other people and follow them blindly.

Yet, USTR Susan Schwab might be the wackiest of all! But, just in case, I'll be looking out for South Korean gauchos!

The post-mortems on Hillary Clinton are starting to appear in print (ironically, the MSM resuscitates her, and then tramples all over her). The Nation's Ari Berman wants to gloat that Senator Clinton's demise in 2008 resulted from her vote authorizing the Iraq War and the Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran. That's the angle that will help put Senator McCain in the White House. More plausibly and soberly, Time's Karen Tumulty doesn't rely on one explanation, but five. I would add: Clinton couldn't adapt nimbly enough.

Clinton's stodginess appears mostly in her inability to recover from the January 29 debacle in Florida and Michigan. After not advocating a strategy to correct for the two states' Democratic parties' embarrassing bids to join the early primary season's scrum, she got what she deserves: a delegate count just lower than the number she should have received and the loss of momentum had both states been in play. She didn't show leadership then, and now she does not deserve to be the nominee now. Senator Obama did no better, even if he's trying to tempt Florida back into his statistical column. But, then, he didn't run as the "experience" candidate!

But, really, as Euler offered, it is time for a third party:

True, Mrs Clinton seems more popular among white working- and middle-class Americans. That puts Mr Obama at something of a disadvantage against John McCain, the Republican nominee. But arguments about Mr Obama's allure to white voters boil down rather too often to a coded argument about race: would America elect a black man? The United States still has big problems with race (read The Big Remaining Question), but its effect in the general election may be exaggerated.

Mr Obama's main problem with white voters may have more to do with class than race. To the white working man and woman, he has been seen too often as an aloof elitist, who can't drink whisky, displays a suspicious familiarity with the price of an arugula salad and memorably bowled a deplorable 37 in Altoona, Pennsylvania. Toffishness doomed John Kerry; but with Mr Obama, a child of a single mother who sometimes used food stamps, that picture is surely reversible.

Meanwhile, Mr Obama attracts other voters in a way Mrs Clinton never has. For every white bigot who switches sides because of Mr Obama's skin colour, there is likely to be a white independent—especially a young one—running to support him. The data show that young people, both black and white, prefer Mr Obama. Against Mrs Clinton, Mr McCain might have swept up all the independents; with Mr Obama he will have to split them. Mr Obama has raised money from close to 1.5m individuals, far more than anybody else ever has. That will stand him and his party in good stead come November. Each of those donors will be working hard to make sure that their investment is not wasted: an army of footsoldiers to fight the Republicans.

The other point of the primary system is to see what somebody is like under pressure, and to measure their presidential character. Mrs Clinton, for instance, has stood out, thus far at least, by her refusal to quit; Mr McCain by his refusal to compromise on either Iraq or free trade. Mr Obama is a less feisty sort, but he has exhibited enormous grace under pressure. In the past few weeks he has had to cope not just with a fresh set of outpourings from his turbulent former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, now mercifully disowned, but also with Mrs Clinton throwing the kitchen sink—and a lot of sharp cutlery—at him. Mr Obama's refusal to follow her (and Mr McCain) in supporting an idiotic summer suspension of the petrol tax, crude economic populism at its worst, was especially notable.

Race and class are deep-set issues America has not addressed for at least a generation-my parents' generation. In affluence, the boomers undid many cultural and gender-based problems, but the revolution stopped at the Jordan. To assimilate the next generations' of African-Americans, Hispanics, and—that convenient term for perhaps a more startling future cultural phenomenon—"Asian"-Americans. The Republicans stand to gain from the flood of new, older, white conservatives. Even if Obama is the next Democratic president, the party in its current milquetoast form is finished.

Tom Engelhardt asks probably the easiest question possible on American foreign policy:

Almost seven and a half years later, an observer might be pardoned for wondering whether there hadn't been two super losers in the Cold War. Had the Soviet Union, the weaker of the two great powers of the second half of the last century, simply imploded first, while the U.S., enwreathed in a cloud of self-congratulation, was almost unbeknownst to itself also slowly making its way toward an exit?

After both...

The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-first Century by Thomas P.M. Barnett Read more about this book...

...and:

Globalization and Its Discontents by Joseph E. Stiglitz Read more about this book...

...criticized American security and financial policy after the fall of the Berlin Wall, this is really a question no ideology owns. Relating America's political demise to oil shocks is mistaking a proximate for an ultimate cause.

10% is the Burmese junta's disaster score, the amount of cyclone survivors NGOs have assisted, according to Save the Children's Joe Lowry. Alright, maybe 25%, if UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs John Holmes!

In what appeared to be a bid to get the regime to stop hindering the relief effort, the UN launched a $187m programme of emergency food and relief for Burma.

The appeal, launched in New York by Mr Holmes, said contributions by member states would be used to fund 10 UN agencies and nine charities working to relieve the suffering of the Burmese.

However, the amount of aid that has got into the country thus far has been severely limited. The UN believes that, as of last Wednesday, just 276,000 of the 1.5m cyclone survivors had received any relief supplies from UN agencies or nongovernmental organisations.

Some western governments are considering whether they can carry out humanitarian operations in the country without the consent of the Burmese regime.

«There is no substitute for the regime's consent for letting in aid,» said one British official. «But if that consent is withheld, the alternative is that tens of thousands of people are left to die.»

I would say, it's time for the USS Essex Strike Group, currently deployed for Operation Cobra Gold near Thailand, to redeploy.

The US is still waiting for the green light to start relief flights into Myanmar, to assist Burmese citizens recovering from a 190 kph Cyclone, nicknamed Nargis, and a 3.5 meter wave on May 3. The Burmese government has learned from the North Koreans to beware of foreign benefactors for internal security reasons. I would expect the Burmese junta to request some sort of handover at the border, to allow the junta to change the markings on food and control distribution.

However, the odds against a successful operation are mounting.

Another WFP official said three planes were waiting on tarmacs in Bangkok, Dhaka and Dubai with 38 tonnes of supplies.

Myanmar's generals had issued an appeal for international assistance, but have been dragging their feet over issuing visas to foreign aid workers.

WFP spokesman Paul Risley said aid agencies normally expect to fly in experts and supplies within 48 hours of a disaster, but nearly a week after the Myanmar cyclone, few international groups have been able to send reinforcements into Myanmar.

State media are reporting a death toll of 22,980 with 42,119 missing, although diplomats and disaster experts said the real figure from the massive storm surge that swept into the Irrawaddy delta is likely to be much higher.

»The information that we're receiving indicates that there may well be over 100,000 deaths in the delta area,» Shari Villarosa, charge d'affaires of the US embassy in Myanmar, said in a teleconference with reporters in Washington.

The Economist points out another effect of the tragedy: further strain on IGOs' ability to provide food.

Demonstrating its warped sense of priorities, the government is insisting that its referendum on a new constitution—which the superstitious junta has scheduled for the «auspicious» date of Saturday May 10th—will go ahead in areas unaffected by the cyclone. In affected areas voting will be delayed by 14 days.

The constitution, scripted during a drawn-out and farcical process overseen by the generals, will give them the power to continue intervening in politics at will, if and when there is a nominally civilian government. It would also reserve 25% of parliamentary seats for army officers, giving them a veto over constitutional changes. It is hard to see how they could hold a proper vote amid such devastation. However, with many reports of people being coerced to vote «yes» and intimidated if they called for a «no» vote, it is clear that it never was going to be a proper vote anyway.

Yet, some Burmese see an opportunity to bloody the junta's nose.

"This is an opportunity for opposition groups to make limited gains," says Thitinan Pongsudhirak, head of the Institute of Security and International Studies at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University. "There will be mounting pressures on the government because of its inadequacies. Opposition groups have the upper hand." The disaster could also foster political reconciliation between Burma's government and the outside world, following a pattern from other natural disasters from Pakistan to Indonesia, experts say.

"It could be quite catalytic, like the [2004] tsunami in Aceh," says John Virgoe, the International Crisis Group's Southeast Asia project director in Jakarta, Indonesia. "Indonesia does show how game-changing these disasters can be: The tsunami allowed both sides to say, 'Let's put aside our differences,' " he adds, referring to a cease-fire that ended a running conflict between the Indonesian Army and rebel separatists in Aceh.

Mr. Virgoe and others, however, are quick to caution against drawing a direct parallel to Burma, which has shown disdain for dialogue with political opponents and sent mixed signals about even accepting foreign aid workers.

(...)

Speaking from the Thai-Burmese border, Nyo Myint, head of foreign affairs for the main opposition National League for Democracy (NLD) party led by Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, says many survivors in the Irrawaddy delta lack drinking water and food. "Some wells have been filled up with dead bodies. [People] are trying to get drinking water from small ponds, but they are also covered with bodies," he says. "Transportation is a problem because the jetties and the ferryboats are gone.... The only way is to have an airlift supported by the US or [others]."

Since receiving its first international shipment from Thailand Tuesday, Burma has accepted aid from longtime friends China, India, and Indonesia. The US upped its aid pledge to $3 million Wednesday.

The visa holdup for foreign aid workers underscores Burma's dilemma: The Army cannot respond adequately, but allowing outside aid will invite unprecedented scrutiny. "This government is paranoid about foreigners coming in and establishing contacts with the people of Burma," says Aung Zaw, editor of Irrawaddy Magazine, an opposition publication based in Thailand.

Since taking power in a military coup in 1962, Burma's government has positioned itself as one of the world's most authoritarian and isolated. Though the NLD won a landslide election in 1990, the junta rejected the results. And last September's protesters were quickly suppressed.

Many believe the cyclone has created an opportunity for change. "People who I've spoken to in Yangon [Rangoon] are very upset with the government," says Mr. Zaw. "Soldiers who came out against the protesters are nowhere to be seen now."

Mr. Myint, of the NLD, says the government has been unable to prevent looting or provide the basics. "Even in big towns with 100,000, there's only a hundred people receiving government handouts," he says. "They're trying their best, but they can only cover about 5 percent of what is really badly needed."

Yet, even more disconcerting than that partisan bickering, is this exchange between UNSC members France and PRC:

More than $30 million in cash and goods has been pledged, the U.N. undersecretary-general for emergency relief coordination, John Holmes, told reporters yesterday. A handful of U.N. humanitarian workers could soon be able to go to the country to assess the needs on the ground, he said, adding that while entry visas have not been denied, the Burmese authorities have made entry difficult, with high-ranking officials saying visa approval needed to be deferred to "higher authorities."

"I think we are making progress. I hope we are making progress. I don't want to sound too optimistic," Mr. Holmes said, urging Burma's government to temporarily waive visa requirements for humanitarian workers. Asked about reports that the junta is demanding complete control over the distribution of goods, he said: "It will be very difficult for us to accept" such an arrangement.

Still, Mr. Holmes discouraged a "confrontational" approach with the Burmese government, telling reporters that the United Nations has no plans to "invade" Burma. Taking a different tack, the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, said yesterday that "it must be checked" whether the junta "could be forced to let the necessary aid into the country," the Associated Press reported.

Asked about Mr. Kouchner's statement during a closed-door Security Council consultation, the French ambassador, Jean-Maurice Ripert, said Mr. Holmes should brief the council on the extent of the access Burma's government has provided to foreign humanitarian workers. "We need to listen to him," Mr. Ripert said.

But a Chinese diplomat told Mr. Ripert that the council, which is charged with international peace and security, should not discuss humanitarian issues. The Chinese official pointed out that the council never discussed the Paris heat wave of 2003, in which 14,000 people died.

Mr. Ripert said he did not think such "sarcastic" comparisons were helpful. "I thanked him for reminding me the difference between a democracy and dictatorship," he said later.

Is this how Beijing, which has committed itself to be Yangon's patron, is going to play an international role?

After reading O'Sullivan's Shrewd Sanctions: Statecraft and State Sponsors of Terrorism (2003) about a year ago, but this was the first time I've listened to her, particularly about the Iraq War. O'Sullivan disagrees with a Democratic proposal to withdraw precipitously, because withdrawal will cause Iraqi politicians to retreat into their partisan communities and eschew the sort of nationalizing reforms Baghdad needs to enact.

Of course, that's if one argues Iraq should, or can, achieve centralized, as opposed to a federal, government.