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.

Matthew Lee pursues the question of which countries can aid Myanmar, by what the UN calls the "right to protect" (R2P). The Burmese case doesn't fall into the four categories, genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity, that would trigger R2P. That would rule out UN action. Mark Leon Goldberg, however, advocates a less rigorous criterion: "...the international community is permitted to violate the sovereignty of a country when that country is unwilling or unable to prevent mass atrocities from being visited upon its own citizens."

Although western-donated aid is mostly stymied by Burmese authorities, Chinese and Indian-donated aid has reached Myanmar, according to Lee's reporting. Spencer Ackerman confirms this willful obstructionism, and pleads for a solution, even by force. I think Lee is onto a pertinent issue: not R2P, but how states disburse aid.

...developments this week lead Inner City Press to wonder why China does not develop and publicize its own humanitarian machinery, its own Chinese Bernard Kouchner. It could fly aid into Yangon, and film itself doing it. It could say, "we don't need these Western NGOs, we'll do it ourselves." Supposedly China hired a U.S. public relations firm to burnish its image. Where are they? Then again, the Chinese mission has not done an on-camera stakeout interview outside the Council since October 2007.

On the other hand, or foot, at the Security Council stakeout after China's Amb. Liu said that China flew into Yangon "tents and money," one wag muttered, "And guns." Still another said that the French oil industry active in Myanmar ought to be delivering aid. We will continue to explore these issues.

There's a difference between France's hunger for limelight and PRC's quiet approach. Could this be the foundation of a Bolton-PRC alliance against UN empowerment explicit in R2P? I'm not comfortable with the notion of world government, but that doesn't rule out governance. There needs to be accountability somewhere, whether it's Beijing's responsibility or aid NGOs.

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.

UN Charge d-Affaires Shari Villarosa offers as succinct an answer for why the Burmese junta refuses international aid.

SHARI VILLAROSA, Top U.S. Diplomat in Myanmar: There is some recovery efforts going on. There is some aid coming in and getting distributed, but still not in large quantities.

And, late this afternoon, we got the bad news that the foreign ministry is going to turn down not only our request to send in disaster assistance experts, but that of all the aid agencies that were hoping to send them in.

RAY SUAREZ: Did they give you any explanation for that decision?

SHARI VILLAROSA: No.

RAY SUAREZ: Are they letting similar offers of aid go through from, for instance, regional neighbors?

SHARI VILLAROSA: Not really.

What we -- they -- they will accept aid from anyone, including the United States, but in terms of commodities. But they don't seem to want the people.

And, the way some diplomats are acting at the UN, is that any wonder?

"We can intervene in the hours, or minutes, to come," said Mr. Kouchner, referring to French ships nearby. But they have not yet been given the go ahead, the Associated Press added.

Meanwhile, Kouchner's proposal of forcing aid into the country gained little traction. Confrontation would not be helpful, UN Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs David Holmes said Thursday, a stance echoed by the European Commission, China, and other nations.

"I can understand the sentiment of France's foreign minister, but I don't think it's the solution," says James Schoff, associate director of Asia-Pacific studies at the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis in Cambridge, Mass.

"You could get to a point where [the UN] could just do drops from the air. But for the whole assessment process – I don't see how you could do that without working with locals on the ground," he continues.

Analysts are hard pressed to recall a natural disaster where the UN's "responsibility to protect" – a phrase conceived in 2005 largely in response to atrocities in Rwanda and Darfur – has been invoked.

There is probably no other possibility for delivering aid to Burma right now, Mr. Schoff continues, other than slow diplomatic gains and persistence. In a few days, Burma might come around, he says.

Go, Kouchner! Don't get me wrong-the Burmese junta is acting execrably. The Chinese are treating Myanmar like their own vassal state. The UN, for all the good will of the secretary-general and a few others, is full of itself. Dump the goods on the border, marked Myanmar even, and leave. Unless one wants to consider Myanmar another DPRK, and just starve the junta and the population into submission, that is. But, will anyone accept that?