I know a little Chinese but I am fluent in Korean and I do keep up with the news in East Asia. I can tell you that your interpretation of this sentence is not widely shared. In the spirit of what SPQR has written, on behalf of many East Asians, I wish you economic prosperity in the coming year!

Posted at May 27, 2008 2:12 PM in response to Do Words Matter?

IF that is your criticism, I think it's an interesting topic to explore. Unfortunately, it was not clear in your posting. It is also silly to take up the passive-aggressive mantle as a response to criticisms.

Having said that, let me reiterate why I do not believe it was "horribly worded." The entire paragraph and wording has to be taken as a whole and truth be told, the Asian media (which has followed this primary very closely and has scrutinized the policies of all remaining candidates as has most of the world) are not making the association with Japanese Imperialism.

Reason for this may simply be a translation thing. What we read in English is not necessarily translated in those exact words into Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, etc. Chinese in particular is a complex language, as you know, and depending on the context and tone, many different characters can be assigned depending on who is talking and what is said. Similarly, Korean is a strangely complex language and again, words are translated based on an assortment of things, including tone.

It may be that Asians simply are not reading something insidious in that paragraph and that those in the U.S. who have observed our policies for the last eight years are also not making that association.

Posted at May 27, 2008 1:09 PM in response to Do Words Matter?

I tried to respond with a bit more context above; however, I misread your post as it seems your question was much more simple.

So, in regards to your question of whether or not Obama wants to emulate the Japanese Empire because he used the words "East Asia" and "Prosperity" in the same sentence, the answer is NO.

Posted at May 27, 2008 12:47 PM in response to Do Words Matter?

Here's the wording in its entirety:

"Obama will forge a more effective framework in Asia that goes beyond bilateral agreements, occasional summits, and ad hoc arrangements, such as the six-party talks on North Korea. He will maintain strong ties with allies like Japan, South Korea and Australia; work to build an infrastructure with countries in East Asia that can promote stability and prosperity; and work to ensure that China plays by international rules."

I think you are reading too much into this and I don't believe there is any parallel to the "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" which was an pseudonym for Japan's political imperialism and economic raping of much of East and Southeast Asia in the years leading up to 1945.

The critical component is the first half of the statement that acknowledges undue focus on relations with China at the cost of neglecting long-standing East Asian allies. Nowhere was this more evident than the Bush administration's dealings with North Korea. If you look at Asian media and what is said, many people in Japan, S. Korea, and China were horrified and dismayed by the U.S.' position on N. Korea because if there is a war or a collapse of the N. Korean regime, it will be China and S. Korea that will suffer the greatest consequence--millions of refugees. Neither country can effectively deal with such a catastrophe. N. Korea is one of the great threats to stability and prosperity in Asia. Although Asian countries have met repeatedly to discuss N. Korea, the U.S. has responded with hostility towards any discussions that seemed to convey so-called "appeasement."

The word "infrastructure," I believe is meant in a diplomatic sense where the U.S. re-engages East Asia as allies and partners. Moreover, there is little evidence that those in Asia see this wording as an outline of U.S. imperialistic ambitions. For many countries in Asia, there is a real interest in China's emergence as a regional power--it should also be noted that Taiwan, Japan, and S. Korea are some of the largest international investors in China. While these countries are benefiting from China's economic expansion, there are concerns that China does not always play by accepted rules. Insisting that China play by international rules will not only be popular in the U.S. but also in Asia.

Finally, there are deep and profound internal conflicts in East Asia over Japan's roles in WWII. These conflicts are historical in much the same way that European national divisions are profound. But like Europe, there is also economic cooperation that has tied Asian countries together. What has happened in the last eight years (and even before) is that the U.S. has focused primarily on Asia as a military asset and has not kept up with the rapidly changing societies that is Asia.

Posted at May 27, 2008 11:23 AM in response to Do Words Matter?

Clinton was a cool First Lady. I thought she really broke the mold and I liked the fact that she wasn't treated or perceived as mere decoration.

She is very close with her daughter and it reminds me of my relationship with my mom.

Her detail-oriented understanding of policy is simply amazing. During debates, she is articulate, clear, and very quick on her feet.

Most of all, I love her brains. I think she's whip smart and not afraid to show it. That intellectual confidence is one of the most attractive things about Clinton. In that, she's an excellent example for many young women (and men).

Posted at May 22, 2008 1:08 PM in response to What I like about the other candidate.

I am interested in her campaign debt because there have been a series of discussions about Democrats eventually helping Sen. Clinton retire her IOUs--now at $31mm. Due to campaign finance laws, etc., a few of the rich or another campaign cannot pay off this debt and so it will most likely come from those who have given to say Obama's campaign since her supporters have been so far unable to come through. This will mean that $31mm that could have gone to various other races will instead be used to take care of a very poorly managed campaign.

Yes, we as Democrats and sympathizers all have a profound and vested interest in the rising debt of Sen. Clinton. What I don't understand is your seeming hostility to those concerned about the debt and your lack of concern about the now $31mm. Show me that Clinton supporters are coming through with their wallets and I will be less interested. I promise.

Posted at May 21, 2008 9:46 AM in response to why do TPM folks care about the $ Hill raises?

While I appreciate your sentiment, I very much doubt, actually I am certain, that Obama will not be able to inspire many Cuban-Americans in South Florida. Any discussion of diplomatic talk, negotiation, meeting, etc. with anyone named Castro or for that matter, any government member of Cuba will ensure a rejection of that candidate. Since I think Obama will pursue a different policy towards Cuba than the one we've had since 1960, Obama should expect to loose much of Florida's Cuban-American vote. BTW, I do think Obama is doing the right thing in trying to re-frame our diplomatic policies towards Cuba.

Posted at May 20, 2008 3:08 PM in response to McCain to FL Cubans,"Obama will sit down with Raul Castro"

Iran poses no direct military threat to the US (although it is seen as threatening our economic and political interests in the region). Our involvement in Iranian affairs for the last half century is (and remains) about oil and the country's strategic location--Iran borders Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, The Caspian Sea, the Persian Gulf, and of course Iraq.

We've been actively meddling in Iranian affairs since at least the time Mossadeque. Our policy doesn't really consider the historical or cultural complexities of the region and the profound divide between Sunni and Shia.

Some of the antagonisms against Iran by some ME countries have to do with fears of a rising Shia power and we are playing right along by holding hands with the Saudis and threatening to bomb Iran. It is a misguided policy, to be sure. From what I can gather, McCain's presidency will continue the policy of posturing against Iran.

Posted at May 20, 2008 2:50 PM in response to How Much of a Threat Is Iran to the US?

The face-to-face meeting with Mao was a huge benefit for the US. It allowed us to finalize our extrication from Vietnam (most of our troops were pulled out by 1973); we got assurance of China's non-aggression policy towards Taiwan in exchange for Taiwan's seat on the UN Security Council (Taiwan's loss of the seat was no accident); the actions helped to stabilize East and Southeast Asia; and we were able to use China as a counterpoint against the Soviet Union. We took advantage of the enormous animosity between China and the USSR--one of the great dangers for an all out nuclear war was between these two countries during the 1960s. This meeting was also a recognition that communist nations did not share an automatic alliance.

There are some parallels here to our contemporary concerns. Certainly, the idea of "no-preconditions" does not necessarily mean no plans or goals.

Posted at May 20, 2008 10:54 AM in response to The First US-Iran Summit Redux

Rove and the word, Constitution in the same sentence is unexpected--unless it referred to Rove burning the Constitution. Shouldn't he be in jail or something?

Posted at May 16, 2008 3:38 PM in response to Rove Hits Obama for "undermining the Constitutition" (corrected)