According to the Beltway insider Nelson Report, here are Obama's Asia advisors:++++++++++
Obama's Asia Advisors:
Monitoring of all foreign policy advisors is by Tony Lake, Clinton 1 National Security Advisor, assisted by Mark Lippert, back from military duty in Iraq.
Directly in charge of the Asia team is Amb. Jeff Bader, ex-State, NSC, USTR, also in charge of China, and administering the team via Mona Sutphen, of Stonebridge International, directly to the Campaign via Denis McDonough, a former Sen. Daschle expert on energy, the environment and trade.
For ease of discussion and/or recognition, we've divided the Asia Group into "teams", all under the general supervision of Bader, but we are assured that "basically everyone talks to everyone...".
The Japan team is supervised by Michael Schiffer, and includes former NSC-econ Matt Goodman, of Stonebridge; Derek Mitchell, CSIS; and academics Carol Gluck, Amy Searight, Gerry Curtis, and Skipp Orr, also a major player in Overseas Democrats.
The Korea team's day to day work is by Frank Jannuzi of Sen. Biden's staff, and Gordon Flake, Mansfield Center, with advice from Ambassadors Tom Hubbard, and Don Gregg, former President of The Korea Society, and Steve Bosworth, and arms control expert Joel Wit.
China is run directly by Bader, with assistance from Richard Bush, ex-AIT now Brookings; Ken Lieberthal, former NSC; Mike Lampton, SAIS; Evan Medeiros, back at RAND again; Bob Kapp, former president of the US-China Business Council; Kevin Nealer, The Scowcroft Group; Bob Suettinger, former NSC and CIA now consultant.
General Asia, SE Asia, et al group, including economic and environmental issues... Catherine Dalpino, Bob Gelbard, Liz Economy, Jamie Metzel, and Bob Oxnam.
++++++++++
[Taiwan]
30 comments:
.
.
.
One bit of important news today about Obama and, perhaps, about his core principles.
An unconstitutional FISA bill was passed in congress today which was an unmistakable capitulation to the Bush administration. It was also another example of how big corporations can get away with breaking the law without accountability. With this lack of accountability, came the distinct dissolution of any leverage the Democrats had with respect to finding out who said what to whom.
Here's Obama's response:
"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program,"
This was a distinct reversal from a few months earlier.
Obama has also recently said "no" to public campaign financing.
This puts up serious red flags for me as Obama being a trustworthy candidate that sticks to his principles and the corporate influence on his politics. Should this compromising of trust also play a factor with our optimism towards any favourable opinions he has about the China / Taiwan situation. I think it does.
.
.
.
Great (sarcasm). Now I have a whole bunch of names I have to look up.
Any idea how many of those people are Clinton retreads? I remember getting an awful feeling when I heard Clinton was appointing Carter retreads, and the results weren't pretty. I would be comforted if Obama were looking elsewhere for advisors.
Yes, Obama's cave on that bill was, I think, a signal that it is just going to be more politics as usual with Obama, instead of the change we really need.
I have been suspicious of Obama since I read Jagdish Bagwhati's piece arguing and approving that Obama was a free trader -- in the ideological sense. I've always disliked Hillary, a carpetbagger driven by nothing more than the desire for power, but Obama has been a mystery to me. This telecom immunity mess has dispelled much of that mystery. I'm so angry at the Dems for their lack of principled resistance to the destruction of the Constitution that I can barely contain myself. Obama could have demonstrated great leadership and love of country simply by demanding that the immunity not be granting, and making it stick.
The US is fucked, and the world with it. I'm off to brood for a while.
Michael
Free trade is a good thing if you avoid agricultural subsidies and have reasonable movements of labor.
If you feel bad about American laborers ending up with lower wages, I say, fuck you. The rest of the world can do most of the work Americans can do, and if that takes them from $1,000 US a year to $2,000 a year, even if someone in the US loses a job, I say that's an overall gain for the world.
America can't reasonably believe that trade barriers would somehow protect it from globalization. It needs to continue investing in being the innovation, media, technology, financial, marketing giant that it is, make huge investments in renewable/nuclear energy and transportation (something never talked about in the US is a purposeful movement or program to build better cities and move more Americans to the cities... the rest of the world does it). The reality of American unions is they are largely racist, nativist and corrupt.
If there are hidden costs that other countries aren't reflecting, there are always taxes that can reflect that proportionally (ie labor, pollution). Simply putting tariffs on goods produced by favored domestic industries is just politics and benefits the few.
Look at US steel. A few years ago they were screaming for the US to put dumping tariffs on Chinese and Korean steel. Their stock is now up 1000% because the market changed. What was the point of the tariffs again?
The system of tariffs or anti-trade mentality that Democrats traditionally supported is full of examples of this kind of shit favoritism. If Obama is against this, then all the more does he have my vote.
"Yes, Obama's cave on that bill was, I think, a signal that it is just going to be more politics as usual with Obama, instead of the change we really need."
This is exactly what I have been feeling all along. He is obviously intelligent -- a real thinker. However, I have no confidence that he will be a break from past politics. His low level of experience makes me think so even more, as those who have less experience must rely more on advisors, who, themselves, are products of the system.
Obama may indeed win, but the change he will bring will not be a change of system. It will be a change to the left. Some would not mind this, but I have issues with someone running on false pretenses. If he could just say "I want to put my party back in power and reverse some of the stuff that Bush has done", I would have more respect for him (although I still would not vote for him). I am tired of hearing his assurance that he will bring any other sort of change.
Sorry, Michael, but I'm not comfortable with the profanity-lace rhetoric.
It doesn't contribute meaningfully to arguments and shows a laziness in self expression, as if they can express themselves in only words of one syllable, like George Bush.
Has anyone figured out what an Obama presidency would mean for Taiwan? So far I haven't found any opinions.
I don't know; I think it's too early to write Obama off. The problem is the blue dogs in Congress who tend to vote along with Republicans on Iraq War funding, FISA, torture, bankruptcy bill, etc, so basically there is a working conservative majority. Also people like Steny Hoyer in the House and Jay Rockefeller, who are getting money from the telecoms, are the real problems with the FISA bill. Don't exactly know why Obama came out with that statement, whether it is because of his beliefs, a political calculation, alliances with certain Congressman, etc. I think Obama is still a work in progress, and people from all sides will be putting pressure on him.
Please check out this excellent commentary from Booman Tribune.
This is sort of off-topic, but some of the biggest pluses I see with Obama are with transparency, the constitution, protecting basic freedoms and privacy. It's gonna be a weird election where the libertarians ("economic" liberals beyond just the economy) are in the same boat as value liberals.
Progressives, honestly probably have more to like in Hillary, but Hillary got knocked out so... good thing I'm a libertarian liberal.
Sorry for one more comment on this, but I don't think his opponent is much of an alternative.
I am wondering if Obama, not that he's directly in the line of fire, is trying to play it conservative to attract the independent votes. Obama as a candidate may be different than Obama as a president. I think Hillary made the same error when she voted for supporting Bush's war. She wasn't thinking about the next 10 years, she was thinking about how it would play in November. Her gamble that it would make her look tough on terror (the presumed issue at the time) backfired. It is unfortunate, but Obama may have voted for that bill to blunt future criticism from McCain and get himself into the White House. For those of us who feel we couldn't do much worse the the bag of turds already in the White House, it is tough to decide if keeping the Republicans out of the executive is worth taking a chance on Obama, with the trust that he really doesn't mean a lot of the more conservative sounding rhetoric and this latest vote will be reversed once he's in office.
As I expected, bunch of closet Republican on this board. So now you going to vote for McCain? Don't fool yourselves. FISA will be challenged in court and will be ruled unconstitutional even if it passed (it haven't pass the senate yet, and it might not even have the vote to do so). Thank God most of you guys can't vote even if you want to!
Arty,
I don't really see how you get that there are a bunch of closet Republicans on this site. One of the commenters that I know of has shown a preference for McCain. But the idea that to be critical of Obama on this issue is somehow being a closet Republican is nonsensical. I don't think you read the comments all that carefully; you certainly didn't read my comments or the posts to which I linked. For what it's worth, I think the real criticism should be leveled at the Democratic leadership, particularly the DLC-types and blue dogs for always caving to the real culprits--the Bush administration, its Republican cheerleaders, the telecoms that broke the law, etc. But perhaps those who keep caving are the closet Republicans.
No arty... we're just not a bunch of blind ideologues that see and hear only what we wish to be the truth.
"As I expected, bunch of closet Republican on this board. So now you going to vote for McCain? Don't fool yourselves. FISA will be challenged in court and will be ruled unconstitutional even if it passed"
So someone should vote for a candidate who votes for unconstitutional legislation just because one has faith that the Supreme Court will find it unconstitutional? How odd! Leave aside the idea that legislation must first be challenged.
Arty, I can't speak for the others, but I am a registered Republican. No need to call me "closet". And I have issues with those who imply Republicans are inherently wrong. Past saying this, I don't need to go any further on this subject with you.
As for the others, I don't really care how they will vote, if they can vote, or what their affiliation is, as long as we can speak civilly. They can make up their own minds.
But I am from a country where people can question the candidate that their party has nominated without rejecting him outright. Countries where everything a leader does is considered golden out of principle (Grandpa Wen?) instead of in actuality tend to be a bit too authoritarian for my taste.
And I suggest you not badger others, correctly or not, over their identity, especially when you haven't yet even been able to convince most here that you are who you say you are.
arty said: Thank God most of you guys can't vote even if you want to!
So, arty, can you?
Hi Michael, this is more an anonymous tip to a link rather than a real comment so feel free to not approve this comment:
Taiwan really worships celebrities:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/business/media/22celeb.html
"But over the last decade, corporate brands have increasingly turned to Hollywood celebrities and musicians to sell their products. Stars showed up in nearly 14 percent of ads last year, according to Millward Brown, a marketing research agency. While that number has more than doubled in the past decade, it is off from a peak of 19 percent in 2004. (Hey, it could be more extreme: Celebrities appear in 24 percent of the ads in India and 45 percent in Taiwan.)"
I think the real criticism should be leveled at the Democratic leadership, particularly the DLC-types and blue dogs for always caving to the real culprits--the Bush administration, its Republican cheerleaders, the telecoms that broke the law, etc. But perhaps those who keep caving are the closet Republicans.
No, I think people just trying to find excuse not to vote for him. As for changes some of you worry about, Obama already made one huge change on how the US election suppose to run (if you haven't noticed). All Obama's money is from individuals with average of 100 dollar donations (none of the money is from lobbying groups or people associated with lobbying groups). I am so glad that he didn't fall for the Republican trap because McCain is trying to force Obama to take the public money. Because the Republican party has a lot more soft money than the Democratic party. If Obama takes the public money, all the sudden, McCain will have way more money than Obama instead of vice versa. Btw, I am donating more money to Obama again, because I want the Republican to taste its own medicine this time. Btw, McCain is taking the public fund because he didn't raise enough money from 500 dollar a plate dinner and Washington lobbying groups.
No arty... we're just not a bunch of blind ideologues that see and hear only what we wish to be the truth.
Yet you guys think DPP is so great when Chen administration behaved just like the Bush one (my personal opinion of course). The truth is that a lot of people want to find an excuse not to vote for Obama even Democrats. Do you want to see a video during the West Virginia primary?
http://tinyurl.com/5gay93
As you can see some of them don't have a excuse at all (come on just say it out loud!!!)
arty...
you see... we wouldn't just throw knee jerk support behind the DPP either. If you pay attention you'll read plenty of criticism around here too. Personally, I would support the DPP over the KMT, but I also level a fair amount of criticism their direction because they do a lot of amateurishly stupid things too.
.
.
.
Yet you guys think DPP is so great when Chen administration behaved just like the Bush one
Ok. You've got my curiosity. Would you mind explaining how the Chen administration was like the Bush administration?
.
.
.
"So someone should vote for a candidate who votes for unconstitutional legislation just because one has faith that the Supreme Court will find it unconstitutional?"
Thomas, the problem is that there is no evidence that McCain is any better on this, and is probably a lot worse, if you read the second article to which I linked. It talks about how one of the people running McCain's campaign, was one of the people, lobbying for the telecom companies that broke the law, who crafted that legislation. Obama didn't craft it. As a senator, he had nothing to do with its even coming up for a vote. For some reason, the House Democratic leadership felt it had to make this phony "compromise." Congressional "compromise" has come to mean giving in to the wishes of George W. Bush.
Arty,
While I agree with you about small donors, that's irrelevant. Just because he does several things right, doesn't mean you can't criticize him on what he does wrong. I will definitely vote for Obama over McCain, but I will still criticize Obama when I don't agree with him. Still, I also feel he was put in a difficult position. These bills are also designed to get Congressmen on record, so that opponents can create ads citing their votes. "Obama doesn't believe in fighting the terrorists. He voted against a bill that would make us safer." Let's also see if he leads a fillibuster against telecom amnesty.
arty is trolling again. he's trying to provoke a reaction and you guys are taking the bait.
i'm going to bite as well. he's arguments are to irresistible dumb.
why are you even attempting to compare bush and the republicans with chen and the democrats?
arty, you also use terms haphazardly without a real grasp of what he is saying. "blue dogs". huh? are there a large group of former kmt'ers now dpp'ers? this isn't an english problem. it's a laziness problem. you are mentally lazy.
like bush? the dpp administration led to much greater transparency at all levels of government, while bush has been one of the most secretive. i hope the kmt continues the trend towards greater transparency, but they refuse to pass the sunshine laws (penalties for failing to declare source of assets by public officials, requiring lawmakers to be full-time and requiring them to resign from any other positions, among many other very sensible and urgent reforms) (btw, Ma Ying-jeou, being the habitual liar that he is, promised he would get it passed over two years ago in 2006... he was party chairman then and he's president now... has anything changed? no.).
bush led the US to war. the dpp didn't come close at all, while the kmt says it doesn't mind the sacrifice of a war 不惜一戰 with one of its biggest allies, japan.
bush also presided over a republican majority for most of his presidency, while the dpp for the entire history of elections in taiwan has never been the majority.
the republicans previously had a huge fundraising advantage over the democrats. the kmt in every election has always greatly outspent the dpp by huge margins (after all, they have party assets while the dpp has party debts). the kmt refuses to pass a law that would limit the amount a party can subsidize a candidate for an election (because they can always way outspend the dpp).
The US is fucked, and the world with it.
I hate to say it, but I agree. The big question is when TSHTF will it be safe to continue living in Taiwan?
By coincidence, I just happen to watch this George Carlin video a few nights ago. It's pretty good, worth a look: America is Tyranny This was the first Carlin video that I've watched in years. This one is from March08.
If anyone is interested, a good follow-up article can be found here. It's a Mike Whitney interview of Michael Hudson (Kucinich’s Chief Economic Advisor). He talk's about what Obama needs to do to get the USA back on track.
So, arty, can you?
Let me see...I was an Americorp member (citizenship required). I am registered Democrat (citizenship semi-required haha it's a joke). Resided in San Diego...come on I think Michael can see my ip right (it probably have my name and work place tag).
Ok. You've got my curiosity. Would you mind explaining how the Chen administration was like the Bush administration?
Let me see (here is some of them) alleged wrong doings:
1.Both of them have their top political advisers resigned due to scandals. 2.Both of them are(were) hiding behind executive privilege and immunity, including having their political appointees pointing figure at them after scandal broke. 3.Obstruction of investigation of criminal activities. I still don't get why Chen want to block 319 shooting investigation just like Bush try to block 911 investigation. 4. Promoting political appointees out of rank and without merit. 5. Circumvent rules and regulations of the states (how could Taiwan government wired 30 million dollars to a personal account). 6. False accusations of unpatriotic act of others opposing him politically. Chen lost a libel case, didn't he? 7. Last but not the least, both of them try to award highest national medals to their beloved advisers but what happened.
While I agree with you about small donors, that's irrelevant. Just because he does several things right, doesn't mean you can't criticize him on what he does wrong.
I am not worry about you. However, a lot of self proclaiming Democrats are trying to find a reason not to vote for Obama due to...and like I said, the bill hasn't passed the senate yet, so I think some of the critics spoke too soon. Now, some of them probably are going to call him a flip-flopper due to his new statement.
they refuse to pass the sunshine laws (penalties for failing to declare source of assets by public officials, requiring lawmakers to be full-time and requiring them to resign from any other positions, among many other very sensible and urgent reforms) (btw, Ma Ying-jeou, being the habitual liar that he is, promised he would get it passed over two years ago in 2006... he was party chairman then and he's president now... has anything changed? no.).
bush led the US to war. the dpp didn't come close at all, while the kmt says it doesn't mind the sacrifice of a war 不惜一戰 with one of its biggest allies, japan.
So if the Sunshine laws passed by the end of this year with even more strict regulations, are you going to eat your own words? And where comes the transparencies, when political appointees refused to answer questions in front of legislature (I mean didn't even show up) that certainly is more transparent. Also, Taiwan government is so transparent that no one know for 2 years that governmental money have been wired to a personal account.
Sure DPP is friendly with Japan yet 不惜一戰 is constantly used in Taiwan dependent movement. Btw, Japan primer and foreign minister just praised Ma openly on his handling of the incident. Did Japan ever praised Chen? If you think Taiwan needs Japan more than Japan needs Taiwan, think again. As an American, I will say we probably told Japan to behave nicely toward Taiwan especially you don't know which side Taiwan is going to go if sh!t hits the fan!
"Thomas, the problem is that there is no evidence that McCain is any better on this, and is probably a lot worse, if you read the second article to which I linked."
I am not trying to say that McCain is better than Obama on this issue. I am only trying to indicate that it is stupid to tell someone not to care about the fact that a candidate votes for unconstitutional legislation because they feel that that legislation may be overturned later. This applies to any election. Personally, I have other reasons to dislike O which I feel are far more important. This issue would not decide anything for me personally. It does, however reinforce my belief that O is not really a candidate for "Change".
As for Arty leading this thread astray, I am not worried. Anytime Obama, Bush, McCain, Clinton is mentioned anywhere, most civility goes out the window, unless one is preaching to the choir. Since this thread was about Obama's Asia team, and since this team is untested, there is little anyone can say about that issue. The devolution of the thread was inevitable.
Oh, and in Arty's defence, it was Stop Ma who led us down this path in the first place [Thomas throws a paper ball at Stop Ma as punishment]. None of us have really talked about Obama's Asia team from the start.
I read two articles about potential McCain/Obama Asia policies today though. Both articles may provide insight though into future Taiwan policies. Neither should shock you though. The underlying ideas in both articles are hardly revolutionary.
The question is this: What would be more positive for Taiwan, McCain's geopolitical strategy view or Obama's care for human rights? We still have no idea where either team will go, but taking this People's Daily (yes, that is the People's Daily) article as a launching point, we could get this thread on track :)
Article 1: Reuters about the People's Daily: http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-34075620080616
Article 2: AFP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080622/pl_afp/usvotechina
There is one place where I am in complete agreement with Arty. If you see yourself as a Democrat or a liberal or a progressive or are against the Iraq War and don't want an Iran War or are against torture and domestic spying and believe in the constitution and the rule of law, that nobody, including the president, is above the law, and you want to protect the environment and you believe in universal healthcare and equality of opportunity and tolerance of different ways of life, then you have a choice to make between two candidates. Neither is perfect. No one ever is. And for those of you who believe that both are the same, go ask yourself if a Gore presidency would have been the same as 8 years of Bush. I mention this because I can recall too many voices back in 2000 saying they're both the same. I'm really sorry for getting so far off the subject of Taiwan, but who becomes US president directly affects Taiwan, politically and economically. And for those who think Republicans are Taiwan's real friends, ask yourselves what has been done for Taiwan during all these years of Bush and conservative control of Congress.
Richard Bush III was interviewed and basically said Bush's asia policy was about right...look for more of the same from an Obama State Dep't.
Also, I just read in the Taipei Times that it might indeed by Ma's government that requested the delay in arms sales...any more on that Michael?
Keep up the good work.
Red A
Post a Comment