Obama in China.

[weiaijiayou]

This thread has veered off topic too far. I don't see it going in a positive direction. Now we have the right criticizing Obama and the left Bush. It always leads to nasty fighting and the thread being deleted. The topic is Obama's visit to China. Try to discuss it without a right or left wing agenda. We didn't allow Bush bashing when he was president. We aren't allowing Obama bashing either.

FWIW, I didn't take his questions about Bush's accomplishments to be bashing. I wasn't bothered by it because no one can remember anything, and questions are an attempt to acquire knowledge, or assistance in acquiring knowledge.

 

I also didn't intend my questions about President Obama's accomplishments to be seen as bashing, either. I'm not insisting he has no accomplishments, I am not insisting anything has been screwed up. I guess I didn't make that clear enough.

 

I am hoping someone can remind me of some diplomatic breakthrough or international gain since President Obama took office. I completely accept that I have either forgot or didn't notice one.

 

Anyone can feel free to PM me with answers.

I didn't think I suggested anything controversial or insulting about Bush. I just wanted to point out why it might take a little time before A Mafan's inbox fills up

[warpedbored]

Please get back on topic. Obama's visit to China is of interest to the group and directly affects us. Bush has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I am trying to steer this topic away from partisan politics.

[A Mafan]

Is President Obama going to play some hoops with any members of the Chinese bastketball team?

 

That could actually be some effective diplomacy.

 

The best thing the US ever did to win China's love/esteem was make Yao Ming an NBA star...and I'm only slightly exaggerating.

[whome?]

Since Carl wanted "back on target" here is some information about his visit. My impression was that, for the most part, the Chinese were indifferent to his visit and less than impressed with him or the US based on current situation and the economic crisis.

 

I was surprised to see my thoughts verified in this article which also supports an earlier comment I made about the Chinese "pride" one sees and hears today.

 

 

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/obamavi...ent_8999735.htm

 

The difference, however, is that those I spoke with are not in awe of him and fully know that China is once again one of the leading world powers. Many said that they doubt the US will cooperate with China. Some asked if he really wants peace with their nation. Or as Fu put it: "China's power is rising. Obama showed that the US is worried about the rise."

 

Here is another interesting article about China not being interested in a G-2 in contrast to the USA media saying the G-2 is needed for the world (I can see both sides of this issue).

 

This article even includes a picture of Obama shaking Hu's hand

 

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-11...ent_8998039.htm

[whome?]

And I'm still waiting for someone to give me a few good examples of anything the United States gained from having the world like us more. Because I'm trying to be as fair as I can, and I can't think of anything.

To be fair, we would also have to ask what the United States has gained from having the world not like us. Making people prove where Obama's foreign policy has done good for the US in the last year assumes that, e.g., Bush's years in the Oval Office would be rife with examples of how military aggression has benefited the US.

 

Many of diplomacy¡¯s benefits are either non-riveting (and not news worthy in the US) or involve avoiding something negative such as war, and are therefore hard to prove. In 2008, for example, how much play was given to the success of the Bush administration for helping resolve ¨C through diplomacy ¨C the armed conflicts in the Congo? Did it help the US? I don¡¯t know. We didn¡¯t get anything tangible from it like oil pipelines, but if the conflict had escalated ultimately it could have spilled over into American¡¯s lives either economically or through terrorism.

Well, for one thing: China allowed uncensored broadcasts of Bush's comments in China, but not Obama's.

The number of nations that signed on to help in Afghanist and and Iraq are good examples of Bush getting cooperation despite people not like the US, too. NATO did not want to pony up troops in Afghanistan!

Russia actually agreed to help with sanctions against Iran when Bush pushed for it, and they actually followed through on those promises.

Bush got Syria to back off in Lebanon a little bit.

Bush got the EP-3 crew out fairly quickly...we're still waiting on Iran to release the hikers they took from Iraqi territory.

Bush got North Korea to agree to, and take several steps to fulfill, the 6-party talks.

Bush got Taiwan to tone down some of their more inflammatory rhetoric toward China, and got China to increase their transparency on their military budget.

I think it is also clear that the pro-democracy Color Revolutions we saw between 2003-2005 were the direct result of Bush foreign policy giving them courage to stand up to dictators.

 

Now, we are looking at 8 years of Bush successes vs 1 year of Obama, so naturally there is going to be a disparity in numbers. I'm not trying to argue Bush has done 8 times as much as Obama, because that would be dishonest and unfair.

 

It's just that since President Obama has taken over, all sorts of rivals are getting more boisterous. I haven't seen any trade concessions from Germany, France, UK, etc. I see France calling the US too weak and indecisive. I see Russia getting concessions out of us in exchange for promises they blatantly refuse to follow through on. I see Iran doing whatever they want. I see Venezuala threatening Columbia due to its relationship with the US, and the US not doing anything. I see North Korea being more combative than it has been in the last 20 years.

 

It might be that the State Dept is inept, not the Office of the POTUS.

 

I do think that after nearly a year in office, there should be some diplomatic successes. I've seen zero.

Seems Nathan's not so far out in left .. urrr.. I mean right field .. at least one other person wonders the same. Time will tell but life/work has taught me that, as bad as it is, the nice guy usually does lose.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics...7-70327287.html

 

I actually had to look up the transcript of the June 2008 acceptance speech because I did not believe some of those things he actually could or would have said ... does not seem like someone who would bow to others ..

[Yuanyang]

We are Americans we do not bow to anyone! Good foreign policy comes from strength. Not from a courtsey. What makes me so upset since the Cold War has ended is that we Americans have let our Great Nation nation slip into mediocritcy.

 

Imo, this is the type of better than thou attitude that has helped lead us into mediocrity. I think we have entered into a new era that calls for understanding, respect, and dialogue more so than force and strength. Yes, we should carry a big stick and be prepared to use it but there is also such a tool as diplomacy which I feel we have collectively gotten away from over the years.

 

Kudos to Obama for having the courage to do this, knowing that he would face a lot of criticism for such an action.

Mankind is a predator. A predator only respects stregnth.

 

Thats old school Tony. I would like to think us younger generations are a little more enlightened.

Maybe in the US.

 

Putin isn't.

Chavez isn't.

Iran seems to think/act like predators.

Both China and Japan bluff and bluster to intimidate nations into giving up most of their advantages, and THEN start negotiating halfway from there.

The leaders in Burma aren't all that impressed with niceness, either.

 

This is a lowest-common-denominator equation, alas.

 

And I'm still waiting for someone to give me a few good examples of anything the United States gained from having the world like us more. Because I'm trying to be as fair as I can, and I can't think of anything.

Hillary even made the comment that the only real matter in diplomacy is Power.

[Mick]

And I'm still waiting for someone to give me a few good examples of anything the United States gained from having the world like us more. Because I'm trying to be as fair as I can, and I can't think of anything.

To be fair, we would also have to ask what the United States has gained from having the world not like us. Making people prove where Obama's foreign policy has done good for the US in the last year assumes that, e.g., Bush's years in the Oval Office would be rife with examples of how military aggression has benefited the US.

 

Many of diplomacy¡¯s benefits are either non-riveting (and not news worthy in the US) or involve avoiding something negative such as war, and are therefore hard to prove. In 2008, for example, how much play was given to the success of the Bush administration for helping resolve ¨C through diplomacy ¨C the armed conflicts in the Congo? Did it help the US? I don¡¯t know. We didn¡¯t get anything tangible from it like oil pipelines, but if the conflict had escalated ultimately it could have spilled over into American¡¯s lives either economically or through terrorism.

Well, for one thing: China allowed uncensored broadcasts of Bush's comments in China, but not Obama's.

The number of nations that signed on to help in Afghanist and and Iraq are good examples of Bush getting cooperation despite people not like the US, too. NATO did not want to pony up troops in Afghanistan!

Russia actually agreed to help with sanctions against Iran when Bush pushed for it, and they actually followed through on those promises.

Bush got Syria to back off in Lebanon a little bit.

Bush got the EP-3 crew out fairly quickly...we're still waiting on Iran to release the hikers they took from Iraqi territory.

Bush got North Korea to agree to, and take several steps to fulfill, the 6-party talks.

Bush got Taiwan to tone down some of their more inflammatory rhetoric toward China, and got China to increase their transparency on their military budget.

I think it is also clear that the pro-democracy Color Revolutions we saw between 2003-2005 were the direct result of Bush foreign policy giving them courage to stand up to dictators.

 

Now, we are looking at 8 years of Bush successes vs 1 year of Obama, so naturally there is going to be a disparity in numbers. I'm not trying to argue Bush has done 8 times as much as Obama, because that would be dishonest and unfair.

 

It's just that since President Obama has taken over, all sorts of rivals are getting more boisterous. I haven't seen any trade concessions from Germany, France, UK, etc. I see France calling the US too weak and indecisive. I see Russia getting concessions out of us in exchange for promises they blatantly refuse to follow through on. I see Iran doing whatever they want. I see Venezuala threatening Columbia due to its relationship with the US, and the US not doing anything. I see North Korea being more combative than it has been in the last 20 years.

 

It might be that the State Dept is inept, not the Office of the POTUS.

 

I do think that after nearly a year in office, there should be some diplomatic successes. I've seen zero.

For the record, I lived in China during the first three years of his administration. In Guangdong we got Hong Kong TV, but highly censored. Bush's comments were censored more than not. The only time they were not censored was when it was in China's interest to let the people know what he had to say.

 

Sometimes folks have a tendency to make comments about things without evaluating their sources....the best source from which to comment is one's own personal experience. That way, you are not dealing with opinion. It was my experience that Bush was censored because he was normally cut off in mid-sentence or when he referred to any one of the "Three T's" - Tibet, Taiwan, Tianammen -

[knloregon]

Check out whome's link in post #65, if you haven't already.

 

"Obama bows, but the world refuses to bow back" ---Michael Barone

 

This is really to the point, and although I'm an Obama' supporter (somewhat disillusioned), I think its a pretty fair synopsis of Obama's international record to date. Keep in mind, this is still a very young presidency..

[3timescharm]

We are Americans we do not bow to anyone! Good foreign policy comes from strength. Not from a courtsey. What makes me so upset since the Cold War has ended is that we Americans have let our Great Nation nation slip into mediocritcy.

 

Imo, this is the type of better than thou attitude that has helped lead us into mediocrity. I think we have entered into a new era that calls for understanding, respect, and dialogue more so than force and strength. Yes, we should carry a big stick and be prepared to use it but there is also such a tool as diplomacy which I feel we have collectively gotten away from over the years.

 

Kudos to Obama for having the courage to do this, knowing that he would face a lot of criticism for such an action.

Mankind is a predator. A predator only respects stregnth.

 

Thats old school Tony. I would like to think us younger generations are a little more enlightened.

[/quote

 

Is that "enlightened"....or does the Yonger generation just not care about the greatness of American..........Perhaps they preferr Socialism......Seems to me that the YOUNGER generation wants everything given to them...instead of earning it. Before you blast me....I have earned the right to say this as have many others on this forum. I have served this great nation and do not like the direction it is heading. Yes I wish the world could get along...that would be GREAT! But the PC nicer US policy is making us look very weak and easy pray to our enemies...and there are many.

[3timescharm]

We are Americans we do not bow to anyone! Good foreign policy comes from strength. Not from a courtsey. What makes me so upset since the Cold War has ended is that we Americans have let our Great Nation nation slip into mediocritcy.

 

Imo, this is the type of better than thou attitude that has helped lead us into mediocrity. I think we have entered into a new era that calls for understanding, respect, and dialogue more so than force and strength. Yes, we should carry a big stick and be prepared to use it but there is also such a tool as diplomacy which I feel we have collectively gotten away from over the years.

 

Kudos to Obama for having the courage to do this, knowing that he would face a lot of criticism for such an action.

Mankind is a predator. A predator only respects stregnth.

 

Thats old school Tony. I would like to think us younger generations are a little more enlightened.

[/quote

 

Is that "enlightened"....or does the Yonger generation just not care about the greatness of American..........Perhaps they preferr Socialism......Seems to me that the YOUNGER generation wants everything given to them...instead of earning it. Before you blast me....I have earned the right to say this as have many others on this forum. I have served this great nation and do not like the direction it is heading. Yes I wish the world could get along...that would be GREAT! But the PC nicer US policy is making us look very weak and easy pray to our enemies...and there are many.

Sorry to get off topic.........did not read end of thread first

[knloregon]

"....For the record, I lived in China during the first three years of his administration. In Guangdong we got Hong Kong TV, but highly censored. Bush's comments were censored more than not. The only time they were not censored was when it was in China's interest to let the people know what he had to say.

 

Sometimes folks have a tendency to make comments about things without evaluating their sources....the best source from which to comment is one's own personal experience. That way, you are not dealing with opinion. It was my experience that Bush was censored because he was normally cut off in mid-sentence or when he referred to any one of the "Three T's" - Tibet, Taiwan, Tianammen - "

 

Mick makes an excellent point. America's position has eroded vs China, and will continue to. But much of Obama's exposure (to the people of China) was entirely out of his control. Bush, actually got much more free reign than Obama, and its worth speculating why that may have occurred.

 

Obama is young, dynamic, even charismatic -----the opposite of Chinese leadership---'stay-the-course' Pragmatic.

 

And as all Christians know: charismatic goes hand-in-hand with another trait: Evangelical. Nothing that the very young Chinese population needs to be exposed to at this time (and I don't mean religion..)..

 

Check out whome's post #64----his first reference to the China Daily column of Brian Liou----obviously written for a young readership. and if there is any State run publication on a short leash its China Daily---yet: Brian's interviews with Univ. of Beijing students (and keep in mind----these are the cream of the cream----groomed for future leadership in China----and traditionally given more access to foreign sources that any other students in China) "Students complained that they could'nt find a video of the town hall. Some wanted to read the full transcript." WOW! this in China Daily ~?!?

 

But its entirely consistent with my niece's experience in Guangdong---a recent graduate in International Communications----looking forward to following Obama's visit to China, but having to rely on HK general broadcasts, and the underground streaming of international news-----which she and her peers learned how to do as freshmen in college.

[A Mafan]

For the record, I lived in China during the first three years of his administration. In Guangdong we got Hong Kong TV, but highly censored. Bush's comments were censored more than not. The only time they were not censored was when it was in China's interest to let the people know what he had to say.

 

Sometimes folks have a tendency to make comments about things without evaluating their sources....the best source from which to comment is one's own personal experience. That way, you are not dealing with opinion. It was my experience that Bush was censored because he was normally cut off in mid-sentence or when he referred to any one of the "Three T's" - Tibet, Taiwan, Tianammen -

If you could tell they were cutting President Bush off mid-sentence, then so could everyone else. I'm sure urban Chinese were very clear about the three Ts, as well. Perhaps the less-educated rural residents may not have noticed the omission.

 

I think that not even allowing the broadcast of Obama's words to reach the nation is censorship of a higher order. In fact, President Obama didn't take any questions from the press, which marks a departure from previous Presidents.

 

Connecting the dots is always an exercise in judgment.

Edited November 20, 2009 by A Mafan (see edit history)

[Mick]

Your statement about connecting the dots is certainly true, especially in light of the link about Obama's lack of taking questions.

 

The article you cited only briefly mentioned that the Chinese didn't allow questions and answers, but I wouldn't call that "censorship of a higher order." I guess I read the article and connected the dots in a different manner.

 

Seriously, the article in question seemed to have a lot more to do with Obama censoring himself, not wanting to tackle any difficult issues. The series of "10 minute one-on-one" interviews was a dodge "of a higher order." I am generally an Obama supporter, but even I would have to agree that he has been a bit cagey with the press of late. Still, I think it is an accurate exercise in dot connecting to say that Obama's lack of openness pales when compared to the oblique techniques of his predecessor. George II was a far cry from being a poster boy for transparency, not to mention his puppeteers Cheney and Rumsfeld.

 

I would agree, however, that two wrongs don't make a right and that the problems with the reign of George II should in no way excuse a lack of openness by the current President.

[A Mafan]

Your statement about connecting the dots is certainly true, especially in light of the link about Obama's lack of taking questions.

 

The article you cited only briefly mentioned that the Chinese didn't allow questions and answers, but I wouldn't call that "censorship of a higher order." I guess I read the article and connected the dots in a different manner.

 

Seriously, the article in question seemed to have a lot more to do with Obama censoring himself, not wanting to tackle any difficult issues. The series of "10 minute one-on-one" interviews was a dodge "of a higher order." I am generally an Obama supporter, but even I would have to agree that he has been a bit cagey with the press of late. Still, I think it is an accurate exercise in dot connecting to say that Obama's lack of openness pales when compared to the oblique techniques of his predecessor. George II was a far cry from being a poster boy for transparency, not to mention his puppeteers Cheney and Rumsfeld.

 

I would agree, however, that two wrongs don't make a right and that the problems with the reign of George II should in no way excuse a lack of openness by the current President.

Huh.

 

I considered it a choice by China, not really criticism of Obama's transparency.

[Mick]

Your statement about connecting the dots is certainly true, especially in light of the link about Obama's lack of taking questions.

 

The article you cited only briefly mentioned that the Chinese didn't allow questions and answers, but I wouldn't call that "censorship of a higher order." I guess I read the article and connected the dots in a different manner.

 

Seriously, the article in question seemed to have a lot more to do with Obama censoring himself, not wanting to tackle any difficult issues. The series of "10 minute one-on-one" interviews was a dodge "of a higher order." I am generally an Obama supporter, but even I would have to agree that he has been a bit cagey with the press of late. Still, I think it is an accurate exercise in dot connecting to say that Obama's lack of openness pales when compared to the oblique techniques of his predecessor. George II was a far cry from being a poster boy for transparency, not to mention his puppeteers Cheney and Rumsfeld.

 

I would agree, however, that two wrongs don't make a right and that the problems with the reign of George II should in no way excuse a lack of openness by the current President.

Huh.

 

I considered it a choice by China, not really criticism of Obama's transparency.

Did we read the same article? I went to the one linked in your post. It mentioned that China didn't allow any questions at the beginning, after that, it was pretty much all about Obama. I guess this only proves your point about connecting the dots.

 

I went back and read the article again and reached the same conclusion. It was more about Obama's light-footing it with the press than about any Chinese censorship. I am referring to the article you had linked to in the highlighted sentence in your post.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Mick (see edit history)