In one of the longest US presidential campaigns in history, neither party has addressed one of the most critical issues of the day: How can the US successfully integrate its domestic concerns with an increasingly competitive global marketplace?
At home and abroad, it is impossible to miss the breadth and depth of change sweeping the globe, particularly in Asia. While the US economy is in the final stages of a seismic shift from manufacturing to service-oriented industries, China and India are ascendant, and Muslims throughout Asia are clamoring for a greater role in global affairs.
And yet the Democratic presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, and the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, continue to tiptoe around such issues. Instead, their campaigns' treatment of US foreign policy has been reduced to endless debates about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and about the wisdom of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Surely this is unacceptable to every American committed to a safe and prosperous future. The next US president needs to provide a clearer understanding of how he or she will prepare the US for a 21st century in which local issues are tied to global developments, global trends can have local implications, and the US' international authority will confront Asia's newfound clout.
With this in mind, here are five questions that should be posed to the US' presidential candidates:
One, big construction firms and technology companies such as Microsoft, IBM and Cisco Systems already have huge campuses in India. But now we see Asian companies beginning to acquire valuable US-owned economic assets -- witness India's Tata Group's proposed acquisition of Jaguar and Land Rover from Ford. Do you see foreign investment and acquisitions in the US as a positive development or a potential peril?
Two, the US once defined free trade for the new global economy, but many Americans are now using demands for "fair trade" to impose reactionary and protectionist trade policies.
As Democrats suggest renegotiating NAFTA, Asian countries are watching with increasing trepidation. South Korea, in particular, is left to wonder whether or not the US is serious about pursuing similar trade agreements with one of Asia's strongest economies and one of the US' oldest regional allies. Will you back -- or back away from -- free-trade pacts with Asia?
Three, the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of their relative merits, have unquestionably poisoned the US' standing among Asia's 900 million Muslims, from Pakistan to the Philippines and all points in between. A 2006 Pew poll found that support for the US in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, has plunged to around 30 percent. How will you engage Muslims in Asia and how will you garner support at home for stronger ties with Muslims around the world?
Four, the Asia Society recently co-presented a new education study that showed US 15-year-olds' science proficiency ranked 25th out of 30 countries tested, and lagged far behind their peers in Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong. Meanwhile, US colleges and universities are struggling to attract the best and brightest minds from abroad, because those students -- and their professors -- are increasingly being denied US visas or subjected to harrowing entry delays when they arrive.
Business leaders, such as Microsoft's Bill Gates, have also complained about shortages of skilled workers and have called for large increases in "H1-B" visas, which allow professionals to work in the US for short periods of time. How will you help US students compete globally, while ensuring a level playing field at home for talented foreign students and workers?
Five, both China and India are demanding concessions from the US before they will even consider caps on greenhouse-gas emissions. Are you willing to sacrifice some economic growth domestically -- or, conversely, are you willing to jeopardize relations with China and India -- for the sake of the environment?
The US' next president must re-engage with Asia not as an afterthought, and not as a corollary to the "war on terror," but as a central component of a roadmap to a safe, secure and prosperous future. He or she should start now by answering Asia's questions.
Vishakha Desai is president of the Asia Society.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS