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
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
The National Development Council (NDC) on Wednesday last week launched a six-month “digital nomad visitor visa” program, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported on Monday. The new visa is for foreign nationals from Taiwan’s list of visa-exempt countries who meet financial eligibility criteria and provide proof of work contracts, but it is not clear how it differs from other visitor visas for nationals of those countries, CNA wrote. The NDC last year said that it hoped to attract 100,000 “digital nomads,” according to the report. Interest in working remotely from abroad has significantly increased in recent years following improvements in
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
RSS