One night, in a bar in Zanzibar, I saw two sex workers chatting up a couple of Germans. The Germans were in their 50s, paunchy and balding — the women were young and pretty. It was a painful sight, the Germans plying the women with drinks and single entendre; the women laughing as though their lives depended on it, which in a way they did.
But after a while the true pathos became apparent: The Germans actually thought that these young women were interested in them because of who they were rather than what they had — money. That their dazzling personalities and dashing good looks had magically transformed them into irresistible specimens of manhood. Mistaking the possibility of a commercial transaction for the unlikelihood of sexual attraction, their eyes lingered on the mirror behind the bar as they started preening themselves, as though their looks mattered.
Power, whether you wield it or not, has a way of shading our sense of selves and others. In The Audacity of Hope, US president-elect Barack Obama recalls a businessman seeing former US vice president Al Gore shortly after the 2000 election.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
“During the campaign I would take his calls any time of day,” the executive said. “But suddenly, after the election, I couldn’t help feeling that the meeting was a chore. At some level he wasn’t Al Gore, former vice-president. He was just one of the hundred guys a day who are coming to me looking for money. It made me realize what a big steep cliff you guys are on.”
The US may be perched on the edge of a similar precipice. The degree to which it commands its hegemony through wealth and might (hard power) as opposed to culture and democratic example (soft power) has long been an open question. The personal aspiration, individual liberty and social meritocracy that are central to its national brand have an almost universal appeal. But how much that ethos makes sense without wealth and power is another matter. People need a social ladder worth climbing and something to do with their freedoms when they get to the top.
Have Caribbean kids been ditching cricket for basketball because it is faster and slicker or because it offers the possibility of university scholarships, riches and fame? Was Obama’s victory any more miraculous than Bolivian President Evo Morales’ — he was the first indigenous Bolivian to rule his country — or do we just know and care more about it because of the US’ impact on our lives? What is Sex and the City without the shopping and the skyline? By almost any count Sweden has greater gender equality and liberated sexual mores than the US. Yet would the escapades of four single women in Stockholm stand a chance of becoming an international blockbuster, even if it were in English? Unlikely.
The truth is that US economic and cultural power are so inextricably woven that to separate them would be to see the whole thing unravel before your eyes. Both are fundamental to how the rest of the world views the US and how Americans view themselves.
And yet, with the simultaneous transition of Obama’s ascent to the White House and the national economy’s descent into long-term decline, countervailing pressures are pushing those two factors in contradictory directions. Abroad, US political leadership has never been so popular or so impotent. At home, Americans have never felt so excited about what their country might become or so apprehensive about where it might be heading. The next few months are shaping up to be truly Dickensian: the best of times, and the worst of times.
On the one hand, almost three weeks after the election, Obama still peers out from posters and badges. The warm glow of his victory still radiates and few seem keen to snuff out the flame. On the subway in New York last weekend an African-American woman in her 50s asked me what I thought of “our new president.” We talked politics until my stop, exchanged a handshake and a hug. I dare say I’ll never see her again.
The disappointing composition of his transition team (if he was going to appoint half of former US president Bill Clinton’s Cabinet, why not just let Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton have the nomination?) has done nothing to blunt the enthusiasm. Two months before he takes office Obama enjoys a 61 percent approval rating. If the rest of the world were polled, it would be even higher. As his triumph was announced, public celebrations erupted in almost every time zone. It is difficult to think of a moment when there has been more global goodwill towards an American leader, let alone such a dramatic reversal of attitude towards US leadership.
On the other hand, it is difficult to think of a moment when Americans felt more depressed about the state of their country or were less able to enforce their will on the world. Just one in six believe that the country is heading in the right direction, and consumer confidence is at a historical low. A country wedded to the notion that every year will be better than the last, and every generation more prosperous than the last, has seen social mobility stall and the past look more promising than the future. Meanwhile, thanks to Iraq and Afghanistan, the nation’s military is hopelessly overstretched and its reputation for invincibility lies shattered. Diplomatically, it is out of moral capital. Economically, it is out of plain old capital.
While these two trends coincide, they are not moving in lockstep. The presidential transition is hostage to a definite time period — Obama will not take the oath for another 57 days. Meanwhile, the scale and pace of the economic decline is indefinite. Less than two months ago, Citigroup was one vulture swooping in to feed from the carcass of the failed Wachovia bank. With its shares now in freefall and its chief executive in peril, Citigroup now looks set to become carrion itself. Obama wants to try and save the big three car manufacturers; it remains to be seen how many will be left by his inauguration.
So Obama’s win may have been a lesson for the rest of the world, as claimed by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
“Electing a black president says around the world that you can overcome old wounds,” she told the New York Times last weekend. “I’ve said in our case, we have a birth defect, but it can be overcome.”
The trouble is the rest of the world no longer needs to attend the lectures.
“Owing to the relative decline of its economic and, to a lesser extent, military power, the US will no longer have the same flexibility in choosing among as many policy options,” the National Intelligence Council (NIC) said last week.
The report acknowledged that while the US would remain the single most powerful force in the world, its relative strength and potential leverage are in decline.
It doesn’t take a genius to work this out. Which is just as well, since there are clearly few geniuses in the NIC. Its last forecast, in December 2004, predicted “continued US dominance,” and oil and gas supplies “sufficient to meet global demand.”
It can take time for perception to catch up with reality. By the time those Germans figured out their true aesthetic value, they may well have been broke.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
Today is Feb. 28, a day that Taiwan associates with two tragic historical memories. The 228 Incident, which started on Feb. 28, 1947, began from protests sparked by a cigarette seizure that took place the day before in front of the Tianma Tea House in Taipei’s Datong District (大同). It turned into a mass movement that spread across Taiwan. Local gentry asked then-governor general Chen Yi (陳儀) to intervene, but he received contradictory orders. In early March, after Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) dispatched troops to Keelung, a nationwide massacre took place and lasted until May 16, during which many important intellectuals
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS