Abraham Lincoln's Path to History

[24/3 - Partly revised.]

I just came back from my daughter's class field trip to the New York Historical Society where they viewed an exhibition of Abraham Lincoln. That exhibition has been going on for a year since it opened on Mr Lincoln's 200th birthday and examines his Presidency's relationship to New York City.

I did not finish seeing the exhibit and for sure I cannot be mistaken for a scholar of Lincoln. But the exhibition made an impression on me because it reminded me that greatness is a difficult and arduous journey that feels anything but great when traveling on it.

What I learn from the exhibit is that Lincoln was given a political boost and became a political star due to the promotion of certain New York political barons of the (then nascent and comparatively social-progressive) Republican Party who wanted their own non-establishment candidate to challenge the establishment favorite William Seward. They wanted a Westerner candidate for the presidential election of 1860 to propel them out of their narrow political base; some one who would speak credibly about expansion to the West (free land, free labor, free men), lavish protection on industry (tariffs, railways, ports and canals etc.), anti-unions and be mildly anti-slavery. Lincoln proceeded to gave a famous and widely promoted speech at the Cooper Union in New York setting out his vision; which on slavery was actually a compromise whereby the South can keep their slaves but new territories would henceforth be free of slaves. He was not an abolitionist but was only against the expansion of slavery.

Aided by his powerful patrons, Lincoln soon gathered the support of many political forces that were against the Democratic Party: populists (who are anti-business), abolitionists (who are anti-slavery) but also neo-Fascist movements such as the "Wide Awakes" and the Nativist/xenophobic "Know Nothing Party".

The big businesses in New York favored the Democratic Party which was the establishment party; and businesses are wary of the abolitionist movement because they fear any rupture (or worse, war) with the south would mean disruption of business, loss of access to raw material supplies to the mills in the North and markets in the South.

Lincoln won the Presidency with only 40% of the popular votes. But wary of Lincoln's views on slavery, 7 Southern states seceded from the Union even before he took office. His popularity fell even further especially in the major cities of the Northeast.

But when Fort Sumner was attacked, patriotic fervor caused the North to rally around him; but within a year and many battlefield defeats (and war supplies corruption and mounting government indebtedness) later Lincoln found himself deeply unpopular. The newspapers and public opinion were deeply scathing. To raise money for the war effort, Lincoln instituted the income tax and a federal backed US dollar amidst widespread opposition. He strong-armed and wrestled many powers such as the raising and provisioning of armies from the States and into Federal control. His opponents were decrying the end of the United States and against him for trampling on the Constitution. There was huge outcry that he was resorting to dictatorial means. To put down dissent, he imposed martial law allowing detention by military tribunals without trial, which incarcerated 10-15000 people! Amidst all these, he suffered huge electoral losses during elections which resulted in openly antagonistic state governments /governors who were out to thwart him at every turn.

In a bid to recalibrate the reasons for fighting, which initially was about the preservation of the Union, and to get more Union recruits Abraham Lincoln issued the initial Emancipation Proclamation as a military order in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief. It was quite limited in scope at first being limited only to the Confederated States (but preserves slavery in some border states such as Delaware and Maryland) and primarily serve to pressurize the South. Later, it was extended to all lands seized by the Union army hence making abolition a Union war objective. He was also hoping to encourage slave revolts and gather freed slaves into the Union Army.

Granted, there were pragmatic reasons and risks if he were not more gradualist in abolishing slavery. Lincoln was concerned that outright abolition might tilt Northern slave states into joining the Confederacy. Maryland in particular was a concern because it was the crucial link between Washington DC and the North. Lincoln's abolitionist stand became more and more resolute after the Emancipation Proclaimation and in the end, became a non-negotiable term for ending the war.

As a military order, it did not have the force of law that an Act of congress would have. Belatedly, as the tide turned in the Civil War, Lincoln got Congress to entrench it as the XIII amendment to the Constitution, which was not ratified until after Lincoln's death when it was ratified by 2/3 of the states. Mississippi did not ratify that amendment until 1995.

If judged by popularity alone, it would be hard to make any assessment of Lincoln's greatness during his lifetime. For most of 1864 prior to his re-election, he did not think he was going to be re-elected. In fact, only when the tide of war turned in September 1864, two months before the election, before his victory became possible. Nonetheless, despite having only the Northern states participating in the election he was re-elected in 1864 with a respectable but far from heroic 54% of the vote. He would likely have lost the election had the Southern states participated. Especially in the South and amongst those opposed to the ascendancy of Federal government vis-a-vis the rights of the states Lincoln remained a much hated figure even after his death.

It an interesting and telling perspective on how a person is being judged by one's contemporaries as opposed to posterity.

"We are not bound to win, but we are bound to be true"

Last Saturday, President Obama gave Democrat congressmen a pep talk prior to eventually passing health care reform which happened late last night, in a historic and landmark achievement. It takes spending a few years in the US (and a few years living outside) to realise how ridiculously dysfunctional the US health system is. It spends 2x more per capita than other developed countries and yet leave 15% of its population to fend on their own uninsured; and as much more under-insured meaning they go broke if they fall sick. Meanwhile the costs are so out of control that it saps the competitiveness of US economy, cause real wages to be stagnant since the 1990s and costs the Federal Government 33% of its budget (rising to 50% at current rate in 2020).

There will be many things to be said for the President, but I came across this excerpt from the off-the cuff talk he gave last Saturday, which I feel has value in posterity for anyone in politics or in public service. When I first read it, I breathe hard and read it again. I thought of all the people in politics and in public life. And it convinced me that in the President we have a good man who deserve support and success.

(approximately 22 mins into a 30 mins pep talk - or 2 mins into this clip: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/20/without-a-teleprompter/#more-23761

".......I know what it's like to take a tough vote. But what did Lincoln say? “I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true.” Two generations ago, folks who were sitting in your position, they made a decision -- we are going to make sure that seniors and the poor have health care coverage that they can count on. And they did the right thing.

And I'm sure at the time they were making that vote, they weren't sure how the politics were either, any more than the people who made the decision to make sure that Social Security was in place knew how the politics would play out, or folks who passed the civil rights acts knew how the politics were going to play out. They were not bound to win, but they were bound to be true.

And now we've got middle class Americans, don't have Medicare, don't have Medicaid, watching the employer-based system fray along the edges or being caught in terrible situations. And the question is, are we going to be true to them?

Sometimes I think about how I got involved in politics. I didn't think of myself as a potential politician when I get out of college. I went to work in neighborhoods, working with Catholic churches in poor neighborhoods in Chicago, trying to figure out how people could get a little bit of help. And I was skeptical about politics and politicians, just like a lot of Americans are skeptical about politics and politicians are right now. Because my working assumption was when push comes to shove, all too often folks in elected office, they're looking for themselves and not looking out for the folks who put them there; that there are too many compromises; that the special interests have too much power; they just got too much clout; there's too much big money washing around.

And I decided finally to get involved because I realized if I wasn't willing to step up and be true to the things I believe in, then the system wouldn't change. Every single one of you had that same kind of moment at the beginning of your careers. Maybe it was just listening to stories in your neighborhood about what was happening to people who'd been laid off of work. Maybe it was your own family experience, somebody got sick and didn't have health care and you said something should change.

Something inspired you to get involved, and something inspired you to be a Democrat instead of running as a Republican. Because somewhere deep in your heart you said to yourself, I believe in an America in which we don't just look out for ourselves, that we don't just tell people you're on your own, that we are proud of our individualism, we are proud of our liberty, but we also have a sense of neighborliness and a sense of community -- (applause) -- and we are willing to look out for one another and help people who are vulnerable and help people who are down on their luck and give them a pathway to success and give them a ladder into the middle class. That's why you decided to run. (Applause.)

And now a lot of us have been here a while and everybody here has taken their lumps and their bruises. And it turns out people have had to make compromises, and you've been away from families for a long time and you've missed special events for your kids sometimes. And maybe there have been times where you asked yourself, why did I ever get involved in politics in the first place? And maybe things can't change after all. And when you do something courageous, it turns out sometimes you may be attacked. And sometimes the very people you thought you were trying to help may be angry at you and shout at you. And you say to yourself, maybe that thing that I started with has been lost.

But you know what? Every once in a while, every once in a while a moment comes where you have a chance to vindicate all those best hopes that you had about yourself, about this country, where you have a chance to make good on those promises that you made in all those town meetings and all those constituency breakfasts and all that traveling through the district, all those people who you looked in the eye and you said, you know what, you're right, the system is not working for you and I'm going to make it a little bit better.

And this is one of those moments. This is one of those times where you can honestly say to yourself, doggone it, this is exactly why I came here. This is why I got into politics. This is why I got into public service. This is why I've made those sacrifices. Because I believe so deeply in this country and I believe so deeply in this democracy and I'm willing to stand up even when it's hard, even when it's tough.

Every single one of you have made that promise not just to your constituents but to yourself. And this is the time to make true on that promise. We are not bound to win, but we are bound to be true. We are not bound to succeed, but we are bound to let whatever light we have shine. We have been debating health care for decades. It has now been debated for a year. It is in your hands. It is time to pass health care reform for America, and I am confident that you are going to do it tomorrow. Thank you very much, House of Representatives. Let's get this done. (Applause.) "

Power Influence in Southeast Asia - Comments from Anonymous

Anonymous said...

The question is always relative power vs absolute power. I think in terms of absolute power US influence is unquestionable. They have their navies, their internet, their Americana of American Idol, Glee & Lady Gaga. Heck even Yao Ming and Jackie Chan know where the center of the world lies.

Yet there is no doubt that the gap is getting closer and relatively it looks like China is on the move. It doesn't help that we tend to look at these things thru the stars & stripes tinted glasses of CNN, NBC etc and despite their protestations media neutrality, cultural bias is something that will always be difficult to remove.

Yet while US definitely has a head start, China has a natural advantage. Tell me an East Asian/South East Asian country that has not been touched by Chinese culture throughout its history and I'd probably tell you East Timor and Papua New Guinea doesn't really count. China is good at coddling South East Asian countries because it is an Asian country and it instinctively understands how Asians like doing things.

Not to say China does not have disputes with its neighbors. Japan, Vietnam & India come immediately to mind. However, China's rise coincides with Asia's rise, and are inseparable.On the other hand, one could argue that increasing Chinese influence in South East Asia merely reflects a return to normal status of the last 1500 years. Colonization & Pax Americana are a blip in history and it not a matter of If but When that South East Asia returns to the motherland.

Or as Deng Xiaoping has been know to say... "its too early to tell"...

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

-------------------------------------
KH says:

Thanks for your comment "anonymous"! I applaud - and readily concede - your two excellent points on China's natural geograohical advantage and by taking the historical perspective.

My initial posting was a snapshot arguing that reports of the demise of America's influence in Southeast Asia is greatly exagerated. It does not pre-suppose that the same would be same for the future. Indeed, my closing argument was that unless we have some form of emperical measurement it would be difficult to discern the changes taking place.

In fact, when we look from the structural or historical perspective, China has an enormous built-in advantage. In terms of geographical location, there is no way Southeast Asia can ignore China. Evan at its weakest during the late Ching and early Republican era, China managed to profoundly shape Southeast Asia through migration. America can, if it chooses to, disappear from the region, but China? Never. China's proximity is an enormous source of power and influence. But one can also say that is a constant and that is supported by history. If anything, advances in technology can only strengthen China's position.

Another aspect which I neglected to elaborate on is the role of ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia. Unlike first generation Chinese migrants, the question of identity for their ethnic Chinese population is now unambiguously localised. However, their cultural heritage and linguistic links makes it easy to "germinate" strong social-civic-intellectual connection with China.

My hypothesis is premised on the orientation amongst the country's elite. It may be no accident that the business elites (many of whom ethic Chinese) are more strongly drawn to China or more specifically to the economic opportunity in China's resurgence. But other than Singapore, Southeast Asia's political or military elite are rarely of Chinese ethnicity and hence less attuned to China. Nonetheless, as we saw with Hong Kong and Macau, when a society decides to reorientate itself to a different bearing things can change very quickly.

Which bring me to the question of what are the common interests for America to sustain its power and influence in Southeast Asia? And I could see none that is compelling. As powerful and influential as the US may be in Southeast Asia, America's power and influence has largely been by choice and not inevitable as in the case of China. With the end of the Cold War, America finds it difficult to justify the political and military investment that is needed to remain a power in the region. For years, the US also saw itself as the vanguard and defender of the global economic system of (open and capitalist) trade and commerce. However, that system is also becoming less American/Western centric as Southeast Asia, India, China and Brazil etc becomes bigger players in the global economic and commercial system.

Power Influence in Southeast Asia - China on the Rise and America on the Wane?

Let me shake off my long stupor of not posting since February by elaborating on a discussion I had with my cousin-nephew who is presently studying international relations (plus Chinese and Arabic languages) at Georgetown University in Washington DC.

My contention is a contrarian argument to the prevailing view that China is on the rise and America is on the wane in Southeast Asia. This argument often confuses China's enormous trade links, free-trade agreements and high-level political exchanges with Southeast Asia for power and influence. My argument is that the view is impressionistic and is not entirely supported by a rigorous and sober examination of many other key matrices for power and influence. My hypothesis is that while America power and influence is no longer dominant in Southeast Asia, it is still probably the strongest power in a region where China's power and influence has expanded enormously.

My model for understanding power and influence rests on examining 4 different facets of power and influence, and in each case focus on aspects that are largely measurable as opposed to a lesser reliance on subjective considerations such as "soft power".

My 4 facets - and they are not intended to be equally important at all times - are: economic, political, strategic/military and social-civic links.

China has enormous heft as Southeast Asia's largest (and fast-growing) trading partner, well-spring of funding, bilateral and regional economic cooperation and growing institutionalised relationships (FTAs etc.).

But economic links are not limited to trade. At the very least we should also look at investments (both inwards and outwards), monetary policy and commercial links. In Southeast Asia, the amount of cumulative investments by USA, Japan and Europe remains enormous, and in most countries far dwarfs China's nascent investments. Japan has been Southeast Asia's largest investor for many decades and those Japanese companies remain major employers and exporters in many Southeast Asian countries. How easily people forget but they are a hidden giant that should not be overlooked. So size of investment is one key measure.

As far as commercial links, precisely because so many US and European MNCs have operated so long in Southeast Asia they have become "invisible". People forget that AIA, Citibank, Facebook, Visa card, P&G (Pampers, Pantene, Duracell, Gilette etc.), Colgate Palmolive, Esso, Yahoo!, FedEx, Boeing are American companies; while Shell, HSBC, BP, Prudential, Nestle are European. Of course, the lines are often blurred because such is globalization that Nike may be American but the product is often made in China by a Korean invested firm financed by the Japanese. But all else being equal, China still has some distance to go in terms of commercial influence. After all, what is the largest Chinese company operating in Southeast Asia?

All those are in the realms of influence, but none more than monetary policy. There are many Southeast Asian currencies that are either pegged or linked to the US Dollar and for that reason their central banks keep large portions of their hard currency reserves in US Dollar. The power to influence so many Southeast Asian currency gives the US Federal Reserves significant leverage over the monetary policies in Southeast Asia - such as interest rates - that the People's Bank of China will not have until the RMB becomes a full fledged international reserve currency. Even as China becomes an enormous trading power with Southeast Asia, the terms of trade are still mostly done on US Dollar terms. These are all important measures on the economic power and influence.

Another important measure is foreign reserves/foreign investments, which for Southeast Asian countries are still mainly held in American or European assets. And the same can be said for holdings of Southeast Asian debt, which if in foreign hands are still predominantly held by Western institutions and funds; although given the growth of China's investment funds this could soon change. This is a source of influence (verging on power) that is easily overlooked but in times of crisis, holders of debt provides enormous leverage over the governments of the day (e.g., currently in Greece, but seen recently with Dubai, Iceland, Estonia, or Latin American countries from time to time). In times of conflict and international sanctions, there have been precedence of foreign assets being seized e.g. Iran, Iraq (after invasion of Kuwait), North Korea and Yugoslavia (sanctions).

Moving on to political links. For Southeast Asian countries China presents a seemingly simple political equation: unquestionable support for China's policies on Taiwan/Tibet/Xinjiang etc., no overt critisism of China , and in return China will grant a lot of personal respect, not pose any awkward questions on one's own political legitimacy or messing about with the opposition party, etc. And then, everyone can get down to business of economic growth. that is easy to like. America has tended to present a less diffident, more self-interested and incoherent relationship even as the host nation feels ignored.

At the senior leadership level, China pays a lot of attention with frequent exchange of visits with regional heads of states and government. Likewise there are extensive links at the ministerial and official level as befitting a major (even dominant?) regional political power. China plays a deft hand in this very Asian form of influence. The level of attention simply far outdistanced anything America (which has a more global spread of interests) can possibly muster in the region.

On the otherhand, if we look at what has been invested in terms of long term institutional presence in the region a more balanced picture emerges. America maintains large multifaceted (with political, economic, military, consulate, cultural (tourism, education etc.), public diplomacy functions) embassies in most Southeast Asian countries often they are the largest embassy in town. Often the US maintains consular offices outside the capital as well. China maintains comparatively large but by comparison a more modest presence that in many cases are behind those of the UK, France and even Germany. Granted, the person-to-person relationship is perhaps the most important measure for most Southeast Asian cultures; but it is important to remember there are other measures of political ties.

And not least, there is developmental aid as a measure of power and influence, although I often question the effectiveness of aid as a form of political leverage. In some countries there are still US-aid projects, but the scale is unlike during the height of the Cold War. I recall there is a US funded FELDA development near Seremban called "LBJ" after the US President Johnson! Likewise, aid from Japan which boomed in the 80s and 90s but are now a thing of the past. On the otherhand, official aid from China especially on infrastructure is expanding. This is definately also a source of growing Chinese political influence.

On the military/stretegic level, the starkest measure is obviously military presence by either China or the US in Southeast Asia. America clearly has a historic head-start: even with the closure of US bases in the Philippines it now has (official) access to bases in Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines, in addition to military advisors/liaison in other locations especially on counter-terrorism. That is before one considers the US Navy Seventh Fleet based in Japan and Guam which is present in the South China Sea at any one time.

China on the otherhand claim a policy against the stationing of any foreign military forces, hence precluding the stationing of the PLA outside Chinese territory - outside of UN peacekeeping or naval expeditions.

The US also has long term military alliances or mutual defence treaties with Philippines and Thailand (both are regarded as Major Non-NATO Ally) and use of military bases in Singapore. On another note, Singapore and Malaysia are part of the FPDA (Five Forces Defence Arrangement) which allows for Australia, New Zealand and the UK to come to be defence of Malaysia and Singapore. Brunei also has its own defence arrangements with the UK, British bases and military personnel. China's closest military partners in Southeast Asia are probably Cambodia and Myanmar.

In my view, another key measurement is the choice of supplies of armaments. When it comes to making significant long term investments (both in money and reliance on continuing training and technical support), Southeast Asian countries are still predominantly choose to be armed with US or European weapon systems. The US which supplied the backbone of the airforces of Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines and Malaysia (apart from its Russian made the MIG-29s), France also has a strong position as an alternative supplier of choice especially for naval vessels and helicopters.

Taken together the above reality are very clear and unequivocal measures of US (and British) hard power in Southeast Asia.

Overall, regional sensitivities over China's role, historic enemities (such as with Vietnam), common borders with Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam - and lingering disputes such as over the Spartly Islands - is probably the biggest weakness in China's strategic influence in Southeast Asia. It is arguable if any Southeast Asian countries will tolerate very much Chinese military influence or presence, if ever, at all!

And the final facet is the social-civil aspect. A lot of this are sometimes characterised as "soft-power". I prefer to see this from the narrower prism of intellectual orientation of the ruling elite. Put simply, while everything from as mundane as baseball and hollywood movies or Korean soap operas - to ideas and ideals like capitalism, democracy and the rule of law - all exerts a pull on the public imagination; a more profound and immediate influence could be found in whatever that form the intellectual grounding of a country's governing elite and policy makers.

For decades, the elites of Taiwanese and Philippines are educated in the US and they bring about a distinctly American intellectual influence and extend America's influence into those countries via those personal networks. The same is true for the Singaporean and Malaysian elites and policy makers and their British influence. The modernisation of the Indonesian economy in the 1960s and 70s was led by what was called the "Berkeley mafia" of US trained economists. German-educated former President Habibie sought to orientate Indonesia to German technical experts.

Hence, for me an important indicator of China or America's influence is the where were Southeast Asia's leaders and elite educated? And almost as importantly: where do they send their children to be educated? Because that shows who they really admire. Right now, not many are sending their children for higher education in China. More esoterically, one can even look to where do Southeast Asian leaders and their family go for a holiday or buy private property as an indicator? That actually makes a difference when one considers that the leaders of Myanmar and Cambodia used to holiday or go for medical treatment in China a lot. Not any more one may assume?

More directly, another measure could be to look at the source of the society's intellectual input = its "mindshare". What is going into the minds of the country's leaders and policy makers? Where do they buy their books? And where are the authors of those books they are reading from? Who are the experts they get advise from? Countries look to those they wish to emulate for advise: economic and policy experts used to come from the old colonial masters, then in the 50s and 60s some got (ill)advisers from the Soviet Union or China, while others turn to American experts (including from NGOs like Ford Foundation or Rockerfeller Foundation). The strategic importance of the export of advisers is such that even Taiwan used to export agricultural experts as a diplomatic tool. And more recently there was a time when experts from Japanese were popular. It may not be as obvious now, but if Southeast Asian countries are hiring Arup for city planning, Goldman Sachs to advise on privatization or McKinsey to develop an economic strategy or even the World Bank/IMF, it simply reflects the reality of the continuing influence of the West, especially America in shaping Southeast Asia's thinking on the level fo government policy.

Even on the casual level, the media and news channel that currently dominate the mindshare of the educated middle class in Southeast Asia tend to be cable/satellite television and the internet that mainly of a Western (or American) origin. Rubbish or not, that is a measure of influence on the default world view and intellectual orientation of Southeast Asia. In this regard, take the example of the BBC which allows the UK to punch above its weight and Japan which has little influence relative to its importance in the region. It has been remarked that China is a world-to-itself in cyberspace and in its media (not only due to censorship but because of language and size that made it self-contained) but it has still little mindshare outside of Greater China. And even if language ceases to be a barrier, it has a steep hill to climb when competing for mindshare with the open uncensored media that Southeast Asia long has access.

In conclusion, I would like to submit that there is much more to America's power and influence in Southeast Asia than meets the eye. And plainly because we have taken them for granted we forget how pervasive and powerful America still is. China is the shiny new thing that seized our attention because its power and influence have been growing so quickly and so overtly that many have mistaken rate of change for size. I hope for a more emperical study that compare their power and influence both in real terms and in relative terms; for power and influence is not a zero sum game between the two powers: both could be growing or both could be waning because we should not forget that as the nations of Southeast Asia grows they also become less susceptable to being influenced and are regional powers in their own right.