Do Not Use the Identity Rohingya Says Suu Kyi

I blogged a few months ago about my fear that Suu Kyi would peddle to the Buddhist crowd in Myanmar rather than being truly inclusive or at least pluralistic.  Today I have some confirmation of my fears.  Suu Kyi has told a UN Special Rapporteur that the government will avoid using "controversial terms" (read the article I reference here).  Last month Suu Kyi even told U.S. Secretary of State Kerry that Myanmar needed space to deal with this issue and emotive terms should be avoided.  Apparently being part of a 1.1 million person ethnic and religious minority means your national identity is controversial.  Sorry Rohingya, you do not get an identity in Myanmar.

For my two cents, what troubles me most is that Suu Kyi does not even seem to grasp the level of hypocrisy in her actions and those of the government she represents.  The same people who were the opposition without a voice in civic society are now denying not just a voice, but an identity to others in civic society.  Democracy does not mean an end to problems Suu Kyi, it means the beginning of social interaction and negotiation/coercion.  Government is about allocating resources, it is about determining property rights, etc.  In a democracy this action can get messy, but to be a democracy you have to recognize the voices in your population.  Sorry Rohingya, a once great advocate of democracy and legal equality has failed you and in doing so has dimmed my hopes for Myanmar. 

And the Response Continues

The response to what?  The response to the growth of PRC military growth and behaviors in the South China Sea.   In the straight out of realism playbook, the following developments have found their way into the news this week.

The U.S. is going to engage in anti-submarine warfare training with the Indian Navy and Japanese Navy in the Indian Ocean.  The Indian government cited the aggressive behavior of the PLAN (PRC Navy) in the region as a key reason.  Also, careful followers should note that the Japanese Navy leads the way in tracking of and snooping on PLAN submarine forces.  The U.S. Navy possesses the highest degree of technical expertise in anti-submarine warfare.  Add this all together and you do not need to be a genius to understand why this training is taking place.

Japan announced that it is leasing military aircraft to the Philippine government.  These aircraft are being used for military pilot training and for aircraft maintenance training.  Couple this development with announced increases in the Philippine's military budget and intention to purchase more large patrol boats for the Philippine coast guard.  What does this mean--well I am pretty sure you can get the picture.

For my two cents, I am glad that I was teaching both Asian Politics and Great Power Politics this spring.  Events in the world have played out perfectly to show off-shore balancing, buck passing, and other balance of security behaviors foretold by some variants of realism.  As well, Chinese behavior in the South China Sea has modeled well the behaviors of offensive realism and the desire to attain hegemonic status. 

A Philippine Submarine Fleet?

I read early this morning that the Philippine government is considering buying submarines to use in defending its claims in the South China Sea.  At the same time I have read that the U.S. DoD is announcing that U.S. forces will not recognize a Chinese claimed exclusion zone in the disputed areas of the South China Sea.  Obama is meeting this week with China's President Xi Jinping and scheduled for discussion is the South China Sea and sanctions on North Korea.

For my two cents, it is time for the U.S. to engage in some off-shore balancing in East/Southeast Asia.  A tribunal in the Hague will be ruling soon on the legality of Chinese claims--a ruling China says it will ignore.  That ruling will undermine Chinese claims.  Vietnam, the Philippihes, and Malaysia have interests in common to see Chinese expansion in the South China Sea stopped.  The U.S. needs to capitalize on this common desire and can do so by providing training, and providing weapon systems at reasonable prices to opponents of Chinese claims in the South China Sea.  The potential exists to strengthen ties with Vietnam, create more market acceptance of U.S. goods in Malaysia, and offer reassurance to our old Asian ally the Philippines.

Obama should avoid direct antagonization of China regarding the South China Sea.  Reasonable statements about freedom of navigation, maintenance of Sea Lanes of Commerce, etc. should be offered.  But Obama should not press the issue too strenuously if it is desirable to have Chinese support for tougher sanctions on North Korea after recent missile tests North Korea conducted.  Of course, the question there is do tight sanctions on North Korea serve any really meaningful purpose that aligns with the real interests of the citizens of the U.S.? 

I also read that the DPRK government is telling North Koreans to prepare for another famine.  I wonder if some genius in D.C. thinks that a starving population in North Korea will actually lead to real change in the political structures of that feudal nightmare of a country?  Oh well, my thoughts are wondering all over the place today.

Assessing the Potential Foreign Policy of 2016 Presidential Candidates

I am struck by a particularly disturbing thought that grows heavier on my psyche every day we get closer to election day in November 2016.  That thought is what to do about a complete and utter lack of quality presidential candidate options as regards foreign policy leadership.  As much as I find Barrak Obama's domestic policy choices to be flawed, lacking in character, poorly conceived, basically a terrible mess for the future of the country, his foreign policy has been a mixed bag of the predictable and the unintelligible.  Some of his policy choices have reflected what I would like to see, foreign policy done with respect to a realist perspective of international relations, most of it has been the predictable liberal internationalist positions that weaken security, harm economic development, and generally put the U.S. at risk of losing ground in the struggle for power and security of survival.  But wait, if we don't like it at least every 8 years a chance exists to have a foreign policy leader change directions.  For my two cents, here are my thoughts about the potential policy directions of the top candidates for the office of U.S. President in 2016.

Hillary Clinton:  You know what you get with this candidate.  The problem is we all know she thinks every problem in the world can be solved by the U.S. utilizing her pathetic view of cooperative development based on her view of what is good and bad in the U.S.  I believe she will be a lousy commander in chief, much like her husband was.  I believe that she will continue a policy pathway that compromises U.S. security interests in the name of social engineering.

Bernie Sanders:  What happens when the son of a communist becomes a politician, but does not want to admit he is a communist?  A socialist is born.  Sanders is a socialist, basically a communist by many standards.  What sort of foreign policy does that entail--more liberal internationalism and wrecking of U.S. security.

Ted Cruz:  Cruz is a neo-con extraordinaire.  He is not a liberal, but he believes in the power of the U.S. to solve all the world's problems.  The problem is that I believe he is a little bit mean spirited and U.S. security does not come from wielding the sword, but from having the sword to wield when needed (a critical difference that I do not think Cruz understands).

Marco Rubio:  see my previous comments.

Donald Trump:  What do you get if you elect a businessman who is more famous for his failures than his successes?  What do you get if you elect someone with no experience in making foreign policy whatsoever as president?  What do you get if you elect someone who really has shown no understanding of current international agreements, laws, and practices?  Are you scared of this candidate?  I am.

Most Hated College Football Team

The map below shows the most hated college football team in each state, according to a recent poll.  I am a little puzzled by a few of these.  Obviously it makes sense that Alabama is hated in Tennessee and Louisiana, but why is Alabama the most hated in Alaska, South Dakota, and Nevada?  Well maybe because Bama screws up the betting lines in Nevada, but South Dakota?

By the way, Alabama was not the most hated team in college football, they came in second.  First place belongs to Ohio State--go bucketheads, oops I mean buckeyes.