Obama's Foreign Policy

[B-Man]

Obama’s Moral Lapse in Vietnam

Noah Rothman

 

Once again, President Barack Obama has forged a “new way forward” with a former Cold War adversary. In the process of “unshackling” his fellow countrymen from the past, the president is also blazing a new trail for his party to follow. In time, Obama’s fellow Democrats may come to regret the course he chose for them.

 

As COMMENTARY’s Max Boot remarked, Obama was absolutely right to lift a long-standing arms embargo on Vietnam. Hanoi is an increasingly important ally in America’s strategic effort to constrain the influence of the People’s Republic in the South China Sea, and cementing bilateral ties is a strategic imperative. A bloodless appraisal of the zero-sum game in East Asia, divorced from ideological considerations, leaves the president with no other options. Furthermore, the move represents the culmination of a process inaugurated by Bill Clinton and advanced by George W. Bush. But Obama broke from his predecessors — and from the Democratic Party, generally — by appearing to abandon America’s traditional concern for human rights and political liberalization, even if as no more than a perfunctory afterthought.

 

On Monday, just hours after the Vietnamese people turned out in what were supposedly record numbers to reaffirm the legitimacy of their communist government, Obama appeared alongside his Vietnamese counterpart to announce the lifting of Washington’s arms embargo. According to official figures, 98.77 percent of eligible voters turned out to vote in the National Assembly elections. Politico’s Edward-Isaac Dovere observed, however, that the polling places he visited were sparsely populated. What’s more, those voters who did turn out were presented only the illusion of choice. As the New York Times reported, despite Hanoi’s decision to allow independent candidates to run for office in 2002, few such candidates who hold truly oppositional views are cleared by the government to appear on a ballot.

 

There was no mention of this undemocratic character of Vietnam’s elections in Barack Obama’s speech. Nor, as Dovere noted, did the president make mention of Vietnam’s subpar record on human rights.

 

Obama’s silence on Vietnam’s human rights record is a departure from American form. When Bill Clinton pursued the normalization of relations with Hanoi in 1995, the administration was clear that progress on human rights was a virtual prerequisite for closer ties. “[F]or our relations to grow deeper,” George W. Bush said in 2007 alongside Vietnam’s then-President Nguyen Minh Triet, “it’s important for our friends to have a strong commitment to human rights, freedom, and democracy.” This was no idle quip. In 2003 and 2004, the Bush administration suspended dialogue regarding human rights due to what was dubbed “insufficient progress” on Hanoi’s part.

 

This isn’t the first time that the president has subordinated concerns on human rights to what he perceives to be the nation’s near-and-long-term geostrategic objectives. From Iran to Venezuela, from Damascus to Moscow, the president has declined to leverage human rights issues, as have his Democratic predecessors and their advisors. Lifting the arms embargo without reciprocity in the form of liberalization, “perilously weakened our leverage for securing human rights reforms in Vietnam,” insisted Democratic Representative Loretta Sanchez. She may be the squeakiest wheel from a district with a substantial Vietnamese population, but it’s a safe bet she isn’t the only Democrat shaken by the president’s failure to express full-throated support for democratic reforms in Hanoi.

 

 

More at the link:

[Nanker]

I wouldn't call millions of Vietnamese made shoes "nothing". So what if they get some tanks, planes, and automatic weapons? It's about his legacy... So far he's apologized to everyone but the Aborigines in Australia.

[Deranged Rhino]

I wouldn't call millions of Vietnamese made shoes "nothing". So what if they get some tanks, planes, and automatic weapons? It's about his legacy... So far he's apologized to everyone but the Aborigines in Australia.

 

I guess I have to concede that first point.

 

It's just hilarious how transparent the agenda on this trip is, yet partisan folks see it as somehow noble. It's not noble in any sense as it's completely self serving.

[....lybob]

Obama has never doubted America is underinvested in Asia and overinvested in Middle East: http://nyti.ms/1XOZAed

 

 

Which is why he invested almost the entirety of his second term to Iran............

Iran is in Asia

[Doc]

 

What sort of progress do you see in South America? And how can you claim coups used to be the norm when two of the largest South American nations are currently undergoing western backed coups? This kind of statement requires further explanation...

 

**********************************

More on Obama in Vietnam, pushing TPP and anti-China rhetoric despite Vietnam's despicable human rights record:

 

Obama backs Vietnam in South China Sea dispute with Beijing

 

The trip, which has also promoted the US-inspired Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal, has been criticised by activists and US politicians who say it backs the one-party Vietnamese state and its poor human rights record.

 

Human Rights Watch said lifting the embargo on lethal weapons sales had “jettisoned what remained of US leverage to improve human rights in Vietnam – and basically gotten nothing for it”.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/24/obama-backs-vietnam-in-south-china-sea-dispute-with-beijing

 

Sticking right with 44's "policy" -- getting nothing for something.

 

In touting the move, Barry said "Vietnam punches below the waist."

[Deranged Rhino]

New Political Earthquake in Brazil: Is It Now Time for Media Outlets to Call This a “Coup”?

 

The transcripts provide proof for virtually every suspicion and accusation impeachment opponents have long expressed about those plotting to remove Dilma from office. For months, supporters of Brazil’s democracy have made two arguments about the attempt to remove the country’s democratically elected president: (1) the core purpose of Dilma’s impeachment is not to stop corruption or punish lawbreaking, but rather the exact opposite: to protect the actual thieves by empowering them with Dilma’s exit, thus enabling them to kill the Car Wash investigation; and (2) the impeachment advocates (led by the country’s oligarchical media) have zero interest in clean government, but only in seizing power that they could never obtain democratically, in order to impose a right-wing, oligarch-serving agenda that the Brazilian population would never accept.

 

The first two weeks of Temer’s newly installed government provided abundant evidence for both of these claims. He appointed multiple ministers directly implicated in corruption scandals. A key ally in the lower house who will lead his government’s coalition there — André Moura — is one of the most corrupt politicians in the country, the target of multiple, active criminal probes not only for corruption but also attempted homicide. Temer himself is deeply enmeshed in corruption (he faces an eight-year ban on running for any office) and is rushing to implement a series of radical right-wing changes that Brazilians would never democratically allow, including measures, as The Guardian detailed, “to soften the definition of slavery, roll back the demarcation of indigenous land, trim housebuilding programs and sell off state assets in airports, utilities and the post office.”

But, unlike the events of the last two weeks, these transcripts are not merely clues or signs. They are proof: proof that the prime forces behind the removal of the president understood that taking her out was the only way to save themselves and shield their own extreme corruption from accountability; proof that Brazil’s military, its dominant media outlets, and its Supreme Court were colluding in secret to ensure the removal of the democratically elected president; proof that the perpetrators of impeachment viewed Dilma’s continued presence in Brasilia as the guarantor that the Car Wash investigations would continue; proof that this had nothing to do with preserving Brazilian democracy and everything to do with destroying it.

 

 

 

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/23/new-political-earthquake-in-brazil-is-it-now-time-for-media-outlets-to-call-this-a-coup/

Edited May 25, 2016 by Deranged Rhino

[Deranged Rhino]

And... China's answer:

 

China to send nuclear-armed submarines into Pacific amid tensions with US

 

The Chinese military is poised to send submarines armed with nuclear missiles into the Pacific Ocean for the first time, arguing that new US weapons systems have so undermined Beijing’s existing deterrent force that it has been left with no alternative.

Chinese military officials are not commenting on the timing of a maiden patrol, but insist the move is inevitable.

They point to plans unveiled in March to station the US Thaad anti-ballistic system in South Korea, and the development of hypersonic glide missiles potentially capable of hitting China less than an hour after launch, as huge threats to the effectiveness of its land-based deterrent force.

A recent Pentagon report to Congress predicted that “China will probably conduct its first nuclear deterrence patrol sometime in 2016”, though top US officers have made such predictions before.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/26/china-send-nuclear-armed-submarines-into-pacific-us

[DC Tom]

And... China's answer:

 

China to send nuclear-armed submarines into Pacific amid tensions with US

 

The Chinese military is poised to send submarines armed with nuclear missiles into the Pacific Ocean for the first time, arguing that new US weapons systems have so undermined Beijing’s existing deterrent force that it has been left with no alternative.

Chinese military officials are not commenting on the timing of a maiden patrol, but insist the move is inevitable.

They point to plans unveiled in March to station the US Thaad anti-ballistic system in South Korea, and the development of hypersonic glide missiles potentially capable of hitting China less than an hour after launch, as huge threats to the effectiveness of its land-based deterrent force.

A recent Pentagon report to Congress predicted that “China will probably conduct its first nuclear deterrence patrol sometime in 2016”, though top US officers have made such predictions before.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/26/china-send-nuclear-armed-submarines-into-pacific-us

 

Actually, China's SSBN fleet has been conducting nuclear deterrence patrols in the Pacific since December. (Excluding their older Type 92 boat, which was such a piece of **** it apparently never left the Yellow Sea.) It has less to do with responding to Obama's Vietnam visit than it does with simply the timing of having the assets and operational ability to do so.

[Keukasmallies]

POTUS' visit to Hiroshima, and his statements in Japan regarding the magnitude of nuclear weaponry, seem to me to have lost a bit of their gravitas when the present he gave to Vietnam was to lift the embargo on weapons sales to that country. It appears that the impact of weaponry is just a bit more acceptable if one can make money off weapons sales, eh?

Edited May 27, 2016 by Keukasmallies

[Azalin]

POTUS' visit to Hiroshima, and his statements in Japan regarding the magnitude of nuclear weaponry, seem to me to have lost a bit of their gravitas when the present he gave to Vietnam was to lift the embargo on weapons sales to that country. It appears that the impact of weaponry is just a bit more acceptable if one can make money of weapons sales, eh?

 

You know, for someone who was awarded the peace prize, he sure does hand out a lot of heavy-duty weaponry to other countries.

[Doc]

You know, for someone who was awarded the peace prize, he sure does hand out a lot of heavy-duty weaponry to other countries.

 

Not to mention, he's really good at killing people.

[/dev/null]

 

You know, for someone who was awarded the peace prize, he sure does hand out a lot of heavy-duty weaponry to other countries.

 

He's just redistributing weapons to the needy

[Deranged Rhino]

[DC Tom]

 

You know, for someone who was awarded the peace prize, he sure does hand out a lot of heavy-duty weaponry to other countries.

 

Name a weapons system Vietnam is likely to buy from the US. Keeping in mind that their entire military infrastructure is geared towards supporting Soviet/Russian weapons systems. And keeping in mind that a lot of the Western technology they need and can use they already get from other sources (Israel, the EU, Japan).

 

Mostly this is an empty symbolic gesture. The only real material result is they'll get some reconditioned 50-year old maritime patrol aircraft.

[Azalin]

 

Name a weapons system Vietnam is likely to buy from the US.

 

I didn't say he was selling anything to anyone, just that it seems that whenever he visits a country that either used to be an enemy or one that we've a difficult relationship with, that they always seem to have an increased capability for war after he leaves.

 

For all we know, he gave the Vietnamese access to Miley Cyrus. Just think of the potential damage to the region if he has.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Azalin

[B-Man]

This is, perhaps, not the best headline.....................

 

 

[Azalin]

This is, perhaps, not the best headline.....................

 

 

 

[DC Tom]

This is, perhaps, not the best headline.....................

 

 

 

As much as we B word about "liberal bias," the real problem with the media is ****ty editorial oversight.

[B-Man]

"Death fell from the sky and the world was changed," -- President Obama today at Hiroshima.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Too bad, he could have used that speech elsewhere.

 

 

[DC Tom]

"Death fell from the sky and the world was changed," -- President Obama today at Hiroshima.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Too bad, he could have used that speech elsewhere.

 

 

 

But that didn't really change the world.

 

Really, it's the fall of Singapore that changed the world more than anything.