Politics and Government

  • Sub-Saharan Africa
    Julius Malema and South African Politics
    The African National Congress’ (ANC) firebrand outcast Julius Malema has been formally charged with money laundering linked to state contracts in his native Limpopo province, probably the poorest in South Africa. Malema, former leader of the ANC’s Youth League, is a radical voice calling for nationalization of the mines and expropriation of white owned land without compensation. Formerly allies, he and South African president Jacob Zuma are now bitter enemies. The ANC expelled Malema from the party and the youth league in November 2011. However, many–perhaps most–of the youth league members still regard him as their leader. (The youth league is traditionally the most radical part of the ANC.) The current wave of industrial unrest in the mines is a political boost for Malema. He was the first politician to visit the Marikana mine during the strike, and subsequently addressed a small number of the South African Defense Force on suspension for rioting. Parts of the ANC appear worried about his influence, and whites in the investor class see him as a boogeyman. In the townships, however, he is a hero. Malema, born only in 1981, has a flamboyant lifestyle characterized by expensive cars, women, and the club scene. Born into poverty, he now has access to nearly limitless resources. The common theory is that his wealth originates in corruption. In politics, his black populism can be reckless; he has been convicted multiple times for hate speech against whites, and has revived the old liberation chant of “kill the settler, kill the Boer.” Undisciplined, he may well self-destruct—if the ANC and South African establishment do not overreact to him. Why is he being charged with corruption now? South African commentary ties the charges to his exploitation of mining unrest to advance his political career. The South African judiciary has a reputation of independence. But the prosecutorial authority is often politicized. Malema’s enemies within the ANC may have calculated that he should be brought to court now before the ANC party convention in December, where Zuma will likely face serious opposition to his continued leadership.
    Blog Post by John Campbell September 28, 2012 Africa in Transition
  • Defense and Security
    The World Next Week: Obama and Romney Debate, Netanyahu Visits the United States, the UN Talks Freedom of Speech, and Georgia Votes Amid Scandal
    The World Next Week podcast is up. Bob McMahon and I discussed the first presidential debate; Israeli prime minister Netanyahu’s visit to the United States; freedom of speech; and Georgia’s parliamentary elections. [audio: http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/media/editorial/2012/20120927_TWNW.mp3] The highlights: The topic of next Wednesday’s presidential debate at the University of Denver is the economy and domestic issues. Mitt Romney will likely stress his overarching theme that America cannot afford another four years of Barack Obama; the president will counter by arguing that America cannot afford to go back to the failed policies of the past. Romney is certainly under pressure to “win” the debate. Polls out this week show him falling behind in the critical battleground states of Florida and Ohio; no GOP president has ever won the White House without also winning Ohio. So if Romney does not fare well in Denver, GOP-leaning Super PACs might shift their money away from the former Massachusetts governor and toward Republicans facing tough House and Senate races. President Obama and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu used their speeches to the UN General Assembly this week to warn against the dangers posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. Meanwhile, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used his address to accuse Israel of warmongering against Iran. Speculation continues as to whether Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities before the U.S. elections on November 6 and whether Iranian leaders believe that an Israeli attack could help break Iran’s international isolation. President Obama used his address to the General Assembly to offer a spirited defense of the American conception of freedom of speech. The speech played well to American ears, but it did not receive universal acclaim. The idea that even offensive speech should be protected is unthinkable in many parts of the world, and many Muslim-majority countries are lobbying the UN for anti-blasphemy laws. Even many Western governments restrict some forms of speech. These different conceptions of what is acceptable speech are likely to continue to clash in a globalized and digitalized world. Bob’s Figure of the Week is 1.3 percent. My Figure of the Week is Shinzo Abe. As always, you’ll have to listen to the podcast to find out why. For more on the topics we discussed in the podcast check out: Obama and Romney face off in the first presidential debate. The New York Times provides poll results showing show that Obama is widening his lead in battleground states. Politico thinks that the Denver debate is “do-or-die” for Romney. The LA Times predicts that Obama will get less practice than Romney for the debates and reports what to expect from the first debate.  ABC writes that Paul Ryan has confidence that Romney will best Obama in the debates.  The Commission on Presidential Debates provides the topics for the first debate and the full presidential debate schedule. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits United States. Reuters writes that Netanyahu continues to push Obama to set a red line for Iran and that Netanyahu drew an actual red line on a picture of a bomb during his UNGA speech.  Politicker reports that Netanyahu will meet with New York mayor Michael Bloomberg. The UN debates Freedom of Speech. The New York Times reports on the calls by the presidents of Egypt and Yemen for curbs on free speech. Colum Lynch reviews the push for anti-blasphemy laws. The Miami Herald reports on a Coptic Christian sentenced to six years in an Egyptian prison for blaspheming the Prophet Mohammed. Georgia holds parliamentary elections. Foreign Policy writes that the recent prisoner abuse scandal will be a significant challenge for Georgia’s ruling party before parliamentary elections on October 1. The Daily Beast notes that this is a prime opportunity for the opposition party to take control of the government. Reuters reports that Russia has criticized the current government on its inability to defend human rights.
    Blog Post by James M. Lindsay September 27, 2012 The Water's Edge
  • Sub-Saharan Africa
    Mugabe Fights the Proposed Zimbabwe Constitution With Homophobia
    Human rights organizations are charging the Zimbabwe police with accelerating harassment of the gay community as the country approaches the election season.  Robert Mugabe is opposed to provisions in the draft constitution that would dilute presidential authority, and is angling to create popular support against the draft before it is submitted to a voters referendum.  Though the current draft makes no reference to gay rights or gay marriage, Mugabe and his supporters may be using that silence on both issues to rally opposition to it by association. Earlier in the year, Mugabe tied the new constitution to gay rights by saying that there were efforts to insert a same-sex marriage clause in the draft. He is quoted as saying, “we won’t accept that.” Human rights organizations’ charges that Mugabe is manipulating homophobia to advance his political agenda are entirely credible. Homophobia is widespread in Zimbabwe as it is elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa.  In traditional societies, marriage and procreation provide for the care of elders.  As homosexual relationships do not do that, they are seen to threaten wider society. Only South Africa’s constitution protects gay rights, but even there populists sometimes try to rally popular homophobia to advance their political agendas.
    Blog Post by John Campbell September 27, 2012 Africa in Transition
  • Global
    The World Next Week September 27, 2012
    Podcast
    A preview of world events in the coming week from CFR.org: Obama and Romney face off in the first presidential debate; Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits the United States; and Georgia holds parliamentary elections.
    Podcast with James M. Lindsay and Robert McMahon September 27, 2012 The World Next Week
  • Sub-Saharan Africa
    South Africa’s Way Forward
    Moeletsi Mbeki, with Refiloe Morwe, has written a must-read piece for South Africa watchers: “Economic Growth in South Africa:  Has the ANC Got It Wrong?” His bottom line:  yes, it has. Like many other commentators currently writing about South Africa, Mbeki starts with the Marikana massacre, where he argues that the “ANC government demonstrated to the whole world that it is prepared to use all necessary force to keep South Africa’s…mines in operation.” He goes on to argue that the basic cause of instability in South Africa is that the “transition to non-racial democracy” in 1994 was not accompanied by “change in the underlying economic structure.”  A consequence, he argues, is that any government is hobbled in terms of what it can actually do. But, the “capitalists”—owners and investors in the productive sector, which remains predominantly white controlled—face continuing uncertainty over taxes, the threat of expropriation, and corruption, and are therefore unwilling to overtly upset the present situation. Until this dichotomy is addressed, Mbeki foresees continued, and increasing, instability in South Africa. The ANC has bought-on to the unstable status quo, even while resentment against it is building among the poor and dispossessed who continually vote them into office. But, Mbeki posits no easy solutions: he observes that government efforts to radically redistribute wealth as advocated by radicals like ANC Youth League Leader Julius Malema will simply lead to owners taking their money elsewhere–outside South Africa. And that would make a bad situation worse. With that as his central argument, he shares many other important insights in this short piece. One example: South Africa is an old country and an old society–that makes it very different from most other developing or middle income countries. He also highlights the failure of the education system to address the roots of structural unemployment–a major cause of poverty. It might be objected that Mbeki has produced an analysis of what is wrong without providing solutions.  I do not accept that implied criticism.  Mbeki has tried to analyze the problem.  It is only when we understand what has gone wrong that we can think about what to do about it. Mbeki is the deputy chairman of the South African Institute of International Affairs.  He is the brother of Thabo Mbeki, and was a frequent critic of the Mbeki government and of the ANC.  He is also a businessman.  He is the leader of an informal South African circle that is thinking hard about how to reform the South African educational system.
    Blog Post by John Campbell September 26, 2012 Africa in Transition
  • Economics
    Mexico ¿Cómo Vamos?
    Two of Mexico’s leading think tanks—Mexico Evalúa and IMCO—launched a new website this week, titled Mexico ¿cómo vamos? It lays out a perhaps surprising vision for Mexico: as a leading global economy. The website brings together some sixty economic and public policy experts from varying backgrounds to focus on where Mexico’s economy stands today and what it needs to do to achieve this ambitious future. Providing both raw data and expert analysis, the website identifies attainable goals in six critical areas (investment, competition, competitiveness, well-being, productivity, and exports), with the aim of expanding the middle class, reducing inequality, and promoting social inclusion. While much of the information is available through different sources around the internet, Mexico cómo vamos brings it all together in one place, and uses effective easy-to-read graphics to illustrate its goals. My current favorite is its “Economic Stoplight,” which will be updated every three months. In this graphic, Mexico cómo vamos explains where Mexico should be on various measure to reach a better future, and then compares these numbers to where it currently stands—color coding by just how close Mexico is to its target. As seen below (translated to English), Mexico is right on track for private investment and exports, but far below where it needs to be regarding productivity and competition. From Mexico cómo vamos wesbite http://www.mexicocomovamos.mx/semaforo-economico To move from red and yellow toward green will require a collective push from many different sectors of Mexican society and especially from the incoming government (whose transition team was invited to México cómo vamos’s launch). There are real challenges that will require significant political capital to overcome. But by breaking down the information and factors into this set of indicators, Mexico cómo vamos is helping provide a means for monitoring Mexico’s successes and failures, and hopefully influencing policy. While still in its website infancy, Mexico cómo vamos looks to be a valuable resource for Mexico watchers, informing citizens and hopefully provoking the broader discussions necessary to move the country forward.
    Blog Post by Shannon K. O'Neil September 26, 2012 Latin America’s Moment
  • Defense and Security
    Obama Speaks to the UN General Assembly
    CFR.org just posted a First Take that I did on President Obama’s speech to the UN General Assembly this morning.  The speech was fairly predictable, and it was undoubtedly aimed as much at American voters as it was to the delegates in the auditorium. Obama denounced the recent wave of attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities, defended freedom of speech, called for the condemnation of hatred and intolerance directed at any religion, and warned yet again of the dangers that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose. One topic that Obama discussed at length that I didn’t mention in my CFR.org piece was Syria. The president denounced a “dictator who massacres his people” and pledged to “stand with those Syrians who believe in a different vision” for their country. But to those hoping—or fearing—that Obama would do more to stop “a regime that tortures children and shoots rockets at apartment buildings,” he offered nothing new. Washington will impose sanctions and threaten those who commit war crimes with prosecution. U.S. military intervention or support, however, is not in the cards. In all, Obama gave just the sort of speech one would expect just six weeks before Election Day in a race that looks headed for the wire and with Republicans intensifying their criticisms of his foreign policy. Diplomats from around the world may have been in the auditorium with Obama, but his real audience was American voters. And his message to them was: I stand up for American interests and values, and I am not about to plunge U.S. troops into yet another messy conflict in the Middle East. (P.S. While President Obama was speaking to UN delegates in Turtle Bay, Mitt Romney was speaking in Midtown Manhattan at the Clinton Global Initiative’s annual meeting. I haven’t had a chance to read the governor’s speech in its entirety yet, but its main point seems to be that more conditions should be attached to foreign aid. As previous presidents have discovered, that is easier said than done, especially when it comes to countries that Washington wants something from. Just think back three years to the flap in Pakistan over the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill.)
    Blog Post by James M. Lindsay September 25, 2012 The Water's Edge
  • Germany
    History Lessons: The Munich Agreement
    CFR’s James M. Lindsay reflects on the signing of the Munich Agreement on September 30, 1938 and how the United States can apply the lesson learned to potential threats in the world today.
    Explainer Video with James M. Lindsay and Hagit Ariav September 25, 2012
  • Economics
    President Felipe Calderón Discusses Mexico’s Future
    http://youtu.be/OOTcr5v1R24 This morning, CFR hosted Mexico’s president Felipe Calderón in its Washington D.C. office for a brief presentation and question and answer session (you can read the transcript here). The conversation covered a vast number of topics, with Calderón’s prepared remarks highlighting his administration’s achievements and the questions and answers delving deeper into specific issues, such as Mexico’s energy sector and Calderón’s fight against organized crime. To sum up the past six years in office, Calderón highlighted his country’s achievements in concrete numbers: opening 140 new public universities, building or repairing 3000 new health clinics, and constructing or repairing some 20,000 km of roads. He also spoke more conceptually of Mexico’s successes: arguing that its adherence to free trade and fiscal responsibility enabled a quick recovery from the 2009 global financial crisis, the rise of Mexico’s middle class, and its increasing global competitiveness. He emphasized the importance of Mexico’s neighbors—spanning from Canada to Chile—in boosting Mexico’s production and broader economy, and in particular the benefits of economic integration with the United States for both nations. He then turned to security, talking about his government’s efforts to strengthen the rule of law over the last six years, and placing the root of the problems on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border (Mexico’s weak rule of law and U.S. drug demand and lax gun laws). Calderón’s speech defines his legacy as he sees it. It also endeavors to influence the agenda of the next Mexican administration, urging the Peña Nieto government to continue integrating with North America, and to continue his path in the fight against drug-related violence.
    Blog Post by Shannon K. O'Neil September 24, 2012 Latin America’s Moment
  • Sub-Saharan Africa
    Guest Post: Flash Mob Dynamics of Boko Haram
    This is a guest post by Jim Sanders, a career, now retired, West Africa watcher for various federal agencies. The views expressed below are his personal views and do not reflect those of his former employers. The recent tragedy in Benghazi exhibited flash mob characteristics, which Wired magazine makes a useful comparison to with similar violence in Mexico, Darfur, and Nigeria. These dynamics were also present in the London 2011 riots, which I have commented on previously. Instead of a pre-planned, lethal attack by known enemies such as al-Qaeda, individuals proposed actions without any central direction, they gained momentum, and in rather short order a tragedy occurred.  Though the outcome may not have been part of the original intent, it was generated by the momentum that built up.  This is how flash mobs and "do-ocracy" (an organization or movement where respect and power are awarded based on action) operate. It is unlike classic insurgencies.  They at least have leadership cadres that plan operations. This phenomenon seems relatively new to Libya.  It is not new to Nigeria.  Boko Haram, I believe, has been operating in a similar way for quite a while now. Implications for policymakers, domestically and internationally, are scary because there is little they can do to guard against this dynamic.  There is more they can do to try to defend against groups like al-Qaeda because it at least is known to have specific leaders. But what does a government do, when confronted with flash mobs and "do-ocracies"?  These are groups that lack conventional cohesion.  They are held together instead by a sense of "belonging" to a gang--a social role with its own morality and self esteem--but one that holds meaning in a world with limited prospects. From this it follows that the end game is probably not anything we would recognize, i.e., nothing we are likely to be familiar with from history or our own experience.  A rioter interviewed after the London riots in 2011 admitted that the violence and destruction did not solve his problems, but the riots were, nonetheless, the greatest thing he had ever participated in. Boko Haram members may feel the Kingdom they say they seek is nearing.  That sense is capable of generating a great deal of enthusiasm, but one must be participant to sense and feel it.  Foreign policy professionals think in terms of end states, so as to know how to structure negotiations for example, but they may be intellectualizing the situation more than the participants.  I imagine (and maybe that is what it takes) the feeling of action, of getting to the Kingdom is more gratifying than the end state itself.  That is why Boko Haram continues the struggle.  One reason why the Nigerian government trumpets every arrest, every Boko Haram killing, and prevented attack in the press is to create a perception of progress against a threat they know they cannot handle.  In contrast, Boko Haram carries on, seemingly undeterred.
    Blog Post by Guest Blogger for John Campbell September 24, 2012 Africa in Transition
  • India
    Suu Kyi’s U.S. Visit: Overshadowing the Real Powers in Myanmar
    Democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s two-week visit to the United States has thus far proven highly successful, at least on the terms understood in advance. As she did in Europe, Suu Kyi has wowed audiences in the United States, on a level that can be compared to no one other than the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela for the awe that people feel in meeting her. She has received award after award, and graciously sat for more policy meetings, roundtables, events, and conferences than any Washington official would ever want to endure while jetlagged. Without a doubt, Suu Kyi’s relationship with the United States, as well as with other democratic powers, is important for Myanmar’s future, and critical to increased aid flows to the country. Yet much of the discussion at policy seminars and other events with Suu Kyi has seemed to focus on the idea that the U.S. and Europe are the critical players in Myanmar’s future. In part, this is due to the admiration for Suu Kyi in the West, and the low profile of President Thein Sein in the West —his United Nations General Assembly appearance has received far less coverage than Suu Kyi’s bravura tour, and yet Thein Sein, despite his military past, has been the key to implementing the radical reforms over the past two years. Thein Sein also is primarily responsible for the recent cabinet reshuffle that further consolidated the control of reformers in the government, marginalizing or simply canning several important hard-liners. What’s more, the discussions in the United States with Suu Kyi have also tended to avoid another fact: the most important players in any future democratic Myanmar are China, India, Thailand, and Singapore. That truth is not going to change, and in fact, as Myanmar opens up, it will become even more closely integrated with its near neighbors. And yet the relationship between Suu Kyi (and the broader Myanmar democracy movement) and nearly all of these near powers is tenuous and sometimes downright poor. Even with India, the democracy movement’s relationship has gone downhill in recent years, after India reversed decades of pro-democracy support regarding Myanmar and pursued a more realist policy, accommodating the past ruling junta. If Suu Kyi and the democracy movement really are going to win national elections in 2015 (which, if they are free and fair, is almost sure), they must rapidly repair their relations with these critical neighbors, rather than focusing on the West, which is where most Burmese democracy advocates have become most comfortable over the past two decades.
    Blog Post by Joshua Kurlantzick September 24, 2012 Asia Unbound
  • Defense and Security
    Who Were the Most and Least Successful Foreign Policy Presidents?
    As a teaser for next month’s presidential debates, CNN.com’s Global Public Square asked a group of “historians and commentators” to offer their judgments on which presidents enjoyed the most success on foreign policy and which enjoyed the least.  I was lucky enough to be invited to weigh in. GPS posted the picks for most successful foreign policy president yesterday, and it posted the picks for least successful foreign policy presidents today. I opted for a bipartisan theme with my picks in both categories, selecting Franklin Roosevelt and George H.W. Bush as the most successful foreign policy presidents and Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush as the least successful.  The other picks for most and least successful foreign policy president also leaned heavily toward presidents from World War II on. (Bruce Jentleson of Duke swam against the tide, applauding Thomas Jefferson for engineering the Louisiana Purchase and booing James Polk for initiating the Mexican-American War.) The tilt toward more recent presidents no doubt reflects the natural tendency to emphasize what we are most familiar with. But it also reflects the fact that foreign policy constitutes a much more significant part of the president’s job after Pearl Harbor than it did before it. Things change when you become a global superpower. Of course, all such lists and picks are subjective. A lot of presidents have scored significant foreign policy successes, and regrettably a fair number of presidents have botched things. Many have done both. I could easily make the case against all my picks and argue that some other president did better or worse. Indeed, the more I look at the list that GPS compiled, the more I think that one president got slighted and another got off easy. The president who got slighted? George Washington. His decision in 1793 to declare the United States neutral in the war between Britain and France might have been the most consequential foreign policy decision in U.S. history. Had Washington followed the advice of his secretary of state, Thomas Jefferson, and sided with the French he might well have plunged the country into a war that ruined the fledgling republic. Washington followed that decision up with a Farewell Address that set the bar high for future foreign adventures, something that benefited a young and weak country. The president who got off easy? James Madison. When you ask Congress to declare war and the result is that your national capital is sacked and you have to flee the White House with the china and silverware, you should at least be mentioned in the conversation about least successful foreign policy presidents. So consider it done. Anyway, feel free to offer up your picks for America’s most and least successful foreign policy presidents in the comments box below.
    Blog Post by James M. Lindsay September 21, 2012 The Water's Edge
  • China
    Message to the Candidates: Talk China Policy not China Smack
    In one U.S. Presidential election after another, the media hype the specter of China as an issue of real policy import. It has been two decades, however, since China has been anything more than a blip on a Presidential debate television screen; and frankly, that has been a good thing. Campaigns rarely elevate thinking on substantive issues. This time around, however, China is becoming a genuine political football, tossed around without any clear aim but hard enough to cause some real damage. Out on the campaign trail, China rhetoric lives mostly in the realm of political insult. Governor Romney’s campaign argues “President Obama promised to take China ‘to the mat’ but instead he has allowed China to treat the United States like a doormat." Should he become president, Governor Romney has stated that “I will finally take China to the carpet and say, ‘Look you guys, I’m gonna label you a currency manipulator and apply tariffs unless you stop those practices.”  For his part, President Obama has railed against Governor Romney’s private equity experience with China: "I understand my opponent has been running around Ohio claiming he’s going to roll up his sleeves, and take the fight to China…. Ohio, you can’t stand up to China when all you’ve done is send them our jobs.” In reference to China’s trade subsidies, President Obama has asserted that “It’s not right, it’s against the rules and we will not let it stand.” Such throwaway campaign lines are part and parcel of U.S. presidential politicking, but China deserves to be treated seriously in the Presidential race for all the reasons everyone already knows, including: it manipulates its currency; its companies routinely violate intellectual property rights and engage in cyber-espionage; its regional security rhetoric and military activity have become much more assertive in the past few years; and its political practices—both at home and abroad—challenge U.S. notions of good governance and often undermine U.S. efforts to address crises in global hot spots. While China’s policies may not be that different or even as detrimental as those of many other countries, the size of its population, economy, and military greatly amplify its impact. Thoughtful discourse should not be difficult. President Obama has a record on China that he can defend and Governor Romney can challenge. There are also emerging issues that have yet to be tackled and desperately need to be addressed.  Here are my suggestions for four China-related issues the candidates might debate: 1)     Is the U.S. pivot toward Asia the right strategy? This is one of President Obama’s hallmark initiatives, and Governor Romney asserts it has been oversold and under-resourced. 2)     Assuming China is not going to wake up tomorrow and decide it is important to play by all the rules of international finance and trade, what should the United States do? President Obama has focused much of his energy on the WTO and multilateral engagement and enforcement mechanisms; in contrast, Governor Romney has advanced a set of unilateral and punitive actions. 3)     How will the United States manage the wave of Chinese investment activity that may soon be washing up on its shores? What is the potential upside, as well as downside risk? I haven’t heard anything from either candidate on this front. 4)     Are we making China into an enemy we don’t need and they don’t want to be, and if so, how do we avoid this trap? If the candidates themselves can’t get China right, the Chinese media are apparently ready to step in to help. The Global Times, for one, has offered up its services: “As US elections often involve China-bashing, China cannot remain out of the affair. China should play a role in the elections and correct the attitude of both candidates and the American public toward China.” My guess is that on this particular China policy, both candidates would have the same reaction: Thanks, but no thanks.
    Blog Post by Elizabeth C. Economy September 21, 2012 Asia Unbound
  • South Korea
    Where the Center Holds: The 2012 Election in Korea and U.S.-ROK Relations
    Because the Republic of Korea (ROK) has a single-term, five-year presidency, presidential election cycles in South Korea rarely coincide with those of the United States. But nearly simultaneous elections will occur in late 2012, creating the rare possibility that the two countries will undergo concurrent leadership transitions. In recent years, the pendulum swing of democratic power transitions between conservative and progressive forces in both countries has posed particular challenges for policy coordination between Washington and Seoul. This makes the two election results potentially quite significant for U.S.-South Korea relations. South Korea's political rhetoric underscores the "South-South conflict" (in Korean, nam-nam galdeung) between ROK progressives and conservatives over policy toward North Korea and other social issues. Despite this dynamic, South Korea's 2012 presidential election is shaping up to be a contest for the middle. Though it sometimes seems as if South Korean and American political parties are competing to see which country's politics can be most polarized, South Korea's political landscape currently resembles the 1992 U.S. presidential election (which had three major candidates) more than the 2012 U.S. race. The platforms of the ruling conservative New Frontier (Saenuri) Party and the liberal opposition Democratic United Party (DUP) are converging, and both parties face a centrist "third party" challenge from a successful entrepreneur, Ahn Chul-soo, who has tapped into public frustration with the stranglehold of established parties on political power. The result has been a move to the middle. Several factors have contributed to this shift. First, the severity of the pendulum swing from conservative to progressive and back to conservative governments is moderating. Current president Lee Myung-bak was hardly as conservative as former presidents Kim Young-sam and Roh-tae-woo, or military leaders before them. Likewise, DUP candidates are not likely to find political space for a North Korea policy that will match those espoused by progressive predecessors such as Kim Dae-jung or Roh Moo-hyun. New Frontier Party candidate Park Geun-hye, who formally won her party's nomination on August 20, has moved to co-opt traditionally progressive issues by centering her campaign on welfare issues and questions of economic justice. DUP candidate Moon Jae-in, who won his party's nomination on September 16, has sought to distance himself from the legacy of his political mentor, Roh Moo-hyun. And businessman and professor Ahn Chul-soo has shaken up the race with a progressive economic agenda coupled with what at first blush seems to be a conservative approach to foreign policy. Park Geun-hye remade the image of the deeply unpopular Grand National Party through a series of bold moves in early 2012, including renaming it the New Frontier Party. One sign of her success was the party's victory in the April National Assembly elections, hailed in the media as the "Resurrection of the Queen of the Elections, Park Geun-hye." In her rebranding of the party, Park did more than change its name, logo, and colors; she also recruited a younger and more moderate cohort of candidates. The DUP has faced dramatic changes of its own, albeit less due to leadership by any one individual than to the disintegration of its alliance with the Unified Progressive Party (UPP). The alliance between the DUP and the UPP in advance of April's general elections was designed to win progressive control of the National Assembly. But this marriage of convenience with the UPP put the DUP in the awkward position of calling for the repeal of the South Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) and opposition to plans for a naval base on Jeju Island—initiatives that began during the Roh Moo-hyun administration under the leadership of many currently in the DUP. The DUP-UPP alliance has since foundered on a scandal within the UPP that exposed pro–North Korean leanings and has split the coalition. The end of any formal alliance with the UPP may free the DUP to further moderate its positions before the December 19 election. But the bigger problem for the DUP is that its only path to power is likely to form by backing the independent candidacy of Ahn Chul-soo. Such an awkward alliance will have complicated political implications in the event Ahn actually wins the presidency. South Korea's one-term presidency and the resulting early lame-duck status of President Lee Myung-bak, not to mention the looming U.S. presidential election, has already had an impact on issues related to U.S.-ROK relations. The prospects for South Korea joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade negotiations, the unfortunate last-minute cancellation of a much-needed General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) between South Korea and Japan, and the almost certain punting of the difficult negotiations over the U.S.-ROK Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Agreement to after the elections are but a few of the many issues that will face new leadership teams in both Washington and Seoul in early 2013. Regardless of the outcome of the two elections, several issues will prove to be challenging for U.S.-ROK alliance managers. First and foremost, the movement to the middle by the three leading South Korean candidates suggests a more moderate approach to North Korea, and there is wide anticipation of early postelection initiatives from Seoul, including the restart of the Diamond Mountain tourism project in North Korea and further expansion of both humanitarian aid and economic investment. Coordinating these efforts in the face of likely continued North Korean intransigence on its nuclear program will provide an early test for diplomats in Washington and Seoul. Another early challenge will be the negotiation of a revised nuclear cooperation agreement between Washington and Seoul, something that needs to be concluded by the beginning of summer 2013. Although seemingly unrelated, ongoing U.S.-ROK negotiations over so-called new missile guidelines threaten to set the context for the nuclear cooperation agreement talks. As the missile negotiations have dragged on, the issue of whether or not South Korea will be able to amplify the range of its missiles has increasingly been portrayed in the South Korean media and in some political circles as a question of U.S. respect for South Korea and relative fairness—particularly in terms of North Korea's provocative and unfettered program. Should negotiations over U.S.-ROK nuclear cooperation become defined by a narrative of "fairness" and "respect" rather than focused on strengthening international regimes and South Korea's interests as a nuclear exporter, the first major negotiations between a new administration in Seoul and a potential new administration in Washington will be exceedingly difficult. The recent deterioration in relations between South Korea and Japan poses yet another challenge for Seoul-Washington coordination. As a treaty ally of both Japan and South Korea, the United States needs and strongly encourages increased cooperation between them. However, the recent increase in tensions over historical legacy issues including comfort women (sex slaves) and the Dokdo/Takeshima Island has served to strengthen more nationalistic elements in both countries. Ordinarily the more internationally minded Saenuri Party might be expected to take the lead in tamping down such sentiments and pushing for closer cooperation with Japan as part of alliance coordination with the United States. However, given Park Geun-hye's personal legacy as the daughter of former president Park Chung-hee, who was educated in Japan, her susceptibility to criticism that she is "too pro-Japan" may make this more difficult in the coming years. The pendulum swing of parties is an unavoidable characteristic of democracy in both the United States and the Republic of Korea. While the swing in South Korea may be less severe than in years past, it will not be clear for three more months whether in this year of shared elections the U.S. and ROK pendulums are swinging in tandem.
    Report by L. Gordon Flake September 21, 2012
  • Politics and Government
    The World Next Week: UN General Assembly Meets, Aung San Suu Kyi Visits the United States, and Islands Divide China and Japan
    The World Next Week podcast is up. Bob McMahon and I discussed the upcoming meeting of the UN General Assembly; Aung San Suu Kyi’s visit to the United States; and China and Japan’s bickering over some tiny islands. [audio: http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/media/editorial/2012/20120920_TWNW.mp3] The highlights: President Obama will be speaking to the world when he stands at the UN podium next week, but his real audience will be American voters. With less than fifty days to go until the November 6 election, expect him to warn about the need to stop Iran’s nuclear program, insist on the inviolability of embassies and consulates, and restate America’s commitment to Israel’s security. A lot of UN member states will sympathize with the Palestinians in their bid to move from observer status to full member state, creating problems for U.S. diplomats who have been working quietly to keep that bid from coming to a vote. Aung San Suu Kyi is being feted during her visit to the United States, a visit that would have been unthinkable just a year ago. The Nobel Prize winner began her visit by urging the United States  to ease the many U.S. sanctions on Myanmar, a position that some human rights activists oppose. The question being debated is whether tough sanctions are needed to convince the Burmese government to carry through on its political reforms, or whether Myanmar’s political opening will stall if Washington continues to wield the sanctions club. Just as China and Japan were set to mark the fortieth anniversary of their agreement to restore diplomatic relations, tensions between the two countries escalated over who controls a few tiny, uninhabited islands in the East China Sea known as the Diaoyu in Chinese and the Senkaku in Japanese. The dispute is partly a matter of national pride, but big money is potentially at stake. Whoever controls the islands can lay claim to the potentially vast resources that can be mined, drilled, or otherwise extracted from the surrounding waters. Bob’s Figure of the Week is Xi Jinping. My Figure of the Week is 51. As always, you’ll have to listen to the podcast to find out why. For more on the topics we discussed in the podcast check out: Heads of state address the UN General Assembly: The LA Times predicts that Barack Obama will stress Middle East issues in his address to the UN General Assembly. The Australian writes that Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas is expected to request a vote for UN recognition of Palestine. Fars News notes that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is scheduled to address the assembly amid growing concerns about Iran’s nuclear capability. Myanmar’s opposition leader visits the United States: NPR writes that Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, will receive the Congressional Gold Medal during her 17-day visit to the United States; BBC reports that in her visit with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Suu Kyi called for the easing of U.S. sanctions on Myanmar. The New York Times notes that Suu Kyi’s trip began the same day that Burmese president Thein Sein freed 514 prisoners as the most recent attempt at political reform. China and Japan mark the 40th anniversary of diplomatic ties amid growing tensions: World Politics Review discusses escalating tensions between the two countries after Tokyo announced its intentions of purchasing the disputed Senkaku Islands. The New York Times reports on large-scale anti-Japanese demonstrations that took place in dozens of Chinese cities. Foreign Policy questions why the Chinese government has put a lockdown on websites that discuss “the U.S. history of purchasing territory.”
    Blog Post by James M. Lindsay September 21, 2012 The Water's Edge