Do Words Matter?
Well, I had a fun outing on Memorial Day with this post on Security. Worth a look - some of the discussions are more into implementation details and interpretations than typical. Latin America, Middle East, China, etc. Kind of like a Rorschach test on what Obama's foreign policy means - hopefully I'll understand the consensus soon, but one interesting item is that Obama supporters seem to think NATO is dead, obsolete. Is that really the perception? Latin America looked a bit peculiar to me as well - hopefully someone will confirm or deny my impressions that it looks like business-as-usual for promoting security forces and drug interdiction south of the border.
Anyway, enough prelude - in the middle of the debate, someone sent me to Obama's foreign policy site. And there I came across this gem:
Seek New Partnerships in Asia: Obama will forge a more effective framework in Asia ...[and] work to build an infrastructure with countries in East Asia that can promote stability and prosperity; and work to ensure that China plays by international rules.
My my my. One glance at that and my mind popped up "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere". Which as Wiki helpfully notes "is remembered today largely as a front for the Japanese control of occupied countries during World War II, in which puppet governments manipulated local populations and economies for the benefit of Imperial Japan."
Am I too sensitive? Are the Chinese? After all, they're still bickering with the Japanese over how China and the Rape of Nanking are portrayed in Japanese school books some 70 years later, or visits to soldiers' tombs by Japanese leaders. How would they react to this candidate's Web site? Couldn't someone in the campaign find a synonym for "prosperity"? A different term than "East Asia"? Some other way of saying this? How long has this item been up? It almost seems like a hacker got in there just to mess with him.
So anyway, do words matter? Should we be concerned about the bickering that that "East Asian prosperity" infrastructure might produce with our sensitive friends in China? (Remember how long we negotiated over the embassy bombing in Belgrade and subsequent protests in the street? Our plane they dismantled in Hainan?). Is this just a single isolated slipup or one in a worrisome trend of misphrasings in a campaign that had the reputation of being carefully choreographed?
Okay, fire!!! (Don't forget to click Recommend, and I'll even pay for the bullet you hit me with)
Anyway, enough prelude - in the middle of the debate, someone sent me to Obama's foreign policy site. And there I came across this gem:
Seek New Partnerships in Asia: Obama will forge a more effective framework in Asia ...[and] work to build an infrastructure with countries in East Asia that can promote stability and prosperity; and work to ensure that China plays by international rules.
My my my. One glance at that and my mind popped up "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere". Which as Wiki helpfully notes "is remembered today largely as a front for the Japanese control of occupied countries during World War II, in which puppet governments manipulated local populations and economies for the benefit of Imperial Japan."
Am I too sensitive? Are the Chinese? After all, they're still bickering with the Japanese over how China and the Rape of Nanking are portrayed in Japanese school books some 70 years later, or visits to soldiers' tombs by Japanese leaders. How would they react to this candidate's Web site? Couldn't someone in the campaign find a synonym for "prosperity"? A different term than "East Asia"? Some other way of saying this? How long has this item been up? It almost seems like a hacker got in there just to mess with him.
So anyway, do words matter? Should we be concerned about the bickering that that "East Asian prosperity" infrastructure might produce with our sensitive friends in China? (Remember how long we negotiated over the embassy bombing in Belgrade and subsequent protests in the street? Our plane they dismantled in Hainan?). Is this just a single isolated slipup or one in a worrisome trend of misphrasings in a campaign that had the reputation of being carefully choreographed?
Okay, fire!!! (Don't forget to click Recommend, and I'll even pay for the bullet you hit me with)
Advertisement
Here was Obama's policy sheet on Latin America for those interested.
May 27, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing. 84 comments so far. On a completely imaginary question about the word "prosperity." My hat is off to you, Desidero.
May 28, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was the whole phrasing, Alex, the whole phrasing. But thank you, you are what we say, très gentile, très sympathique.
May 28, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Self-serving oversimplification, at best.
You're not stupid. You understand full well how counterproductive this tactic is if one is truly interested in nuanced discussion.
Regarding your oh-so-concerned head shaking about Senator Obama's "East Asia" problem (GASP! Obama said "prosperity!" Internet know-it-alls say "prosperity" has made China mad in the past!. How do you explain this?) you should use that wiki to look up non-sequitur.
May 27, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can look at the security thread for NATO and see if you something besides general dismissal (basically let EU do its own security and forget it).
May 27, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is some info that might be helpful
Obama on China: Neither Enemy or Friend
http://transpacifica.net/2007/04/27/obama-on-china-neither-our-enemy-nor-our-friend/
May 27, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Relatively straight-forward, a bit fat-free. Not sure what he means by "stabilize the region". It is stable, even if I don't like some of the stability.
May 27, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the wording in its entirety:
"Obama will forge a more effective framework in Asia that goes beyond bilateral agreements, occasional summits, and ad hoc arrangements, such as the six-party talks on North Korea. He will maintain strong ties with allies like Japan, South Korea and Australia; work to build an infrastructure with countries in East Asia that can promote stability and prosperity; and work to ensure that China plays by international rules."
I think you are reading too much into this and I don't believe there is any parallel to the "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" which was an pseudonym for Japan's political imperialism and economic raping of much of East and Southeast Asia in the years leading up to 1945.
The critical component is the first half of the statement that acknowledges undue focus on relations with China at the cost of neglecting long-standing East Asian allies. Nowhere was this more evident than the Bush administration's dealings with North Korea. If you look at Asian media and what is said, many people in Japan, S. Korea, and China were horrified and dismayed by the U.S.' position on N. Korea because if there is a war or a collapse of the N. Korean regime, it will be China and S. Korea that will suffer the greatest consequence--millions of refugees. Neither country can effectively deal with such a catastrophe. N. Korea is one of the great threats to stability and prosperity in Asia. Although Asian countries have met repeatedly to discuss N. Korea, the U.S. has responded with hostility towards any discussions that seemed to convey so-called "appeasement."
The word "infrastructure," I believe is meant in a diplomatic sense where the U.S. re-engages East Asia as allies and partners. Moreover, there is little evidence that those in Asia see this wording as an outline of U.S. imperialistic ambitions. For many countries in Asia, there is a real interest in China's emergence as a regional power--it should also be noted that Taiwan, Japan, and S. Korea are some of the largest international investors in China. While these countries are benefiting from China's economic expansion, there are concerns that China does not always play by accepted rules. Insisting that China play by international rules will not only be popular in the U.S. but also in Asia.
Finally, there are deep and profound internal conflicts in East Asia over Japan's roles in WWII. These conflicts are historical in much the same way that European national divisions are profound. But like Europe, there is also economic cooperation that has tied Asian countries together. What has happened in the last eight years (and even before) is that the U.S. has focused primarily on Asia as a military asset and has not kept up with the rapidly changing societies that is Asia.
May 27, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've decided that Desi is actually an Obama supporter. This is a transparent effort to psych us up for the general election by forcing us to read up on the minutiae of Obama's policy proposals, dictionary in hand. The idea is to keep us interested, keep us from tuning out, by giving us someone to argue against.
Well, sorry. I'm not falling for it this time!
May 27, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desi: words do matter. Complete sentences matter even more. And coherent thoughts matter most of all.
Your attempts to find something in nothing are impressive, if not futile.
I'm with Alex39: not playing with this one.
May 27, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I listened to you guys play "assassination" all 3-day weekend and now you're just plain tuckered out? Remember the discovered/forged Mickey Kantor clip - wow, that brought on an avalanche.
No, my question wasn't whether Obama really was thinking of emulating the Japanese Empire. The question was whether the words weren't pretty horridly evocative of a bad period in history, a slogan that maybe someone savvier should have picked up on and changed. (Just like someone reading Michelle's stump speech should have caught "first time proud of America" and changed it). Yes? No? Maybe?
May 27, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, no one has said they are "tuckered out". They said that they have better things to do with their time.
Second, what words are evocative? "Asia"? "East Asia"? "Prosperity"?
Are you Chinese? Should we care what popped up in your mind as an indication of what the Chinese government will see in a "coded" message? Most people on TPM have no clue about what happened in the 1968 convention (RFK was still woefully behind, McCarthy AND HIS SUPPORTERS were angry with RFK, and a few other conveniently forgotten facts) and you expect the American public to read a coded message and interpret it from something in the 1930's?
No wonder you support Hillary! You like to define what is "is"!
May 27, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps he should employ more well-read people with a grasp of history to handle his campaign messages and work in his administration. Or will it be 4/8 years of hearing, "Stop blowing things up out of proportion"?
And yeah, I lived in China and it's quite the important trading partner, but even before I knew that this phrase was simply poison. Look at what problems a few cartoons caused in Denmark.
May 27, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Denmark? Perfect, Desi.
Blame the victim for the crime.
May 27, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who in your mind is the victim?
May 28, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wondered the same thing.
May 28, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I tried to respond with a bit more context above; however, I misread your post as it seems your question was much more simple.
So, in regards to your question of whether or not Obama wants to emulate the Japanese Empire because he used the words "East Asia" and "Prosperity" in the same sentence, the answer is NO.
May 27, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, the question was whether his policy segment on Asia wasn't horribly worded. But I see boy genius and his minions can do no wrong. Don't pay me no never mind.
May 27, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
IF that is your criticism, I think it's an interesting topic to explore. Unfortunately, it was not clear in your posting. It is also silly to take up the passive-aggressive mantle as a response to criticisms.
Having said that, let me reiterate why I do not believe it was "horribly worded." The entire paragraph and wording has to be taken as a whole and truth be told, the Asian media (which has followed this primary very closely and has scrutinized the policies of all remaining candidates as has most of the world) are not making the association with Japanese Imperialism.
Reason for this may simply be a translation thing. What we read in English is not necessarily translated in those exact words into Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, etc. Chinese in particular is a complex language, as you know, and depending on the context and tone, many different characters can be assigned depending on who is talking and what is said. Similarly, Korean is a strangely complex language and again, words are translated based on an assortment of things, including tone.
It may be that Asians simply are not reading something insidious in that paragraph and that those in the U.S. who have observed our policies for the last eight years are also not making that association.
May 27, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many Chinese read English quite well. "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" is its well-known English version.
Perhaps I wrote too much, but I said: "How would they react to this candidate's Web site? Couldn't someone in the campaign find a synonym for "prosperity"? A different term than "East Asia"? Some other way of saying this? How long has this item been up? It almost seems like a hacker got in there just to mess with him." How did you interpret that, or was it lost in the post?
Anyway, something that evokes an East Asia prosperity "framework/infrastructure" that works to ensure China plays by international rules will likely touch off not-too-pleasant memories. Know any Chinese? Feel like asking their opinion? Am I talking to a statue?
May 27, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just got an email from a good friend in China. They're a little preoccupied right now. Something about an earthquake.
May 27, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the newsflash.
May 27, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Desi asked If I feel like asking someone Chinese about their opinion.
I converse weekly with my good friend in Nanning. He was my translator and guide when I visited China last fall.
My friend is grief-stricken right now to a degree that truly surprised and moved me.
The negative connotations of some pixels displaying the word "prosperity" next to "East Asian" are the furthest thing from his mind.
May 27, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm Chinese. I'm well aware of the historical rift between Japan and China. But there is nothing to link Obama's policy platform in 2008 with the policy of the Japanese Empire in the 1930's except for the coincidental use of the word "prosperity" rather than "economic growth" or any other synonymous word or phrase.
Prosperity and longevity are what we hope & pray for every Chinese New Year; I'd imagine there are similar customs in other East Asian countries. It's not beyond the pale that these words get used in policy platforms with reference to that region of the world.
May 27, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude! I thought you were like a Roman.
May 27, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know a little Chinese but I am fluent in Korean and I do keep up with the news in East Asia. I can tell you that your interpretation of this sentence is not widely shared. In the spirit of what SPQR has written, on behalf of many East Asians, I wish you economic prosperity in the coming year!
May 27, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the analogy to "assassination" may be good. I agree that you are reading too much into Obama's policy positions, in the same way that some people read into Hillary's assassination comment.
I appreciate, though, that this post doesn't try to blow a fauz pas into an international incident. Too many people are out there saying "Hillary said THIS! It's all over!" or "Obama said THAT! His chances in the general election just dropped through the toilet." Your comment is more like, "Obama has used words carelessly and is being inconsiderate and ignorant. In this instance, it could result in a minor political problem."
I can respect that. I can live with that.
May 27, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I think it might cause a bigger reaction than that, but at least you accept my basic point.
May 28, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I, Hillary Clinton, your future president, reject AND denounce reading my possible-Vice-President-Barack-Obama's foreign policy website. He is not, to my knowledge, Muslim, and your reading of his positions is a sexist attack against the stronger candidate - Me!
Leading the Japanese vote!
Most definitely leading the China vote!
Leading you all!
Much Love,
Hillary - the candidate who will still be alive in June!
May 27, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Am I too sensitive?" No. You are a troll. Your suggestion that the word "prosperity" has to be banned when speaking of all things Asian is absurd. Don't use the word "third" when speaking of anything German either.
May 27, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, he's too sensitive. Desi is no troll.
LOL at your German dig though, priceless.
May 27, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
By "priceless" I assume you mean "cheap" or "worthless".
May 27, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, "priceless" was hyperbolic. I meant that Dee Dee makes an apt (but not priceless) analogy.
That is, if you suggest it might be faux pas to say "prosperity," and "East Asian," together,
then Dee Dee suggests it might also be faux pas to say "third," and "German," together.
Well, Dee Dee doesn't "suggest it might," she makes a direct accusation, but you know what I'm saying. I won't rehash the historical reasons why the analogy is appropriate, as you already know them.
I know it's rude to spell things out, and I apologize, but you're the one who raised the point with your assumption.
May 27, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is there a problem saying "third" and "German" together?
May 27, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Third Reich.
Prosperity, like third, is just a word from the title of an Evil Empire that we happen to use for other purposes, with no intention of recalling those Evil Empires.
May 27, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about I advertise for a student work-study program in Poland with "Work To Make You Feel Free!!!" Perhaps toss a Star of David on it for good measure. It's the construct, not just the word "prosperity". Never mind. An abundance of forgiveness for Obama.
May 27, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is Obama's construct similar to the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere other than the use of the word "prosperity?"
He didn't say he wants to take over East Asia by force, install puppet governments, and oppress them economically.
May 27, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Japanese didn't say that either.
May 27, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Hitler didn't say he was going to kill the Jews. He tried to get away with saying he'd send them to Ethiopia or something.
May 27, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Godwin's Law.
May 28, 2008 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
The consensus seems to be that words don't matter.
May 27, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The consensus is that our sophisticated little concern troll's attempt at provocation is a waste of time. Unless that is we have heard from the Chinese government in the interim that they agree with her.
So the game is, was, Obama is the one who says words matter. But then why doesn't he scour every document for the slightest possibility of misinterpretation. He must be a hypocrite. We must be hypocrites. Or idiots. Ah ha. Got us coming and going. The classic chess forking.
Desi says the words read in the policy document through a dirty coke bottle are inflammatory.
Virtually everyone else (some of whom I gather are very familiar with east asia) says I don't see it that way.
Poof
May 27, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it seems like everyone you know's a puppy wet behind the ears on the intentions of various governments around the world as well as age-old grudges. For a Greek you have a poor appreciation of history. The Serbs are still worried about a field in Kosovo from 700 years ago. The Greeks are still fighting with Macedonians over the use of that name. Turkish diplomacy involves skirting around numerous bitter topics like Armenian genocide, the status of Cyprus, being shunned by the EU and their relationship with Greece.
May 28, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, SPQR. And as for the troll comment, I realize that Desidero writes frequent posts. They're almost always provocative questions that require wide ranging answers, but when someone tries to answer, he replies with further baiting, never answering substantively. Or, he'll present a breathtaking, but error-ridden, factual narrative (without sourcing) that people have to correct before they can possibly reply. The "defense/security" thread that he started was an open-ended question about Obama's views on a long list of issues, the answers to which are freely available both on Obama's website and elsewhere.
By the way, Desidero, on the "defense/security" thread, that's now disappeared from the ether but for your link to it, your description of China's relationships with Tibet and Xinjiang, as though they began in the 1950's (when China was reassembling after having been through almost constant civil and World War) with an occupation, ignores many centuries of Chinese hegemony, albeit varying degrees.
May 27, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit nonsense. Go the Security post and look at the extensive answers I gave. I responded to roo_P in detail as well.
May 28, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me get this straight. The Japanese imperialists come up with a bullshit Orwellian phrase to describe their activities and now suddenly putting "East Asia" and "prosperity" in the same sentence is an offensive reference to Japanese imperialism?
I think you're stretching for this one. That'd be like saying we can never again say "clear skies" because Bush used it to rape the environment, or "liberation" because of "Operation Iraqi Liberation".
Even if this were a closer relationship, you can't expect every word to be so heavily vetted. Words matter but intent matters more. There's nothing in that paragraph to indicate an intent to bring up that connotation for any purpose.
By the way I've already stated twice on TPM that the "assassination" business is silly. She obviously didn't intend such a meaning as is being constructed around the comment.
May 27, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, thanks for your acknowledgment/support on the "A" word flareup.
Second, yes, if someone comes along and tries to use "clear skies" in the title of an environmental initiative, yes, it will bring an ugly connotation, just like something ringing like "No Child Left Behind", "compassionate conservatism", "cultural revolution", "let a thousand flowers bloom" and other phrases tainted by corruption, dismal failure or atrocity.
May 28, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
but prosperity no longer has such an ugly connotation; if it did, it had it for a few years, last century. but no longer.
May 28, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno. It seems to me the point is that one could take a hold of anything and call it inflammatory and disrespectful.
MJ is still beating the RFK "comment" horse in the Cafe.
It's amusing to see the trite dismissal when the shoe is on the other foot.
May 27, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right.
Because claiming on your website that you will work towards prosperity in East Asia is directly comparable.
May 27, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Depends on how it's read, and by whom.
Look at the very different reactions to the RFK remark from Obama supporters and everyone else. Same words, different reactions.
I'd think insulting the Chinese would be much, much worse.
Let's hope the GOP doesn't make an issue out of it.
May 27, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
workerbee, as I explained below, this does not even rank as "nontroversy." It could possibly be considered to be a completely wacky conspiracy theory if those tenuously connected language constructs translated the same in the native languages, which they do not. Furthermore, the East Asian nations are already working together toward economic and security agreements, bi- and multilateral.
May 28, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's because they know how to phrase things not to cause international outrage. Will Obama have any professionals on his team to avoid this? Or will it be the same guys getting out the vote on campuses?
How did "first time proud of America" get left in Michelle's stump speech? Who was the professional who was supposed to review her speech? Why didn't he/she catch it? But I can't ask these questions. It's just simply "admire the efficiency and excellence with which Obama's run his campaign".
May 28, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have lost, clearly. I would like to think we can have an actual discussion about issues but apparently this is some type of a competition?
I explained why this is not in any way something that would cause "an international incident." It has nothing to do with anything else--particularly a non-stump speech that the right wing is trying their best to cast in some controversial light.
Accept or refute it and move on.
It is fine to be wrong every now and then. Hell, you could even have played it as as if it was all a joke on your part and shrugged it off with some dignity but this is just pathetic. I expect more of you.
Also, you reference
It is not a "bickering" or a he-said-she-said. The Japanese education system is actively and factually repressing and whitewashing information about the nation's activities at least between 1890 and 1945. That should be unacceptable in any modern nation. Not to say that Chinese history education is exactly accurate but they do have a point in this particular instance.
The "soldiers' tombs" argument, which I do view as less important due to a certain religious connotations in shintoism, refers to the fact that the "visits" consist of explicitly paying respect to those enshrined--a group that includes war criminals convicted of some pretty fucking atrocious stuff. Some things the Japanese did, particularly in China, make Mengele pale in comparison. As enlightened citizens, we of course do not hold this against the Japanese today but they seem to have some hang-ups about it.
So those are completely different situations.
Actually apropos, this whole thread kind of reminds me of an entirely different discussion that veered badly off-track when one of the participants thought that the H.L. Mencken whose "dissecting style" we admired was the person usually known as Dr. Joseph Mengele.
May 28, 2008 6:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the Chinese are still sensitive about our messing with their internal affairs regarding the killings at Tiananmen and any trip the head of Taiwan makes to the US or any talk with or about the Dalai Lama and any discussion of what they're doing in Sudan and of course the Spratley Islands are off the board, and should they need to the Boxer Rebellion can be brought up and don't pressure them on Hong Kong rights...
You simply don't acknowledge who the Chinese are. They are more than willing to blow up an incident and take advantage of it, whether they're offended or not. (Considering the journalists disappeared in China, their worry about the journalists in the Belgrade embassy bombing was ironic, but that didn't stop them from busing in thousands and thousands of students to protest American imperialism for weeks). It's a standard negotiating tactic.
Anyway, if Obama gets the presidency, I hope there are a few people who pay attention to the small details. Iraq has Shiites *AND* Sunnis, and don't offer the left hand.
May 28, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, this has nothing to do with any other problems that could be caused. Instead of trying to create this bizarre false equivalence, expend your energies on a different target.
I do not want to unnecessarily insult the Chinese or anyone else. If I thought this was a significant matter, I would certainly agree to advocate revising the language. But it is not, for the reasons that have been enumerated several times now.
May 28, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, Roo.
There's no such thing as people pushing a faux pas to the point of utter absurdity for political gain. There have never been riots in the streets over any seemingly innoculous comment by an American President, or other world leader.
Right.
Tell me, did you think Clintons reference to RFKs assassination was a secret wish for Obama to suffer the same fate? A call out to loonies to do the Clinton's dirty work?
No?
I didn't see you denouncing that nonsense with any level of the vehemence you show here. To me, that is what I find interesting in your responses.
May 28, 2008 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Des said
The Chinese president visited Japan recently so it seems they may be trying to reach something approaching comity.
http://china-japan-reconciliation.blogspot.com/
May 27, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The're always trying to reach comity, but they always have these little issues that can deep-6 comity in 2 seconds flat.
If Obama takes this phrasing to Beijing, he's going to have egg on his face and will have to kowtow to the President just to recoup the situation. On the diplomatic level of protocol, these people are extremely pricklish.
May 28, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. It's a good thing that the Japanese aren't as concerned about protocol as the Chinese - at least, according to Desi. Try telling this to the Japanese Prime Minister who GHWB threw up on. "Extremely pricklish!" Don't we all remember the great Nihonese Vomit Conflict that resulted from this terrible lapse of protocol? Oh, right, nothing happened, except for a bad few weeks in the press for the 41st.
You are right about the Chinese being a little tight about ceremony. I think Hu Jin Tao was recently offended that his scheduled dinner with GWB was bumped earlier in the day, to lunch. Dinner has cultural significance, not just in China, but in most of East Asia, as the most important meal of the day. For one thing, important business is discussed over dinner, not lunch.
May 28, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
They were offended that someone sick would go out in public. Very unusual for their society.
May 28, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
agreed about the 1950s propaganda-type syntax used to describe what is essentially an overly broad, and thus inane, proposal.
but the point of this post seems to be to begin a dialogue - or argument, with your history on this site - about obama's proposed foreign policy. then you make a quick turn and conveniently conflate the opinions of "obama supporters" and obama himself.
slick, but not enough.
i know that you're a clinton backer, one of the festering remnants of that horror of a campaign. you don't find it interesting that, in order to criticize obama's foreign policy ideas, you have to go to a proposal for an east asian cooperation organization? what did he say about serious policy questions?
did he vote to authorize iraq?
we can trade posts listing aspects of each candidate's platform that we find questionable or funny. i just find it especially funny that there is so little about obama for you to pick on in this post that you're stuck here, making fatuous claims that don't stand up to the most cursory investigation.
you're much smarter than this and we, the annyoing hope-ium addicts that get on your nerves so much, deserve a better basis for a serious debate.
May 27, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, my Security post addressed policy.
This post was simply to address phrasing, the importance of optics, how to do the delicate diplomatic touch.
So much of what Obama says he's going to do relies on his having this perfect feel for negotiating with difficult partners. Reaching across the aisle gets your hand bitten off half the time.
Find Peter Hopkirk's "The Great Game" for a fun read. One British soldier/explorer was tossed in a hole with rats for 2 years while waiting for someone from England to save him. Finally a letter arrived, I can't remember whether it was from the Queen or not, something like she didn't address the Sheikh of Khiva with enough respect so they pulled the guy out of the hole and beheaded him.
May 28, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Desidero, you are reading too much into it. Both in English and in the native languages where the two things are not the same to begin with.
One very notable thing is that the East Asian countries are already co-ordinating and working together (and without U.S. involvement,) for example on the North Korean issue.
There is ASEAN, APEC and the Shangri-La talks among a multitude of lower-profile ones.
Here is an example of one of the various stratas that are being worked on on that side of the Pacific:
http://english.people.com.cn/200507/29/eng20050729_199142.html
May 27, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
And let's not forget their oil coalition which also has the word "East" in it.
May 27, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll let you folks go back to debating how best to use the words "bitter" and "clinging". Sorry to have disturbed you.
May 28, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think a better title would be "Do Words Taken out of Their Sentence Matter"
In other words: Clinton said "Germany" and "good" in the same sentence, therefore, she must be a nazi!
You could also try quoting somebody saying "I am not racist" as "I am... racist."
May 27, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Godwin's Law.
May 28, 2008 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now, which party started the practice of Axis comparison on this thread?
And why do you think my example is any more than a stratady to show just how stupid the thread is?
May 28, 2008 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think SPQR did with the "three" and "German" and "Third Reich" bit.
May 28, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was Dee Dee. You asked me to explain it so I did. But don't blame me for an analogy I didn't make.
May 28, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, Obama's side started it.
May 28, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean, he did mention Auschwitz.
May 28, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, glanced too quickly.
May 28, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I would be more willing to engage if you also did not make up a quote, desidero, for your intended effect.
You wrote: "Should we be concerned about the bickering that that "East Asian prosperity" infrastructure might produce with our sensitive friends in China?"
Now why is "East Asian prosperity" in quotes? Because Obama's site said it? I couldn't find it there. So who were you quoting? Seems yourself. Perhaps to make what was a relatively benign one paragraph statement indicate something else.
If you are quoting Obama I will withdraw my comment.
May 27, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desi, if you had put .00001% of the effort in to culling and disecting Hillary's policies on ANYTHING, you would have stopped supporting her months and months ago.
I'd point out the vapidness of your argument but clearthinker already explained it: nothing from nothing leaves nothing...
May 27, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You and clearthinker don't get it.
May 28, 2008 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
So only smart people can see your clothes?
May 28, 2008 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
As opposed to people that think they're smart?
May 28, 2008 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to register my disappointment over the way you and readytoblowagasket ignore the substantive discussions that you so clamer for. Neither here nor the above-linked security discussion have you followed up in what I would consider appropriate manner. It does not inspire confidence. Even a simple "still formulating a response" would be nice if you are otherwise stumped.
May 28, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
My, I gave you a 50-line response and you say I haven't responded in an "appropriate manner". You and Obama do fit together, you really are owed everything just be being here and blessing us with your presence.
May 28, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, you asked further questions to which I responded, but you are yet to acknowledge.
May 28, 2008 5:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, take another looksee
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/obama-and-defensesecurity.php#comment-2852208
May 28, 2008 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's from the entitlement wing of the party, the Veruca Salts. He wants the world and he wants it now. Hear him scream. Kind of bizarre.
May 28, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Take another look at the posting times. But there is a response now, which is good.
May 28, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still formulating a response.
May 28, 2008 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
[crickets]
May 28, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Give it a while. If he's in my time zone, he's probably sleeping.
May 28, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, even uber-Chimps need that now and then.
May 28, 2008 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm only here 'cause someone called my name. [looking up thread...] And because I miss you (Chimpy) and BG (Billy Glad) and BG (Blue Guy).
mkay. Rec'd. However, I'd never hit you with a bullet, ever. Even though you are trying to push the "he said that word" analogy as a parallel to the weekend brouhaha.
May 28, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, actually it's the Chinese execution thing where the prisoner's family pays for the bullet they killed him with.
May 28, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
And thanks, forgot how nice it is when the crickets show up. Perhaps that's how we should leave this.
May 28, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desi, you're a golden, chocolate nougat inside. A sweetie. Admit it.
There will be no bullets here. I was not sure if you were refering to that bizarre imposition or something else.
May 28, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero is also a genius. And funny.
May 28, 2008 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
So the consensus seems to be that words don't really matter when Obama uses them, but they matter a lot when Clinton uses them.
Pointing this out makes Obama supporters testy.
Okay, good to know.
May 28, 2008 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Complete bullshit argument, readytoblowagasket, and I say that not as an ad hominem. As I have demonstrated, there is no meaning to these words.
Let me elaborate on the tenuousness of the interpretation, since you are obviously trying to tie this to the assassination comment.
In our alternate reality, Clinton on Friday said that "nomination fights often go long into June. Senator Obama and I will surely be making speeches in June still." An Obama supporter, then, screams their head off: "OMGZOR HILLERIE SAID OBAMA MAKES A SPEECH!!!! RFK GAVE A SPEEECH!!! OMGOMG BILLARY WANTS TO SHOOT OBAMA!!!!!!!!"
THAT is a fairly accurate analogy of the complete inanity of reading "controversy" into this policy statement. Oh, except that "speech" does not actually translate to "speech." So let me modify this a little:
In our more accurate alternate reality, Sen. Clinton said on Friday: "I am the best candidate for President." An Obama supporter, then, screams their head off: "OMGOMG!!! RFK MADE! A SPEECH AND OBAMA MAKES SPEECHES!!! OMGZOR BILLARY WANTS!! OBAMA DEAD!!!!!."
This is about exactly how far-fetched this "reading" of Desidero's is.
Finally, I would like to point out that our friends in East Asia are not complete idiots. They are capable of the level of thought that characterises the rest of humankind. To suggest they would go into some kind of a blind rage over this ludicrously stretched mental exercise is, frankly, insulting.
May 28, 2008 5:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you're saying only Americans go into apoplectic rage when they misinterpret a comment made by another native speaker of the English language. I mean, we're talking 3 solid days of media (not just Internet) coverage about Hillary's RFK reference.
China, however, is going to give the next U.S. president the benefit of the doubt when it comes to coincidences. To think otherwise is insulting.
May 28, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
[Sorry, Cricket, I tried...]
No, our Asian friends are not idiots. They are quite capable of exacting excruciating revenge out of country bumpkin foreigners oblivious to the most basic elements of their culture, and have enjoyed humiliating the West in numerous encounters. Within 2 months of Bush's presidency, they downed a US surveillance crew, holding them for interrogation and dismantled our spy plane, sending it back to us piece by piece in boxes.
And they have pride and face and a sometimes unscrupulous way of doing business. But don't mind me, it's only a bunny.
May 28, 2008 6:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I responded above. This has nothing to do with your original argument, though. I and others have explained why this is not an "international incident" by any stretch of the imagination that does not also involve giraffe-spotted unicorns pooping cotton candy.
Accept or refute it and move on.
May 28, 2008 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desi, your argument hinges on the use of the word "prosperity." I already noted the cultural significance of this word in an earlier comment. The fact that some Japanese warmongers used this word for a few years doesn't trump the centuries (millenia?) we East Asians have used this word in benedictions, prayers, and celebrations. We have long since reappropriated & redeemed the word.
While I truly appreciate the fact taht you are trying to be historically sensitive, and I'm impressed by your understanding of this region's recent history, your failure to recognize this as a completely benign word is a sign of your cultural ignorance.
If anything, the Chinese will take offense at the last statement, "...and work to ensure that China plays by international rules," since it suggests taht China is breaking international rules. Why don't you post a blog about this direct dig at China, instead of reading too much into the word choice? That might actually generate some substantive debate..
thanks for your engagement on this post, it's been fun. i don't mind disagreeing with you at all.
May 28, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would second this, overall. I have my frustrations with what I see as evasion and morphing rationales instead of accepting the answer. Even challenging the answer would be fine, one should always question authority, but I do not see that. It is certainly a worthwhile topic to ensure that problems like this do not come up; it could certainly have been that whoever formulated the final wording was not aware of the connotations it might have had. Even a person familiar with the culture could make such a mistake. In this case, though, there is no problem for all the demonstrated reasons.
The one point I wanted to further crystallise: how do ASEAN/ARF and APEC's stated goals fit into the worldview where "prosperity" is a taboo word? The answer is really simple, it is not taboo. It is just a normal, unambiguous word.
May 28, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The word "prosperity" is not taboo. A combination of words and phrasing from a somewhat overbearing superpower that approximates "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" is the contentious issue. If Nauru or Palau said it they might be looked at humorously as "the mouse that roared".
May 28, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the last time, it is not a contentious issue. Please accept the reality.
May 28, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't think the wording smacks of interventionism in the least, roo_P? I've heard Obama say several things during debates about China that I didn't think were going to go over too well with the Chinese.
Upthread you said:
Yes, without U.S. involvement is the key concept. Obama wants to change the degree of U.S. involvement. You think that's not going to concern China at all?
May 28, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Warning: Long post. Dig in.
Here's the entire quote again:
Here's another part of the statement you can address for Obama's stupidity or naivete:
Since when is Australia a part of Asia? :-)
You don't have to be kind and qualify the U.S. as a "somewhat" overbearing superpower; we are ridiculously overbearing.
However, the combination of words and phrases does not "approximate" the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.
1. Have we achieved, or are we even close to achieving, economic hegemony in the region? The answer is no. China, Japan, and South Korea are strong, capable economies. We have a trade deficit largely b/c of this region.
2. Are we an empire with a supreme leader, as Japan was at the time? Well, it seemed like it was getting close for a while..but come January, we will start to resemble a representative democracy again.
3. Have we recently been participating in unprovoked military invasions in Asia? No. There will be plenty of people who will argue that our engagement in Afghanistan was provoked.
4. Has the "American Empire" ever committed large-scale atrocities akin to those committed by the Japanese in Manchuria or Nanking? Technically, no. We haven't encouraged our soldiers to commit mass rape and murder on an individual basis. However, the nuking of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, firebombing Tokyo, carpetbombing Dresden, and others I'm forgetting might have others arguing for a qualified "Yes" to this one. I'll leave that up to you.
5. Is America involved in a World War or other existential struggle that might convince us that such large-scale atrocities against civilians as mentioned in 4 might be justified? No. The War on Terra is hardly an existential struggle, and hardly a World War, regardless of what the right wing says.
6. Do Americans sympathize with the Japanese or the Chinese with regard to WWII and the depredations of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere? Even today, when Japan is our ally and China is our rival, we still sympathize with China over WWII and forbid Japan from fielding a foreign military of any significance. We publicize the controversy when Japan wants to print history books that whitewash their atrocities; we publicize the controversy when the Japanese Prime Minister visits the graves of the war dead; we publicize the Chinese protests that result.
7. Who hold all the chips, economically? China; not the U.S. or Japan. They've got so many dollars that they could make it their national currency. Obama's policy position, even if interpreted in the worst way, would be an unrealistic threat. China is the one with the power to destroy economies, and the power to destroy the value of the dollar if they choose to dump it.
8. Aren't there already international frameworks & infrastructure in the region for us to work with and strengthen relationships? Yes. Others mentioned APEC and ASEAN, and the fact that these fairly recent precedents for multilateral relationships in the region exist bolster the point that Obama wants to make about building such relations between the U.S. and the region; as opposed to recalling Japanese Imperial dominance from over 60 years ago, which is ancient history.
9. How does mentioning a desire for multilateral relationships and economic development get construed as a possible ambition to achieve economic hegemony? (I have no idea and would like you to explain that.)
10. Doesn't everyone want stability and prosperity? Yes.
If, say, a future President Obama were to visit the graves of Japanese war dead and buy a bunch of English translations of Japanese history text books and distribute them to our schools, then we might be talking about an international incident. But he's not running for Prime Minister of Japan.
Honestly, Japan is the only country taht is having this problem reliving its WWII history with China. America has long since moved on, and I'd suggest to you taht China is well aware of that. Parsing every policy from either camp for possibly offensive references to WWII is not a good use of our time; and it's not a good use of the time of Chinese diplomats.
May 28, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was a reply to Desi's post.
May 28, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Chinese don't like the implications of "work to ensure China plays by international rules", they will be happy to take offense at the prior phrasing and draw parallels with Japan and other imperialist efforts to interfere in their internal affairs as well as the atrocities committed under the guise of friendship and prosperity.
Diplomacy requires very careful words. Just like innocuous campaign statements, a diplomatic message can be twisted to cause offense or otherwise used differently than the speaker's intention. And then sometimes words are simply offensive and painful without spin.
May 29, 2008 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
what atrocities has america ever committed in china? *points at the chinese government* same question?
diplomats and politicians, i would argue, are trained in how not to be happy to take offense; most of the time, they are instructed to do so.
i still think you should've posted your original blog with more attention to the last statement, and less on the "prosperity + East Asia" wording; America had nothing to do with that chapter of history, except as liberators.
but you had a good reason to be posting about the right wording, after the assassination hullaballoo.
May 29, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero's timing is brilliant. Sharon Stone's karma comment illustrates how even an airhead can cause a diplomatic earthquake.
May 29, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would posit for your consideration that Barack Obama is no airhead, and will not be blaming Acts of God that cause mass casualties on China's recalcitrance with regard to various hot button issues such as Tibet.
With regard to the original post's content, China would have little to gain by making this potentially insensitive word choice into a diplomatic incident anyway. Everyone knows America was the liberator in WWII. China will be the only one offended, while the rest of the world points out that America was China's hero, and saved it from the Japanese Co-Prosperity Sphere. Dredging it back up to throw in America's face would rightly be perceived as ungrateful by the international community.
So yeah, I'm still convinced that the last phrase is where the real problem might lie, and not the word choice through the middle.
May 29, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"diplomats and politicians, i would argue, are trained in how not to be happy to take offense; most of the time, they are instructed to do so." This completely ignores reality and dealing with various Russian, Chinese and Middle Eastern diplomats.
"what atrocities has america ever committed in china?" The Communists might say backing Chiang Kai-Shek as he broke a dam and killed a million people downstream. As one example.
China may also think of helping Taiwan break away from China as a major imperialist action against its sovereignty, akin to stealing Texas or the Sudetenland.
May 30, 2008 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
why should we walk on eggshells over ancient history?
there's olympic protests, tibetan protests, darfur protests...
these are current scandals, which American politicians have already been vocal about, at all levels.
where are the international incidents over these current scandals? is there egg on Bush's face over the San Francisco protests? have American politicians been repudiated as imperial meddlers for attacking China over Sudan?
If there are no international incidents over these current, hot-button issues, why the hell should we take it as a credible possibility taht there might be a scandal and egg on ppl's faces over this ancient history taht you keep bringing up?
May 30, 2008 3:42 AM | Reply | Permalink