Kim McQuay, a long-time resident of Dhaka, is The Asia Foundation’s Country Representative in Bangladesh. He can be reached at kmcquay@asiafound.org.

Last Wednesday morning, November 5th, I was leaving a gathering in Dhaka that featured big-screen television coverage of the U.S. election, when a cycle rickshaw driver drew up alongside me. I assumed that he had slowed to offer me a ride, but in turning toward him, I found his face lit with excitement. With a wide grin he declared, “Brother, your American election is very good.  Barack Obama President.  I am too much happy.”

This captured the near-universal reaction of the people of Bangladesh, who observed the U.S. electoral process and outcome with keen interest. Local Bangladeshi media coverage of the U.S. elections began in 1992, when Bangladeshi television broadcast evening excerpts of CNN reporting. At the time, Bangladeshis were especially struck by the presidential candidate debates between President George H.W. Bush and Governor Bill Clinton. The concept and images of rival American candidates thoughtfully debating issues of substance and then shaking hands at the close of the debate offered an enticing glimpse of a kind of political culture unknown to Bangladesh—at a time when partisan tensions were starting the bitter course that would ultimately extend to every corner of society, dividing the nation along sharp political lines.

Sixteen years later, Bangladeshis followed a U.S. election campaign of profound domestic and global significance through a variety of local and international media sources. Bangladeshi observers understood that both Senators Obama and McCain called for change in their own terms—unequivocally distancing themselves from trends that had changed American politics, and from consequences that had undermined America’s image in the world. Bangladeshis were clearly inspired by Senator Obama’s path to party candidacy and electoral triumph, and touched by his victory speech in Chicago. Perhaps more importantly, they were moved by John McCain’s gracious acceptance of electoral defeat and pledge to work with an Obama Administration.  In Bangladesh, since the restoration of democracy in 1991, no losing party has accepted defeat and assumed a good faith opposition role in Parliament with the same resolve—nor has a winning party pursued anything short of a winner-take-all course.

How will the U.S. election experience factor as Bangladeshis reflect on an extraordinary last two years?

The parliamentary election in Bangladesh was originally scheduled for January 2007. In the weeks leading up to the election, violent political confrontations shook the streets of Dhaka and other major centers. Bangladeshis lost confidence as the traditionally non-partisan caretaker government mechanism became blatantly political. Ultimately, a state of emergency was declared, the election was canceled, and a military-backed caretaker government assumed power on January 11, 2007. In the weeks that followed, the Caretaker Government embarked on an unprecedented course of governance reform. Reform measures included appointing a new Bangladesh Election Commission; empowering the Anti-Corruption Commission and other existing public agencies; creating new government agencies and economic development forums to foster public-private dialogue and cooperation; and  launching an anti-corruption drive through which hundreds of political and business leaders across the country were arrested, tried, and convicted on charges of corruption.

While Bangladeshis had long been resigned to corruption as an everyday reality, investigations revealed a scale of corruption among senior officials of all political parties that exceeded imagination. The two major political party leaders and former prime ministers were arrested and detained. The public was astounded to find that political actors at all levels that had long behaved with contempt for the law and democratic values could be brought to justice for corruption. Citizens likewise applauded government measures to improve public security, strengthen education, public health, and other public services, and implement a precise electoral roadmap.

Where has this roadmap led to? Two years later, final preparations are underway for parliamentary elections on December 18 and upazila (mid-level local government) elections on December 28. Having been relegated to the margins of public affairs for nearly two years, political actors appear to have secured and reasserted much of their past influence. Dozens of senior political leaders have been released on bail, while the Caretaker Government has hinted in response to calls from domestic and international quarters that the state of emergency may be relaxed or lifted in advance of the elections. Political leaders are negotiating with the Caretaker Government and Election Commission to ensure that the election schedule is maintained. One major political party has signaled its readiness to contest the election, while another insists that certain demands be met before it formally commits. Recent survey research by the Election Working Group (EWG)—a 32-member national civil society coalition engaged in voter and civic education and election observation—and The Asia Foundation indicates that Bangladeshis welcome the election preparations. Public confidence is buoyed by the quality of the new voters’ list with photographs and the sound administration of city corporation elections in August, which were conducted as a first test of the new legal framework and administrative mechanisms.

Bangladeshis hold elections and democratic values sacred.  While the average Bangladeshi has a clear understanding of politics and governance, historically his or her sense of individual or collective political efficacy has been modest at best. Ordinary citizens loathe the face and legacy of weak governance as it affects their quality of life and efforts to rise from poverty, but have traditionally felt powerless to register their voice, much less effect change. Survey findings affirm that the unprecedented reform initiatives of the last two years have offered enticing glimpses of potential change to which Bangladeshis have responded with a combination of keen optimism and tempered concern that political leaders and parties will not willingly reform themselves without sustained pressure from civil society, the business community, the media, and other interlocutors.

Political party leaders have yet to acknowledge responsibility for the political crisis that culminated in the cancelled election and state of emergency in 2007.  Thus far there is little hint that they have substantive policy options in mind as an alternative to the partisan tensions and historical grievances that have passed for substance in previous election campaigns. Time remains for political parties to engage in the thoughtful policy dialogue and informed debate on economic and other priority issues urged by EWG and other civil society groups, national opinion leaders, the media, and the international community.

While expectations have been adjusted significantly since January 2007, hope persists among my Bangladeshi friends and colleagues that the call for reform has prompted political leaders to reflect on the prospect of abandoning past practices. One hopes that ordinary Bangladeshis have likewise been inspired to demand more of candidates and elected leaders and to carefully scrutinize the post-election performance of national and local government leaders in following through with their campaign pledges.

Bangladeshis hail the Obama victory as a unique moment in American political history—a sea change in leadership, vision, and social equality that reaches back decades in fulfilling hopes and aspirations that seemed faintly possible to earlier generations. The people of Bangladesh wish for similar milestone elections next month. They are united in their hope for long-term changes in political culture, accountability, and the substance of parliamentary governance and lawmaking that will accelerate national economic growth and development and guide the nation in achieving its full potential.

ShareThis

Inauguration Decorations in Male, Maldives

By Nick Langton

Nick Langton is The Asia Foundation’s Country Representative in Nepal. From 1989-1992, he managed the Foundation’s programs in Sri Lanka and Maldives.

It was after 1:00 on Monday morning when I made my way out of the airport in Male, the capitol of Maldives. There was a cool tropical breeze and the smell of salt water in the air. Across a stretch of sea from the airport, Male’s skyline had grown noticeably since my last visit in 2002. I was tired after a long flight, but excited to be back to attend the inauguration of my old friend, Dr. Waheed Hassan, as the Maldives’ first elected Vice President.

Two weeks earlier, President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom had lost the first democratically contested presidential election in the nation’s history, after 30 years in power.  The new president-elect was Mohamed Nasheed, known as “Anni,” a 41-year-old journalist and former political prisoner. I had read about the election, but did not know  that my old friend Waheed was Anni’s running mate, until receiving an email last week inviting me to attend the inauguration.

Waheed, known throughout Maldives as Dr. Waheed, was The Asia Foundation’s first Maldivian grantee, having received a fellowship in 1982 to study international education at Stanford University. He later returned home as his country’s first Ph.D. I initially met Waheed in 1989 when I was serving as the Foundation’s country representative for Sri Lanka and Maldives. He was my main contact at the Ministry of Education where we supported a program to train the headmasters who administered schools in the island nation’s 19 atolls.

At that time, in addition to his work at the Ministry, Waheed had also been  elected to the national Majlis, or Parliament, after conducting the first Western-style campaign in the country’s history. Walls along Male’s dusty streets still bore his campaign logo, a red “thumbs up” sign. In retrospect, Waheed’s campaign and election to the Majlis in 1989 sparked the democracy movement that 19 years later would culminate with the leadership transition this week. Waheed served in the Majlis for two years before having to leave the country due to political pressures placed on him and members of his family. He subsequently served internationally with UNICEF, including tours in Bangladesh and Nepal that coincided with my own.

During 1989-1992 when I managed the Foundation’s program in Maldives, we supported the development of young journalists, conducted training in commercial law, provided an expert with knowledge of both Western and Shariah law to advise the Majlis on constitutional drafting, and sent young diplomats to study abroad. Through our Books for Asia program, we expanded collections of English-language books at the National Library and other institutions. In a modest way, I believe these programs helped to strengthen institutions that eventually would be required under a democratic government.

Now, on the morning of Tuesday, November 11th, 2008, I found myself sitting with several hundred Maldivians and foreign dignitaries in a crowded hall to watch Anni and Waheed be sworn-in as the country’s first democratically-elected President and Vice President. It was a solemn event with deep historic and emotional significance for Maldivians, especially those who had lived under autocratic rule and pressed for democracy for almost two decades. Although former President Gayoom had been gracious in his statement to the international press ceding power to the next generation of leadership, he disappointingly was absent from the ceremony.

At the reception that followed, I spoke with a number of friends from my earlier days in Maldives who have now risen to positions of prominence in the new government. They acknowledged their many challenges, including the need to extend development more equitably to outlying atolls, improve health care and education, and stem a serious drug problem afflicting the nation’s youth. They also must cope with the impact of global warming as rising sea levels threaten to submerge the country’s 1,200 coral islands. I was pleased to be able to tell them that the Foundation has restarted its modest Maldives program, with activities planned in education, library development, and training for an expanded diplomatic corps.

Before leaving the reception, I asked Waheed’s son, Jeff, about a brass pin he had fastened to his lapel. He pulled another just like it from his pocket and handed it to me. It was Waheed’s old thumbs-up logo from 1989 surrounded by the inscription “United for Change—Dr. Waheed.” What a privilege, I thought, to have been in Maldives when democracy was just a dream, and then return to see it realized.

Nick Langton (left) with Vice President Waheed Hassan (center) and Nilan Fernando, The Asia Foundation.

ShareThis

Veronique Salze-Lozac’h is the Regional Director for Economic Programs in Cambodia. She can be reached at vsalze-lozach@asiafound.org.

“We feel that too often, we are floating with the tide, but we want to be more active, we actually want to learn how to swim,” explained H.E. Ung Huot, Chairman of the Cambodian Senate’s Commission on Economy, Planning, Investment and Environment.

In the midst of what we can now call an international financial and economic crisis, more than 140 Cambodian senators, parliamentarians, and Government officials — but also students and businesspeople — gathered in Phnom Penh to discuss economic policy reforms and learn from the experience of their neighbor, South Korea.  They gathered at a seminar organized by the Cambodian Senate and The Asia Foundation on November 6th in Phnom Penh.

Worried about the impact of the crisis on the country’s economic development and keen to learn more about potential measures and reforms to support growth in Cambodia, they were attentive to Dr. Kwon Okyu’s (Korea’s former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economy) presentation.  On his first trip to Cambodia, Dr. Kwon Okyu did not offer any magic formula but rather common sense and practical advice for Cambodian policy-makers. Stressing that the Government and the National Assembly must jointly establish an efficient policy-making procedure, he used  Korea’s unique experience to draw a few key lessons for constructive, coordinated actions. Two of these lessons are especially relevant in this time of economic uncertainly.

The first, which Cambodia has already begun to implement is the necessity of engaging in international trade by developing free trade agreements and entering trade alliances, as the World Trade Organization (WTO).  Memberships offer market opportunities, but also opportunities to implement reforms essential for economic growth.  Currently, Cambodia is creating the legal framework expected by international trade organizations by drafting and passing more than 40 new laws.  To fulfill their role in passing the laws, the Parliament and the Senate must develop a better understanding of why their participation is necessary and what is at stake.  The message is strong: the current international crisis is not a time for defaulting to protectionism, but rather a time to be serious about economic reforms and international cooperation.

The second, Cambodia has to prepare for potential conflicts of interest that may arise among the many different players involved in economic reform. Policy changes, such as markets opening for agricultural products, decentralization, or labor-management relations, can have very sensitive political implications, especially in a climate of increased competition among exporters and decreasing demand from importers. The Government may push for reform, while some of  the National Assembly’s constituents maybe harmed by it. In this climate, more transparency and dialogue is needed to help make reform acceptable. Dr. Kwon Okyu encouraged the Cambodian parliamentarians to engage in close consultation with government think tanks, academia, businesses, and various interest groups.  The Korean Government method has been to use special committees to build consensus around particularly important policy issues and to build common ground for policy reform. A culture of transparency and research, and clear communication, are key elements for consensus–building on policy reforms.

Korea has moved, in less than half a century, from one of the poorest countries to the 13th largest economy in the world. Dr. Okyu’s advice was well received by his Cambodian audience. Korean investors have been among the most active foreign investors in Cambodia, Korean tourists flock to Angkor Wat, and Korean-Cambodian trade is rapidly developing. At a time when too many banks, insurance companies, or enterprises are drowning in an uncontrollable ocean of globalized risks, there may be opportunities for Cambodia and other developing countries to check their lifebuoys and learn how to swim.

ShareThis

Six months ago, Cyclone Nargis made landfall in this region and roared across the flat and vulnerable lands of the delta, bringing with it a massive storm surge of sea water. The wind and the water combined into a fatal and catastrophic force that wiped entire villages off the map. People drowned. Houses were demolished by the storm. Personal possessions washed away. Farms animals were killed. Fishing boats sank or were smashed to pieces in the waves. Survivors in the worst-hit areas were left with nothing.

How does one go about restarting life after losing your family, your home, your job, and all your possessions? In Burma, it is probably far harder than in many other places.  Immediately after the cyclone, reports came out that Burma’s ruling military regime was preventing international aid workers from entering the country, and restricting the movement of those already working inside the country. It took three long weeks of diplomatic negotiations before the regime began to ease restraints on the international community’s efforts to launch an emergency operation. Excruciatingly slowly, aid agencies were granted access to affected areas.

I have been spending a lot of  time here, and, today, six long months since the cyclone hit,  the region is still in dire need of help.

In one village south of the delta town of Mawlamyinegyun, a man showed me a black-and-white passport photo of his wife – she was killed during the cyclone, along with their four children. He used to run a noodle stall and, even if he had the equipment or the money to invest in starting again, no one in the village has the spare cash to buy a bowl of noodles. He now lives in a shack constructed from donated tarpaulin and wood that he salvaged out of the debris left behind by the cyclone. Inside the tiny shack there is just enough space for one person to lie down on the split-bamboo floor. The man’s few belongings are all things that have been given to him by aid organizations – a few plastic buckets and cooking pots, a flashlight, a blanket. The only thing he has from his life before the cyclone is the stamp-sized photograph of his deceased wife.

In a nearby village, I met a woman in her mid-30s whose husband and two of her sons were killed in the cyclone. She is now the sole caretaker to her two surviving children. Before the cyclone, she and her husband worked in the paddy fields around the village. He had supplemented their income by fishing along the area’s many creeks in their small wooden boat. The boat was also destroyed. Without her husband, without the boat, without her two sons, the woman cannot earn a living and support her living children, who now huddle with her in a tumbled-down shack that shudders violently whenever there is a strong wind.

Outside Labutta town, there are a few thousand people left sheltering in government camps. The huts they live in are little more than tents, made from tarpaulin and bamboo poles. They are airless and blisteringly hot. The people who stay here are listless and despondent, as the camps are too far from town to travel and find work, so there is nothing to do each day. I talked to one elderly woman who shares a hut with her husband and a widow who lost her family to the cyclone. I wondered why they chose to stay here in such miserable conditions. Why don’t you go back to your village? I asked. “How can we go back?” they responded. “We have nothing left.”

Stories like these are repeated over and over again across the vast expanse of the delta.

Six months on, most of the initial logistical and political obstacles to providing aid have been overcome. And the overall relief effort is shifting its focus from emergency response to longer-term reconstruction projects that will help restore the livelihoods of people whose lives have been irrevocably altered by Cyclone Nargis.

ShareThis

Robin Bush is The Asia Foundation’s Country Representative in Jakarta, Indonesia. She can be reached at rbush@tafindo.org.

The mood on the street in Indonesia is probably more jubilant in many ways than in some parts of the U.S., with the news of the victory of Barack Obama as President-elect of the United States. Indonesians have long been overwhelming supporters of Obama.They say they feel a personal connection because Obama’s stepfather was Indonesian and Obama lived in Jakarta when he was a child. People here from all walks of life know about Obama – and today they say they feel pride that “their guy” is now in the White House. In fact, one of the jokes going around Jakarta today is that, “Obama was able to win against all odds after only spending 4 years in Indonesia – imagine what he could have done if he had spent his whole life here.”

Parties and celebrations were held across the city of Jakarta today – the largest among them was a public celebration held at a large mall in downtown Jakarta. Indonesia’s best rock and folks singers came out to perform, 3,000 balloons were dropped from the rafters, and people celebrated heartily.

So now that “their guy” won, what do Indonesians expect from an Obama presidency? Among many, there is an expectation and hope that an Obama presidency will mean a warmer and closer relationship with the U.S.  For some, that hope means stronger trade relations and more foreign investment – and indeed stocks on the Indonesian Stock Exchange were up by 2.5% today only two hours after the news of Obama’s win. For others, it means the hope that President Obama will visit Indonesia early in his term and that Indonesia will be able to play a larger role on the international stage. For others, the expectation is that the U.S. will have a more nuanced approach to the Muslim world. But what one hears the most is a  vaguely expressed but sincerely felt  hope that this man with a multi-racial background and an Indonesia connection will be able to understand and relate to the international community in a way that his predecessor did not, and that that will bring improvements in relations not only with Indonesia, but also on some of the global issues that impact Indonesia.

The danger is that Indonesians have overly high expectations of the change that will come about with an Obama presidency. It is likely, in fact, that foreign policy related to Indonesia under Obama will not change that dramatically – and in fact, with the exception of tensions related to ‘War on Terror’ policies, Indonesia and the US enjoyed a good bilateral relationship under the Bush administration.  Bush significantly increased the development assistance budget for Indonesia, and trade and security cooperation were strong.  The substance of this relationship is not likely to change.

With regard to relations between the US and the Muslim world under an Obama presidency, it is also likely that there will not be a dramatic substantive difference, except there is a strong sense that this is a president who does not see things in terms of black and white. He will have the same constraints and political commitments that the U.S. president always does vis á  vis policy in the Middle East and the relationship with Israel – but same say what he will bring to these challenges is an understanding of complexity. For Indonesia, that is a  good thing, because Islam in Indonesia is characterized by complexity, so there may be higher levels of understanding between the two countries as a result of his election.

Whatever the reason, Indonesians from all walks of life, and much of the international community, are celebrating in Jakarta today.

ShareThis

Steven Rood is The Asia Foundation’s Country Representative in the Philippines. He can be reached at tafphil@asiafound.org.

Almost two months ago, at the time of the U.S. Democratic and Republican political conventions, I blogged here in InAsia about being the nonpartisan commentator on the local cable news channel, ABS-CBN News Channel (ANC – seen in the United States on The Filipino Channel).  I was delighted to be asked back to analyze the presidential election results as they came in yesterday.

Since interest in the election here in Manila  was so high, live coverage began at 5:00 am (4 pm ET).  Election returns only began to flow at 8:00 am (7 pm ET), so that’s when our part began.  Besides the anchor and myself, there was one representative each from Democrats Abroad and Republicans Abroad.  As Americans are accustomed to, as soon as polls closed in each state, the networks would “call” it for one candidate or the other (based on an esoteric combination of exit polls and early vote counts).

But before we could start commenting on the horse race, coverage cut away to an Election Day event hosted by the American Embassy at one of the big Manila Malls.  Large screen TVs were carrying cable feeds, hundreds of Filipinos as well as the general public had been invited, and dozens of USAID and Embassy officials were on hand to explain the intricacies of the U.S. electoral process.  Ambassador Kristie Kenney gave a lively interview where she praised democracy, talked about the solemn responsibility of citizens when choosing to change their leaders, and denied that her choice of red clothing was anything but a patriotic symbol.  She also urged the interviewer to join other Filipinos there in the mall in the mock election being carried out.

It turns out that most of those who voted in the mock election went for Obama – but real votes by Filipino-Americans were not so definite.  ABS-CBN has correspondents all over the United States – from Virginia to Florida to Texas to California (where the largest number of Filipino-Americans live).  We heard from correspondents about a general feeling of excitement, votes for McCain in Texas, and for Obama in California.  Until we have exit poll data, the best information comes from the National Asian-American Survey conducted in August, where the only Asian ethnicity to favor McCain were the Vietnamese.  All other Asian ethnicities were pro-Obama, but Filipino-Americans were least so.  This lack of enthusiasm was echoed in the Philippines itself where a Social Weather Stations survey found that 76% of Filipino citizens felt that it did not matter for the Philippines who won.  That left 13 percent who said it would be “better for RP if Barack Obama wins”, and nine percent who said it would be “better for RP if John McCain wins.”  Interestingly, in 2004, 26 percent preferred Bush and eight percent preferred Kerry, making the Philippines one of the three places on earth outside the U.S. where Bush was preferred  (the other two were Poland and Nigeria).

These were the kind of Philippine-specific details that were discussed.  Otherwise, the topics would be familiar to all viewers of a cable news network anywhere:  the increased importance of the economy in voters decisions after the economic setbacks of September;  how Senator McCain’s status as hero and maverick allowed him to make a contest, despite 90% of  U.S. citizens feeling the country was on the wrong track; the depth of Senator Obama’s fund-raising that allowed him to contest many states that might otherwise have been given up as hopeless; and what the election meant for the United States and its place in the world.

One particular topic that came up was the depth of partisan division and rancor – and whether that might hamper any new President’s ability to govern.  I was able to display a graphic that comes from Slate’s blog, “The Big Sort.”

This graphic shows that both houses of Congress have experienced a steep decline in the number of “moderates” – conversely there has been a rise in partisan division.  The analysts of “The Big Sort” ascribe this to a drift of Congressional Districts and even States into increasingly partisan configurations, produced by Americans moving themselves into more homogenous communities.  Whatever the source of division, Senator Obama in particular had repeatedly called (ever since his 2004 Democratic Convention speech) for America to rise above those divisions.

The panelists were settling in for the long haul, when I called attention to the “breaking news” on the screen – that ABC and CNN had called Pennsylvania for Obama.  I remarked, and the panel agreed, that all scenarios for a McCain win included Pennsylvania, so this early result boded ill for Senator McCain.  During the subsequent commercial break, the producer decided that was time to bring on a new panel – two Filipino political scientists who were to discuss the international implications of the election.  Less than two hours after beginning, our part of the “election watch” was over.  Shortly thereafter, Senator McCain conceded and President-elect Obama made his acceptance speech.

I was struck by some  final thoughts on the election that were sent to me.  One a quote from a Filipino journalist , Thea Alberto at the Inquirer.net, who said, “we should learn from Americans how to lose graciously.”  And another from an American living in another country, “It’s Redemption.  Nothing less.  Extraordinary.”  Illustrating one problem that President Obama will face – unrealistic expectations.

ShareThis

Harry Harding is a University Professor of International Affairs at The George Washington University and a Trustee of The Asia Foundation. He wrote “China Policy for the Next U.S. Administration,” a chapter in The Asia Foundation’s newly-released “America’s Role in Asia,” and recently attended a Thai-US Think Tank Summit in Bangkok where he spoke on the U.S.-Southeast Asia relationship.

Now that the U.S. presidential election is over, the incoming Obama administration will begin a reconsideration of American foreign policy.  Numerous urgent issues will compete for attention, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, and the parlous state of the global economy.  But consideration of these urgent matters should not come at the expense of issues that, while perhaps less immediate, are no less important.  One of these is the American relationship with Southeast Asia.

There is a widely shared view, both in Southeast Asia and in the Asian policy community in the U.S., that the United States has been paying insufficient attention to the region. In introducing the Southeast Asia section of the Asia Foundation’s recently-released America’s Role in Asia report at a press conference in Washington last month Tommy Koh, Ambassador-At-Large at Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Chairman of the Institute of Policy Studies, complained that Washington has been treating Southeast Asia with “benign neglect,” perhaps because the region has presented the U.S. with neither significant challenges nor great opportunities.

I’m not sure that the U.S. has completely neglected Southeast Asia, but I agree that our attention to the region has been highly selective.  We focus on some countries more than others, and on some issues more than others.  In particular, we pay attention to the region mainly when bigger issues – terrorism, the rise of China, avian flu – make it relevant.  Still, from the Southeast Asian perspective, this selective attention is insufficient, especially when the issues we select are not what Southeast Asians want us to emphasize.

However we diagnose the problem –  insufficient attention or selective attention – the solution will have to be more than electing a new president who lived in Indonesia as a child, or new members of Congress who may be more internationalist in their outlook or more knowledgeable about Southeast Asia.  We also need to understand the structural obstacles that prevent the U.S. from treating Southeast Asia as it would like to be treated.  In this regard, the basic problems are that the U.S. has to engage with the region on three different levels simultaneously, and doing so effectively may require more resources than the U.S. presently enjoys.

First, the U.S. must deal with each of the countries of the region bilaterally.  Some say this is a matter of preference, in that the U.S. (like any great power) can find it easier to deal with each member of ASEAN individually than collectively, since it can dominate any particular pairing.  But it is really a matter of necessity.  ASEAN comprises ten very different countries – at different levels of development, with different political systems, and with different interests and perspectives.  The U.S. must have separate relations with each Southeast Asian country, just as it has separate relations with each member of the EU.

At the same time, the United States also needs to deal with ASEAN as a regional organization that is seeking to develop a unified position on key regional and global issues, and then exert more influence by acting collectively.  But ASEAN’s collective positions are taken largely through consensus, the development which can be a time-consuming process, and whose outcome can be frustrating to the U.S.

In addition, ASEAN seems to be saying that great powers like the United States that want to engage effectively with the organization should sign the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC). This poses a clear dilemma for Washington:  would signing the TAC force the U.S. to accept the legitimacy of the government of Myanmar as a member of ASEAN?  Would acceptance of the principle of non-intervention in internal affairs, which is included in the TAC, prevent the imposition of sanctions against Myanmar for its violations of basic human rights?  Moreover, what would the U.S. get in return?  How would American relations with ASEAN benefit from this gesture?  Would the U.S., for example, be invited to join the East Asian Summit, which ASEAN has recently organized?  And is this something that Washington would really want to do?

The East Asian Summit brings us to the third level at which the U.S. must engage with ASEAN:  the super-regional organizations that ASEAN leads, none of which is as effective as the United States would like.  The general problem is that the Southeast Asian view of these organizations appears to be more process-oriented than results-oriented.  Southeast Asians value these organizations as ways of building personal relationships among leaders and officials, establishing what some call “habits of dialogue,” and gradually producing a sense of regional community.  Americans, by comparison, are more practical and less patient in their outlook:  they ask what the organization has produced, and whether it’s worth the time and effort that participation requires.

Unfortunately, the answer to that question is that most of the ASEAN-led organizations do not appear to be achieving the objectives that the U.S. would like to promote.  The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) seems to be far from creating a trans-Pacific free trade area of the sort the Bush Administration has endorsed, or even achieving the earlier goal of “freer trade” in the region.  The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) has neither taken up the tasks of preventive diplomacy or crisis management, nor done much to promote security cooperation on key transnational issues.  Southeast Asian nations want America to pay more attention to these organizations, but the U.S. finds participation to be frustratingly non-productive.  The East Asian Summit is too new to be expected to have achieved many results, but at this point even its agenda remains uncertain.

Thus, engaging with Southeast Asia is a demanding and sometimes frustrating job.  And yet, the United States suffers from a shortage of both organizational resources and policy capabilities.

Take its foreign policy bureaucracy, for example.  Much has been made of the fact that the U.S. government has recently created the position of an ambassador for ASEAN – the first major power to do so.  But, in fact, no additional personnel line has been created inside the State Department; the title has simply been given to the Deputy Assistant Secretary who is already responsible for Southeast Asia.  Above this position, no one in the State Department has any full-time responsibility for the region.  The same situation is basically repeated in the other key agencies responsible for foreign affairs, like the National Security Council, Department of Defense, and USTR. Nowhere in the US government is Southeast Asia the full-time responsibility of any official above the rank of deputy assistant secretary.  And those higher level officials are preoccupied with issues that are regarded as more urgent (like North Korea) or more important (like Japan and China).

As a result, the US government suffers from a lack of bandwidth in dealing with Southeast Asia.  But organizational bandwidth is not the foreign policy resource in short supply in the United States these days.   The US military – particularly the army and marines – is overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The financial crisis, and the economic recession is will almost certainly produce, will place significant constraints on America’s national defense and foreign affairs budgets.  The U.S. will be a less abundant source of capital for Southeast Asia, and a less vital market for the region’s exports – although a global economic slowdown might mean that America’s economic role in the region will decline only in absolute, but not relative, terms.  If the recession leads to greater protectionism in the US – an outcome that is not certain, but also cannot be ruled out – trade in both directions could decline still further.

Although the election of Barack Obama may help restore U.S. prestige in the eyes of many Asians, it will take some time to reverse the overall decline in America’s soft power.  While the election of our first black president has underscored the vitality of America’s political institutions, another key element of our domestic story –a prosperous free economy overseen by effective governmental regulation – has been significantly undermined by the financial crisis.  And our international story – as a generous supporter of Third World development, a credible guarantor of international security, and a promoter of free trade – may also be contradicted by the consequences of the recession.

In short, Southeast Asia is understandably and appropriately asking for greater attention from the United States.  It is asking that American policy not define Southeast Asian countries simply as a counterweight against China (not a role that it wants to highlight), or as partners in the global war on terror (not an issue that it wishes to be the central feature of U.S. policy), or as candidates for free trade agreements with the United States (a status not all can achieve).  Pointing to its importance strategically and economically, Southeast Asia wants the U.S. to pay attention to a wider range of countries and issues.

But engaging with Southeast Asia is not easy, since the U.S. will have to do so on three different levels – bilateral, regional, and supra regional – simultaneously.  It will also strain America’s governmental attention span, when other more urgent issues demand attention from top foreign policy officials.   And calls for greater engagement will come up against the reality that, for at least in the near term, the U.S. will be overstretched militarily, constrained financially, and enjoying less soft power than might once have been the case.

The challenge for the U.S. is to conduct a smarter foreign policy, doing more with less.

ShareThis

In the keynote address that opened the day-long event, Terry Foecke, managing partner of Materials Productivity LLC and senior environmental consultant at The Asia Foundation, set the tone for the day. “A sustainable project incorporates ideas that are packaged for theft,” he said. “These are concepts that are so good and so obvious that people will want to replicate them.” Through his experiences throughout the United States, Asia, and Latin America, he said that the most common barrier to creating projects that stimulate economic growth without harming the environment is blocking the flow of ideas and dialogue. “When no one feels conformable telling the truth about what goes wrong and what goes right, it is a waste of time,” said Foecke.

The forum, attended by government, NGO and business representatives, is part of a multi-year program of The Asia Foundation’s Korea office aimed at enhancing cooperation between Korea and developing Asian countries. Other program activities include study tours, exchanges, and fellowships allowing Koreans and other Asians to learn from one another.

In order to accurately and effectively plot future steps to address major transnational environment issues, all parties – governments, environmentalists, the private sector, NGOs, and citizens — must take an honest approach to information sharing. One conference participant cited the case study presented by The Asia Foundation’s representative in Mongolia, Mr. William S. Foerderer Infante, as being one she could model and adapt at home in India.

A few years ago in Mongolia, disagreements between the mining industry and environmentalists had become so poisonous that neither side was talking to the other creating rampant misinformation. While Mongolians valued the mining sector for creating jobs, all agreed that past practices were irresponsible and threatened the health of the environment. In order to bring stakeholders to the table and establish a mutual understanding of the issues, rigorous and independent studies were conducted on Mongolia’s rivers. This empirical data was used to dispel entrenched misconceptions about mining’s impact on the environment, giving both sides a fresh starting point for talks. From there, all parties developed the Responsible Mining Initiative that institutes environmentally safe standards for the mining industry while securing the future of Mongolia’s rivers.

In an ever growing sign that concern for the environment is rising dramatically in Asia, governments are joining corporations and citizens in taking steps to minimize pollution and raise environmental awareness. Asian countries have developed national environmental protection laws and policies, and are devoting greater resources to protecting natural resources. In China, where as many as 700 million people are unable to access safe drinking water, the government has set aside $1.75 billion to reduce pollution of the country’s air, land and water resources.

As China’s economic might has increased, so has its industrial waste and pollution. Mr. Zhao Lijian, Environment Program Manager for The Asia Foundation in Beijing and a LEAD Fellow, presented a case study from the Pearl River Delta, where 95% of the estuary is excessively contaminated and, in 2006, was declared a “dead zone” by the United Nations Environment Programme. Here, where the demand on factories and manufactures grows by the day, Asia Foundation programs focus on collaboration and prevention.

In Vietnam, rapid growth is impacting the environment in similarly negative ways. For a country whose population has increased more than three times since 1950, there is considerable pressure on natural resources. Environmental degradation is also harming the country’s work force through a rise in health problems affecting productivity and Vietnamese livelihoods. Recent generations are leaving a “legacy of environmental neglect in the pursuit of economic growth and generating tension.”

South Korea’s government is committed to increasing assistance for addressing environmental issues in the Asia-Pacific region through aid as well as non-governmental efforts. Already spending approximately 13% of its international aid budget on environment projects, Korea’s KOICA plans to up that figure, according to a representative at the forum.

Clearly, the task of tackling transnational environmental problems is daunting, and specialists often feel overwhelmed and discouraged. Dean Chin-Seung Chung, a professor at the Korea Development Institute School of Public Policy and Management and former Deputy and Vice Minister at the Korean Ministry of Environment, pointed to over 100 initiatives jointly identified by Japan, China, and Korea all of which were deemed unsuccessful and a waste of resources.

Chris Plante, The Asia Foundation’s Environment Programs Director, and Dong-il Seo, a professor of Environmental Engineering at Chungnam National University in Korea, emphasized the need for sound measurement and performance indicators. Without consistent, quality monitoring systems, incorrect prescriptions are made. In water quality management, measurement inaccuracies can be as simple as sampling water on a rainy day, or not considering the varying temperature of water or how water movement alters the composition of the sample.

In his address to the conference, Representative Moon Kook-Hyun, the leader of the Creative Korea Party and former CEO of Yuhan-Kimberly Limited, said, “Not only should we think about multi-sector and interdisciplinary approaches to the environment within our country, but also internationally.” Mr. Moon spoke about experiences gained from over 20 years as an environmental leader, where, in 1984, he initiated the first company-sponsored environmental campaign in Korea and was later recognized by the United Nations Environmental Program with its prestigious award, the “Global 500 Roll of Honor” in 1997.

Forum participants pointed to the current global economic downturn as potentially having a negative effect on budget considerations worldwide. “Often, environment projects are viewed as a luxury and that is a mistake,” said Dr. Edward Reed, The Asia Foundation’s Country Representative in Korea.

Perhaps not if they are based on ideas ready to steal.

ShareThis

A copy of the 2008 survey is available in its entirety on The Asia Foundation website.

The fieldwork for the survey was conducted from June 12-July 2, 2008. The methodology used was a multi-stage random sample of 6,593 in-person interviews with Afghan citizens 18 years of age and older, both women and men, from different social, economic, and ethnic communities in rural and urban areas in all 34 provinces of Afghanistan. The 2008 survey captures the Afghan public’s perceptions of reconstruction, security, governance, and attitudes towards government and informal institutions, as well as poppy cultivation, the status of women, the role of  Islam in society, and the impact of media.

Funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, the 2008 survey was designed, directed, and edited by the Foundation, with all interviews completed in person by 543 Afghan men and women employed by the Afghan Center for Socio-economic and Opinion Research (ACSOR) in Kabul. Similar surveys will be conducted in 2009 and 2010.

ShareThis

George Varughese is The Asia Foundation’s Country Representative in Afghanistan. He can be reached at gvarughese@asiafound.org. To access the poll in its entirety — and the 2007, 2006, and 2004 polls – please visit www.asiafoundation.org.

Afghanistan has been through increasingly difficult times in the 12 months since The Asia Foundation conducted its last survey of Afghan public opinion in the summer of 2007. Amidst slow but steady gains in vital basic amenities and services and some successes in reconstruction efforts across the country, the conflict resulted in significantly higher civilian and military casualties; food shortages in many regions became severe, with several million Afghans facing near-starvation this coming winter; and inflation and unemployment continued to rise. The country and the international community now confront presidential and other elections in 2009 and 2010.

In this context, The Asia Foundation conducted its fourth annual nationwide survey of Afghan public opinion in summer 2008. The aim, as with the other nationwide surveys that were conducted in 2006 and 2007 and the more limited survey in 2004, was to gather first-hand opinion of a large sample of Afghan citizens on a variety of contemporary governance and development-related issues such that the information generated is useful for policy makers and opinion shapers in government, the international community, and the broader Afghan public. Every effort is made to ensure that the questions asked and the information collected on public opinion is actionable and, with each passing year, these surveys have become more acceptable and more widely used both as a valid and reliable barometer of public opinion in Afghanistan, as well as a public policy tool.

Here are some of the key findings.

Thirty-eight percent of survey respondents say that the country is moving in the right direction, while 32 percent say it is moving in the wrong direction, and 23 percent have mixed views. However, there is a clear trend towards greater pessimism over the last two years: the number of those saying that the country is moving in the right direction has decreased steadily since 2006 whereas the number of those who say the country is moving in the wrong direction has increased.

Security issues are identified as the biggest problem in Afghanistan as a whole and are the major factor shaping both optimistic and pessimistic views of the direction of the country. However, it is clear that security issues in Afghanistan have a predominantly localized dimension. The survey finds that in 2008 the security situation in Afghanistan is becoming more polarized, with respondents in some places feeling secure most of the time and others experiencing relatively constant levels of insecurity. Overall, the proportion of respondents who have a positive view of the security situation in their local area has decreased in most regions since 2007. Respondents report an improvement in security conditions in Central Hazarajat, West, and East regions but a steady degradation in security conditions since 2006 in the South West, South East, and Central Kabul regions. Both the proportions of respondents who say they ‘often’ fear for their safety and those who report ‘never’ fearing for their security have increased since 2007, further emphasizing the clumping of deteriorated security conditions in different parts of the country.

As in previous years, the survey finds that compared to their level of fear for personal safety, respondents’ actual experience of violence and crime is relatively low. When respondents were asked about the kinds of violence and crime they had experienced, interpersonal violence or threat of violence is the most significant overall followed by property crimes. The experience of different kinds of crime in 2008 is largely similar to that recorded in previous years, except in the South West and South East, where it has risen significantly making these the most crime-prone regions in the country.

The survey finds that most respondents would feel safe to participate in a range of public activities that happen within their community, such as resolving problems at the community level or voting in a national election. However, they are significantly more fearful of engaging in public political actions, such as participating in a peaceful demonstration or running for public office. Women are more fearful than men about participating in resolving problems in the community or in a peaceful demonstration. However, there is no significant difference in the proportions of men and women who say they would fear voting in a national election or running for public office.

As in previous years, the Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP) enjoy the highest levels of public confidence of all government institutions. However, respondents express significant concerns about the capacity of these institutions to operate effectively without external assistance considering them unprofessional and poorly trained. The proportion of respondents expressing these concerns has decreased since 2007, suggesting that there is a perception that ANA and ANP capacity is improving.

A large majority of respondents are against poppy cultivation; however, attitudes have evolved in markedly different ways among regions since 2006. The proportion of respondents who say that poppy cultivation is wrong has risen sharply in Central Hazarajat and the North East, whereas the proportion who disapprove of poppy cultivation has fallen in the South East and East. Those who approve of poppy cultivation do so principally for economic reasons such as employment creation and profitability for farmers and workers, which is consistent with concerns about unemployment as one of the most important national and local problems. Those who oppose poppy cultivation do so mostly for religious reasons (because it is forbidden in Islam). A significant proportion of respondents mention the link between poppy cultivation, terrorism, corruption, and crime. Only a tiny proportion says they oppose poppy cultivation because it is against the law.

In 2008, economic issues have gained prominence as major national problems compared to 2007, particularly the issue of high prices related to the global crisis in food prices, unemployment, and poor economy. Since 2006, there has been a significant fall in the proportion of respondents who say that they are more prosperous today than they were under the Taliban government indicating that respondents feel a higher level of dissatisfaction with the economic situation of their families in 2008 than they have done in previous years.

Unemployment is identified as a major problem at the local level, and there has been very little improvement in employment opportunities over the last two years. Expectations of future improvement are lowest in this area, and a significant proportion of respondents expect availability of jobs to be even lower in the coming year. The other most important local problems identified by respondents concern basic infrastructure, such as access to electricity, water, and lack of roads and essential public services such as healthcare and education. Electricity supply remains one of the most problematic local amenities and emerges as the top development priority in 2008. Access to electricity varies widely between urban and rural areas and among different regions. On the other hand, the majority of respondents judge the availability of clean drinking water to be good in their local communities and continued improvements are expected in this area in the next year.

More of the poll’s findings can be found here.

ShareThis