Thais up in arms, while African drug ‘mules’ rot in jail     30 Nov 2008

As the rest of the world worries about collapsing asset prices and the threat of job loss, Thailand is getting ready for a major showdown. Two groups, split across class lines, psyche themselves every day, threatening each other with the sort of language that has culminated in ethnic violence in equally troubled nations. 

The yellow camp calls itself PAD, People’s Alliance for Democracy, and for the last three months has virtually brought the country to a grinding halt. The prime minister, whom they accuse of being Thaksin’s stooge can’t even get to his office. He maintains he’s his own man, who just happens to be Thaksin’s brother-in-law. PAD aren’t buying it, especially given the history of allegations of corruptions surrounding Thaksin and his family.  

PAD has, by all accounts become more strategic, better organized and more vociferous. They’re calling the invasion of the airport the final battle with the government. One is reminded of the mother of all battles that Saddam Hussein once promised the ‘infidels’ invading Iraq, who, according to right-hand man Chemical Ali, were committing suicide at the gates of Baghdad.  

But now Thaksin’s rural supporters are vowing to fight back, in their bright red costumes and banners. They want a return of Thaksin’s populist largess and to put an end to what they call their marginalization by the Bangkok educated elites. This is nothing short of a class war, thinly disguised as a political stand-off. 

PAD want a repeat of their 2006 protests which were effectively a civilian coup that drove Thaksin out of office. Two years on, they have upped the ante with demands not just for Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat to quit, but for a radical and far-reaching structural change of the one-man one-vote democratic system currently in place.  

This sounds like a bizarre departure from a voting system acknowledged the world over as a fairly reasonable basis for democracy. Nations have gone to war to demand the right to vote, in pursuit of universal suffrage based on that very basic notion. PAD calls it western, and are having none of it. Instead they want a system in which parliamentarians are appointed on a representational basis for functional constituencies like the professions.  

Funny thing is, that’s what they have in Hong Kong and the democratic fringe says it’s not good enough, and have instead been clamouring for just the sort of system PAD in Thailand wants to jettison. There must be some hawkish elements in the Hong Kong administration grinning smugly because someone somewhere thinks their system worth emulating.  

The former prime minister, Samak Sundaravej defied the protestors until a court ruled he had breached a ban on having outside interests for continuing to host a TV programme. Strange things have been happening in the Land of Smiles. Being ousted on a technicality was probably the last thing Samak was expecting. He was still hoping his henchmen would vote him right back but in the quicksand that is Thai politics, the dynamics had already shifted and there was very little support for him.  

The appointment of Thaksin’s relative was like adding insult to injury as far as the government’s opponents and PAD in particular were concerned. It showed the government’s insensitivity and simply led them to step up their campaign. The political activism brings the country closer to a military coup, or worse, by the day. With the military generals calling on the prime minister to resign, anything could happen.  

There’s this other story that has been in the news, the sentencing to death of eight Africans in China, for smuggling drugs. Just a few days earlier, two Taiwanese were sentenced to death for similar offences. It is a brave man or woman, who chooses to peddle drugs across an Asia country where court cases are quick and decisive and extremely harsh.  

The eight who are from Zimbabwe, Benin and Uganda, got a two-year reprieve, which means if they behave themselves the death sentence could be commuted to life in prison. For guys in their twenties, what a terrible prospect, living your entire life behind bars, in a faraway country. But however frightening such a reality sounds, no one takes the plunge expecting to get caught. If they haven’t been coerced into it, hope drives the mule to believe he or she will succeed where others have failed, that they know how to hide the drugs where no one will think to look. It is a vain hope, because those who enforce the law are pretty savvy, and they have time and resources on their hands. 

For a young man facing a life of penury in his native Africa, or a young female student or air hostess lured by West African drug syndicates operating in South Asia, the allure of instant riches is overwhelming. But the dream very quickly turns into a nightmare. 

Hundreds of Africans are languishing in jails across Asia, and sadly, there will be more, with every passing day. Some have their young lives extinguished by the hangman. The lucky ones are those who get life. At least they can learn a trade or two, or tame the troublesome tones of Thai or Mandarin, and maybe cherish the pyrrhic victory of three meals a day. 

The fall from dizzying heights of populist politics    23 November 2008 

Two major figures in Asian politics are in free fall after illustrious careers that saw them rise from relatively obscurity, especially in the case of Chen Shui-bian, to the dizzying heights of populist politics and national leadership.  

Chen Shui-bian and Thaksin Shinawatra have both been brought down by accusations of corruption implicating themselves and their wives. Chen started off from a rural background and is said to have been an extremely brilliant student. His early years and experiences are a phenomenon many Africans can identify with where education becomes a ticket out of poverty, particularly in the 1950 and 1960s when the world, having emerged from the devastation of two wars, was creating new nations that were anxious to participate in a long overdue economic rejuvenation.  

Chen’s professional involvement with pro-independence leaders triggered his interest in politics. It must have left a lasting impression because when he later became president, he never stopped being a pain in China’s neck with his pro-independence politics. He is credited with helping clean up Taipei as mayor, and using his popularity to launch a career into bigger and better things. 

His victory with the Democratic progressive Party ended fifty years of Kuomintang rule. After which it seemed that this son of illiterate peasants could do no wrong. His crimes were those of association, when his wife and other family members were frequently linked to scandals like embezzling state funds and money laundering.   

Eventually the electorate tired of his lack of vision, and his inability to address crucial economic issues. There’s only so much you can achieve with independence rhetoric when the economy is stagnant and people are losing their jobs. Alienating China wasn’t such a bright idea when closer relations might have helped business prospects. Having re-invented the DPP and bringing them into power, he subsequently oversaw their ignominious defeat.   

The man now lies on a hospital bed on hunger strike, claiming that his arrest is politically motivated. Thaksin is singing the same song. His story echoes that of Chen in the way he built a career that took him to the highest office in the land. But unlike Chen, he was born into money, and his first major achievements were in business which benefited from his connections with the police.  

And this is also where his problems began. He’s rather well educated too, having earned masters and doctoral degrees. The amount of support the two men received especially from the humble sections of the population was impressive. But while Chen relied on his charisma and ability to amuse and impress, Thaksin found that having deep pockets wasn’t such a bad way to acquire influence especially amongst poor villagers.  

He ran afoul of the elitist Bangkok crowd by pandering to the poor in the north and introducing social welfare policies that proved difficult to sustain. Thaksin’s other claim to fame is that for a brief spell he was the owner of Manchester City football club before corruption charges came in the way and he was deemed an unsuitable owner. He had been anxious to join that club of billionaires who don’t sleep well until they’ve acquired an English football club.  

Both men have been tied to their wives’ alleged corruption. Thaksin’s wife was actually handed a jail term for irregularly acquiring property, and Thaksin in turn was found guilty of abuse of power in helping her acquire the said property. A subsequent reprieve for her didn’t prevent the British authorities cancelling their visas, and Thaksin remains a fugitive from justice.  

His fall from grace has been phenomenal. Chen also protests his innocence. As president he enjoyed immunity. But now he’s just another ordinary citizen. And if he’s convicted of money-laundering, he could be locked up for five years. This is a man who was once the youngest and one of the most promising lawyers in Taiwan.  

Maybe he should have remained in the law courts, but the allure of politics was irresistible. His achievements have been remarkable, both as mayor and as president. Thaksin’s achievements are not to be trifled with either. The man built a truly gargantuan business empire, and his years as prime minister, although tainted with scandal and all manner of accusations, were a democratically robust period for Thailand. He may never see the inside of a Thai jail, but he could be a fugitive from justice for a long time. 

As they say what does it benefit a man if he gains the world and loses his soul? You never can be sure about the way the justice system works in these countries. Maybe there’ll always be an element of political intrigue in accusations such as these, and sometimes it’s hard to tell where the truth lies.  

But one thing you’ve got to give both Thailand and Taiwan credit for is their willingness to create thriving democracies and the fact that, in spite of the usual hiccups every democracy suffers now and then, they do sometimes dispense with political sacred cows. It doesn’t matter how politically powerful you are, or how much money you’ve amassed. If there’s evidence of corruption, embezzlement and related financial scandals, you can count on the justice system to kick in, rather than resorting to meaningless commissions of inquiry.  

After the congratulatory messages, the reality dawns     16 Nov 2008

The Russian President Dmitri Medvedev jumped the gun and tried to appear tough in an ambitious effort to impact US foreign policy when he announced plans to deploy short range missiles just hours after Obama’s historic victory.  

The tone of the announcement in response to speculation that Obama was poised to set up a missile shield in central Europe was unnecessarily petulant and designed to rain on Obama’s parade. But it hasn’t really done the Russians any favours and is unlikely to bring Russia any closer to prominence in US foreign policy except to the extent that they persist in bullying their neighbours.  

It almost sounded like a desperate effort by Medvedev to gain publicity. It seems everyone has a message for the president-elect. Even the Taleban have reportedly sent him a message urging him to end hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. In return they promised to behave themselves and will not prevent him from accessing the oil in ‘their countries’.  

An olive branch or just another veiled threat? Perhaps Obama will have his way and succeed in weaning America of its dependence on Middle Eastern oil. The dynamics are changing rapidly, relations between Iran and the US might thaw, as suggested by the Iranian president’s unprecedented and quite unexpected congratulatory message.  

By reaching out to Obama, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sought to keep a door open to future talks and signaled a willingness to reverse decades of hostile relations which had deteriorated under George Bush. Any change won’t be rushed. Obama is just as concerned as Bush about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and is unlikely to be swayed easily just because he expressed a willingness to talk to traditional foes.  

At least a door has been opened, and in the interest of peace, the world should look forward to further progress rather than the stalemate and intolerance that have governed previous relations in the region. A likely scenario is for Iran to abandon its nuclear strategy in return for more active US involvement in containing fundamentalism and extremism around its borders, and hounding the Taleban in Afghanistan.  

Iran clearly hopes for the tolerance and active support India has enjoyed during the Bush years to legitimize its nuclear programme. The difference of course is that the risk of nuclear arms and technology falling into rogue hands in India is believed to be considerably less.  

Iran would have to agree to a supervised civilian energy programme, and cooperation with the US would effectively amount to Iran being conscripted in the war against terror, as bizarre as it sounds, given that George Bush considered Iran as part of the so-called ‘axis of evil’. The current mood is such that anything is possible, if only leaders can rise above politics and jaded ideologies that are past their sell-by-date.  

Hot button issues are likely to remain the Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan as far as security is concerned. These are important, but the economy will be the most critical issue in the foreseeable future. And for that reason, China will find itself playing a more prominent and somewhat different role than it has in the past.  

India benefited much from the Bush era, culminating in America’s support for its nuclear programme, despite the fact that India-US relations have always been couched in ideological ambiguity – does the US see India, Pakistan and China as rivals to be played off against each other or as potential partners in a grand albeit elusive coalition? Bush made his preference quite clear in his visit to India and Pakistan a couple of years ago. 

Pakistan desperately wants a nuclear technology sharing deal similar to India’s but after the nuclear proliferation scandal with their chief scientist, it will take a lot for Pakistan to win anyone’s trust, especially given the pervasiveness of extremism within its borders.  

A Democratic Obama administration is going to be less enthusiastic about India’s exemption from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty while at the same time condemning Iran and North Korea for their own nuclear ambitions. India is also somewhat uneasy about the Democrats protectionist credentials.  

Now more than ever before, due to the severity of the economic crisis it’s facing, the US is likely to wear the protectionist hat. Obama has spoken out against the loss of American jobs to countries like India which have developed an extensive call centre industry. He has promised tax relief for companies that create employment, which will ultimately mean fewer jobs going to countries like India.  

It will also mean fewer manufacturing jobs going to China in the medium to long term. In the short term China will continue to enjoy a cost advantage, but how long this will last depends partly on how quickly American industry can retool and revamp itself. China knows the tide is turning, and they can already see the effect that a drop in US consumer demand for ‘made in China’ products is having on their economy.  

The other threat for China and India is pressure to reduce pollution in the fight against global warming and climate change. Unlike Bush, Obama will lead at home and globally. This is a good opportunity for polluters to take a proactive step and in the process help shape the industrial-environmental and anti-dumping debates rather than face a protectionist America.

It’s not what Obama can do for us, but what we can learn from him  9 Nov 2008 

From the way Barack Obama ran an efficient campaign while Hillary Clinton and John McCain wasted time putting out fires within their teams, to the way he read the political climate, Obama showed political acumen and rare vision. 

He has understood all along that the GOP has so alienated the country that a Democrat with the right message which would strike a chord with people who were beginning to get disenchanted with George Bush stood a good chance come 2008. That’s why twenty-one months ago, he didn’t find it necessary to let Hillary Clinton take her chances while he waited in the wings in preparation for his own bid four or eight years on.  

He knew that if either Clinton or any other Democrat failed to deliver in the post-Bush era, his own chances would be diminished. He had to seize the moment. But you also have to admire the way he crafted a message and sold it to the electorate, how he embraced the internet for fund-raising and campaigning thus showing he was in tune with the world of the youth.   

This is a world defined by electronic social networking, email, Facebook, MySpace, Bebo, Twitter, Youtube, blogs, internet shopping and music and software downloads. McCain didn’t stand a chance. He and his team didn’t understand this world. He admitted in July that he never used email, and is not computer literate. He spoke of his military service when wars have gone out of fashion. Very bad marketing. 

McCain might have been a good reformer president a decade ago. But his time had come and gone. This is a great lesson for all those old men who still cling to power or aspire to lead. From Africa to Asia, we still insist on being led by people who don’t understand our world.  

We think age means experience. And perhaps it does; but experience gained fifty years ago is not necessarily relevant for the challenges the world faces today. The Americans have shown that while they recognize McCain’s exemplary war experience in Vietnam forty years ago, they don’t believe it equips him with the skills to tackle the current economic challenge. Someone should tell this to people like Mugabe, who still think their war veteran credentials entitle them to power until the end of time.   

The idea of having a young president as the leader of the so-called free world is truly revolutionary, even in countries where freedom and democracy remain dirty words. Obama has been welcomed across Asia particularly by younger, educated people who identify with him and see in him the sort of leader they would like to see in their own countries, a leader who speaks their language, articulates their dreams and symbolizes what young people believe they can achieve.  

Equally importantly, the message of change strikes a chord. But one has to ask those leaders now congratulating Obama, what are they doing to facilitate opportunities for their ethnic minorities? When will the UK, Germany, Holland, countries who most ardently support Obama, be led by ethnic minorities? 

Black men and ethnic minorities in general tend to receive bad press, which can blind us to their talents and potential. Denied role models, they are unable to believe in themselves. That is why it is so inspirational to see young black people blazing a trail in their chosen professions. From golfer Tiger Woods who changed a sport once dominated by pot-bellied middle-aged white men, to Lewis Hamilton who last week became the youngest Formula One world champion, to Barack Obama.  

There are many, including black people, who didn’t believe America was ready for a black president. They failed to understand that America has changed. People like Jesse Jackson tested the waters and showed promise, but their politics, steeped as they were in the civil rights narrative, were deemed too threatening.  

Obama understood this, and pursued a more inclusive approach. It is a great irony that in Kenya, the land of his father, ethnic chauvinism nearly destroyed us earlier this year, yet in America, they have risen above racial intolerance. When Obama says there are no red and blue states, no black America, white America, Hispanic America, etc, but only one USA, why can’t we see there’s no western, Rift valley, Central, or Coast, but only one Kenya? Why does that sound like empty rhetoric when in America it comes through as such a moving statement of national unity? 

Africa has suffered too long as a result of poor leadership and ethnic conflict. We have been branded the Dark Continent, an epithet that gets our blood boiling. Yet this darkness still follows us around like a shadow. When America is about to regain its place as a global leader with the world’s support, Congo degenerates into war and strife.  

It is indeed telling that in the global opinion polls, Obama was amassing approval ratings of 70-85% in Europe and Asia, but only 56% in Africa. Europeans and Asians gave him an ‘A’; Africans (except in Kenya) thought he only deserved a ‘C’. Obviously there’s a problem here, either in failing to acknowledge vision when they see it, or failing to understand a message that was so clear to the rest of the world.

Why the US should care about world opinion polls on their presidency    2 Nov 2008 

If the rest of the world had any say in the US presidential election, Barack Obama would be the next occupant of the White House. This is what world opinion polls are telling us. But opinion polls are notoriously unreliable, as many African-American politicians have discovered over the years.  

Hence the Bradley Effect, named after Tom Bradley, the mayor of Los Angeles who ran as the democratic candidate for governor of California in 1982. Every poll showed him in the lead. But he lost. The explanation offered is that white voters don’t reveal their true view to avoid appearing racist.  

Speculation is rife that Obama is poised to be the next victim of the Bradley Effect. Others suggest a possible reverse Bradley Effect where white voters won’t admit they’ll vote for a black candidate but go ahead and do it anyway. In the meantime, polls outside the US continue to tell an interesting tale: the world favours an Obama presidency, and the reasons are just as fascinating. 

Take the recent poll by eight major newspapers. Canada voted 70% for Obama, as opposed to a meager 5% for McCain. Obama gets an even more impressive 80% against 7% for McCain in Switzerland. In Japan it’s 61-13 for Obama. The same goes for a Gallup Organization poll conducted in 70 countries. 30% favour Obama, as opposed to only 8% for McCain.  

From Europe to Asia and Africa, Oboma enjoys an impressive lead over his opponent. In Kenya, Obama’s support was nearly 90%, and only 3% for McCain. McCain’s support is largely in the single digits while Obama’s anything from half to 80%. In the newspaper poll, Obama received more support than John Kerry in a similar poll four years ago.  

The margins between Obama and McCain are so large that irrespective of the Bradley or any other such effect, if the world had any say in the US presidency, Obama would clinch it hands down.   

And yet, America being what it is, McCain could still win. The Republican campaign seems intellectually bankrupt, offering nothing really new except the same trickle down economics that give substantial tax breaks to business hoping the benefits will fall like crumbs to the ordinary voters crouching at the foot of the banquet table. 

The other interesting insight from these polls is the world’s perception that the US, under the unpopular George Bush, is now a global pariah, increasingly isolated by friends and foes alike. From Japan and across Europe people’s view of the US has worsened during the Bush years. Few consider the US friendly. Many consider relations with the US tense.  

This is an indictment on Bush’s pursuit of aggression in Iraq, refusal to stand with the world on burning issues like global warming and more recently, the unraveling global economic malaise. Not only is Bush now emerging as the most unpopular president in US history amongst his own people, these international polls, if they’re to be believed, also suggest that this man and his administration are responsible for much of the mess the world finds itself in.  

And as much as John McCain seeks to distance himself from Bush, as a member of Bush’s party, he is inevitably tied to Bush’s policies. The world has reached a conclusion that a vote for John McCain is a vote for what Obama called the failed policies of the last eight years of Republican rule.  

This conclusion, sadly, doesn’t count in the US election. I say ‘sadly’ because it is unfortunate that the world is denied a say in how its affairs are managed, or more to the point, mismanaged. It is like taxation without representation, something Americans understand all too well. It is sad that Americans couldn’t care less what the rest of the world thinks about their leaders and the direction of their leadership and yet as a country they wield so much power over the rest of us.  

In every corner of the world, people are seeing their food bills rising, losing their homes, their jobs and their pensions, because the powers that be, from Bush to the once revered Alan Greenspan placed their faith blindly in the free market which has now turned the capitalist system on its head.  

Americans need to see these polls, and understand that the world is looking up to them to make the right choice this time round. But voters the world over are fickle and unpredictable. These same Americans saw the harm Bush caused them in his first four years, but they went ahead and granted the Republicans another four years, like lemmings with a death wish.  

In a poll conducted in China in which 75% favour Obama, some said they would support him even though his presidency might affect China’s trade prospects. They see him representing the ‘American Dream’. McCain comes through as spiteful and rude in the public debates, and lacking vision in the way he has ran his campaign. Unaccustomed to voting, the Chinese must be finding it fascinating to watch the two candidates, to compare their personalities, knowing that one of them will be meeting with their own leaders in the not-too-distant future. According to these polls, they’ve already decided whom they’d like to host in Beijing.