Fear and Loathing in the Philippines

When I first arrived to the Philippines, the place was a little rough around the edges. The slums of Manila were teaming with loud music, pick pockets, beggars, and hustlers. They were colorful communities with multi pigment motor vehicles  called Jeepneys and rusty abodes made of god knows what materials. After getting into the taxi cab the driver pumped up the radio which was playing the Villagers, Billy Joel, and Styx. 

Life was complicated here under the hot tropical sun in the South Pacific. These islands had been occupied by numerous foreign powers including Spain, Britain, Japan, and the United States. Such dramatic shifts in imperial history had rendered the local population passive and relaxed. The streets of Manila were dotted with vagrants and impoverished families and the city's transportation system was packed with sweaty bodies stuck together like cement, but the people were happy and brimming with tolerance over any situation. I had come to a nation where everyone adopted the mantra "the Dude abides." 

My hostel was located on the forth floor of a steamy apartment building overlooking the bay across from the US Consulate. The attendants were a bit slow. They answered my questions with a persona similar to Pedro's from Napoleon Dynamite; aloof and with ambiguity. After talking with my absent minded cab driver and these two clowns, I wondered if the entire country was high, wrapped up in some perpetual mental haze from the suns rays and the odd oder that permeated from the Jeepneys that filled the streets. That night I wandered down Rizal Park, named after Filipino revolutionary Jose Rizal who had been executed there. While wandering through the park grounds I pondered about what Rizal would think of the current status of his people, with so many people impoverished while former presidents are imprisoned for laundering money and consenting to bribes. Would he be satisfied with the fruits of independence? 

The next day I took a bike tour around the old Spanish city and garrison of Intramurals. Never before had I seen an Asian city that had been so defined by its colonial past. Shanghai's Bund has been over powered by the modern corporate majesty of Pudong across the river. Saigon's French heritage was nearly noticeable. Even Hong Kong doesn't appear to have much colonial architecture, and its beautiful skyline seemed to be of an almost Asian Western hybrid style. Manila on the other hand was like a Spanish or Latin American town, full of Romanesque style Catholic Cathedrals, guards adorning Spanish uniforms, and a fort that snaked through much of the city center. Spanish would've been more useful than Chinese here.

 The people themselves had adapted some Mediterranean elements into Filipino culture. Everyone I talked to in the Philippines was a Catholic, although the southern islands (which Idid not visit) are predominately  Muslim. Everyone was wearing flip flops, and it was common to see people sleeping in the streets taking all day siestas. After exploring the old Spanish garrisons, I went across the street to China town, only to find that all the businesses were closed and everyone was outside relaxing in the sun. I turned the corner at an old church to find numerous peddle and motor vehicles decorated with plastic dolls adorning Catholic attire. I had no idea what I was getting myself into. An Aztec sacrifice perhaps? Or maybe some twisted form of Carnival were everyone would feast on sexual pleasures and tequila worms. I would soon find out. 

As I reached the river side a man in a blue shirt next to one of these infant arks on wheels waved to me and I waved back. Struck by curiosity I walked over and said hello and asked if I could take  picture of the shrine. He responded with a passive affirmative and as I showed my face to the people inside, they immediately became fascinated. Apparently a westerner had not wandered into this slum before to talk with people, and they pounced on the chance for a unique experience, as did I. The blue shirted fellow named Michael offered me a drink and I accepted. Then an older gentleman named Jonas asked me if I liked to dance salsa. Having experience in Latin dancing, I joined in the salsa fest, later showing off my Rumba, Tango, and Russians. After this my new friends and I began to drink an endless flow of Red Horse ale that sedated my mind and energized my body. During this state of  madness I was invited to join my new friends in the Santo Ninos festival, the Catholic celebration of the Holy Child. In my mad state of hedonism I agreed. 

We were driven back to the old church where black ash was put on my face. All around me were crazy vehicles covered in the baby dolls with numerous colors and noises from fireworks, drums, and excited children. It was a cross between Marti Gra and Gasparilla, a noisy mess of celebratory Catholics and community cheer. The beer kept flowing, and the noise became more blurry. I made it back to my hostel looking like a chimney sweep stumbling up the stairs like a bewildered stegosaurs that just lost a battle with a T Rex. My head hit hard by alcohol and Filipino hospitality. These people are crazy, I thought. Cant give these bastards an inch or they'll walk a mile, despite the fact that they use the metric system. Never before had I seen an Asian culture so laid back and Epicurean. Salsa, catholic festivals, what next Taco Bell(I actually ended up finding one)?

The people in Manila were hospitable, friendly, and outrageously fun. While I have met plenty of hospitable Chinese people, and experienced the madness of unpredictability in Chinese society, I had never experienced anything quite like this, and Im sure that Japan and Korea would be alien to such customs.  I jokingly say to myself now that the Philippines is the first Latin American country I have visited. 

After a few days I set out for my next destination, Puerto Galera on the tropical island of Mindoro. To get there, I had to take a bus to the port city of Batangas. On the way I gazed at the passing scenery of rural Philippines, a deep blue sky looking over sprawling green hills and palm trees waving in a soft breeze. During this pleasant ride through the provinces I asked myself, are there any ugly places in this country? Everything was clear and pristine, even the slums were beautiful in their own right. The country is intoxicating. But I hadn't seen anything yet. 

After a brief shuffle with my luggage through Batangas port, I set sail for Puerto Galera on a bright yellow banana like vessel. A Yellow Submarine fit for Ringo Starr. During this one hour cruse across the narrow straight, I listened to Gorillaz Plastic Beach album, getting lost in the azure   waters and staring at factories far away on the distant islands. Everything became more linear, more centered, more leveled, and less real. Sooner than I thought we arrived to the small seaside town of Sabang, a beach bum community with multicolored bungalows, diver shops, Aussie bars, and a tacky castle that served as the town's Tropicana Hotel.

 Coming onto the island with my big red suitcase, I attracted numerous motorbike taxi drivers asking where I wanted to go. I told one of them Tuna Joe Hostel and he knew the place, so I hopped on for a ride with a small fee. The motorbike sped through the streets of Sabang and straight into the rich tropical jungles of the Puerto Galera peninsula. Swerving and shifting through narrow roads that penetrated the jungle like a slip and slide. My hostel was located in a small community of natives alongside a rocky beach littered with coconut husks and dead coral. Just 10 feet off the shore were psychedelic coral reefs that contained a metropolis of marine species. The peninsula was surrounded by them. That evening the sunset produced an orange and purple glow that complimented the rich dark silhouettes of jungle foliage. 

I soon realized the dangers of these islands. It was going to be hard, perhaps impossible to leave them. Several veterans of this spiderweb of intoxication that surrounded these islands could be seen at the bars, old men mostly from Australia and England, drinking away their final years. Their primary forms of recreation included boating, diving, and fucking the local whores. I heard the same story over and over again, an old man got tired with his wife who no longer pleased him sexually so he divorced her and left to the Philippines to have a few young girlfriends he could call upon. The bastards were coming for one thing, to get lost and stay lost. Like the coral layers of rock that formed the shoreline, these pigs just washed up on shore and stuck to it, becoming part of the environment, and loosing themselves in the process. It was a temptation I myself crossed eyes with, an evil temptation that smelled like the morning after a night that imbibed a few too many Singapore slings.  The pearl sands of White Beach, the cool breeze from Mount Malisimbo, the alien environments of the coral gardens, the crystal waters of Tamara Falls, they all were singing the songs of a foul Siren enticing you to make your stay permanent. 

The people were as pleasant as their environment. About 40% of the people on the island were small children. It was common to meet families with 5 children or more, with about 4 girls and the young anticipated prince that would carry on the family name. Along with the little tikes were the dogs. Dogs wandered on the beaches everywhere, and since it was too expensive to get them fixed, the flea bags just kept multiplying. In fact, the owner of my hostel, who had 5 dogs said she had to kill the mother because she kept having too many litters. Outside my room I after saw a couple of men, sailors mostly, enjoying a game of cards or Majong with a side of gambling. They called me over a few times to join them in conversation and drink, a sweet and silky substance which was far more enjoyable than the Baijiu I am used to in China. As we sat and chatted, the bottle would make its way around the table leaving it's effects in a more saturated manner following each round. The people here lived simple lives under the blue skies, swaying palm trees, and piles of cement blocks they called home. Despite the simplicity and lack of opportunity to progress, I was envious of them. 

In a few days I left Puerto Galera bound for Angeles City where I would depart for Malaysia. It was a sobering journey back as I drearily made my bus transfers and dodged several long distance taxi drivers trying to rip me off. My final ride to the airport from the center of Angeles City was on a Jeepeney, a long shaft of rubbish and engine clunking its way to the air field. It was an appropriate form of transportation to see me off; slow but comfortable, loud but colorful. It represented everything about my experience in the Philippines. People here are much more laid back than the rest of Asia, but with the same sense of hospitality as I had seen in China, Vietnam, Thailand and others. The effects of such a combination are intoxicating, and the fumes of Filipino society make you want to stay. Despite its rocky complexion at first glance, it's always more fun in the Philippines. As General McArthur stated as he retreated from Manila following the Japanese invasion, "I shall return." 

One China, Two Perspectives: The Difference Between Hong Kong and China

This week, my girlfriend and I had the pleasure of visiting that kingdom on the other side of the hills from Shenzhen known as Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a symbol of Asian modernity. It is a cosmopolitan outpost of the former British empire, and although it is just like any other global mega-city (a metropolis teaming with Americans, Europeans, Australians, and Indians) it has many characteristics that have been defined and influenced by the greater Chinese diaspora community. Hong Kong's fortunate history has decorated the island with a jewel lined shore of brightly lit skyscrapers obscured by the traffic of Chinese Junks and other nautical vessels. Thriving markets and expansive natural wonders illustrate a proud urban culture that values a connection to the earth and the past. In many ways, Hong Kong is like Manhattan while Shenzhen and the greater Chinese mainland are like New Jersey. Hong Kong residents look down upon the Chinese mainland as a larger counterpart that fails to match the potential of the residents on the empire island of prosperity and corporate majesty.

That being said, I was far from charmed by Hong Kong in many respects. I found it to be distinctly Western and hostile to the China that I have known. As I have said in  past article, the China that I have been acquainted with is marked by its randomness. Chinese traffic, bureaucratic blundering, and daily life are all highly unpredictable. It is very common to find people driving on the sidewalk, or carrying a heavy load of livestock on the back of a motorcycle. You never know what you might see being sold on the street, whether it is something as simple as pineapples or something as odd and disturbing as a pig's head. When traveling by overnight train, it is common to see migrant workers or peasants get on for a few hours in the middle of the night and stand in the aisles. When traveling by long distance bus, it is common for the driver to call out your stop, only to find that it is on the side of a street with no major bus station or landmarks. If you value cleanliness, China will scare the living daylights out of you on a daily basis. Dust often clouds the air due to construction, traffic, or just some peasants burning garbage (the primary method of disposal). If you don't like cigarette smoke, too bad. Almost all Chinese men smoke cigarettes and the idea of a no smoking zone is almost no existent even in the face of no smoking signs. And don't even get me started on factory workers. Anyways, such unpredictability can be difficult for the average westerner to understand let alone tolerate. 

Thus it came of no surprise to hear my girlfriend talk about how much she loved Hong Kong. To her, coming to Hong Kong is a nice breath of fresh air (literally). In fact, she told me that coming back to Shenzhen immigration brings with it a solemn state of mind. Hong Kong (while not as extreme as Singapore) is clean, rule oriented, and expensive. Whereas the most you will have to pay for a ride on the Shenzhen metro is 8 kuai, Hong Kong's metro can cost you over 100 HK dollars for a single ride across town. Keep in mind that exchange rates between Chinese Yuan and HK Dollar are about the same. A night in a hostel will cost about 200 HK dollars and a good meal will cost you 50. Traffic is relatively normal in HK, and when I walk along the street I see no hole in the wall restaurants, no charcoal grill street venders, and no greasy motor taxi drivers. Worst of all, it is full of White people, to the point of which you hardly stand out as a foreigner. Due to Britain's domain of the island until 1997, everyone speaks English, so I don't even bother to practice my Chinese there. Even if i do, the people look at me like I'm a fool and say curtly "I speak English you know" as if they were ashamed that I would even try speaking Mandarin with them. 

Although I overreacted, the final straw to me was being told I couldn't eat my McDonalds on the metro. In reality, this probably would have been the case if I had taken the metro in America or Europe. But China has socialized me into believing that such behavior is acceptable. China is far more laid back than Hong Kong's cold and sterile character. On our way back on the extremely slow and overpriced metro, my feelings about returning to China were the exact opposite of my girlfriend's. I couldn't wait to return to the land where I ironically felt more free to do what I wanted (as opposed to say what I wanted). 

To me going to Hong Kong was like coming back to America. It was a British city not a Chinese city in my perspective. Everything that made China exciting in my eyes had been erased in Hong Kong. It was a China Disneyland, in fact it has a Disneyland. Not to say that Hong Kong is a city exclusively made up of uptight snobs. It is an amazing cosmopolitan community that provides an open gate for Southern China to the world, Furthermore, the Chinese who are there obviously left China to escape the the rough, dirty, and random aspects of China that I so embrace. I came to China to learn Chinese and experience a new way of life dictated by other social norms, China's social norms, not to find a little western hammock to relax and sip on a can of Diet China. Still, Hong Kong provides the perspective of overseas Chinese, and its easy to forget about these communities when living on the Mainland.

In writing this, I suggest to my readers interested in coming to China to consider what they want from their experience. If you are the kind of person that wants to rough it in the great wilderness that is China, a person who isn't afraid to get dirty and can tolerate frustrating situations, then come to Shenzhen, Beijing, Kunming, Chengdu, Xian, or the many rural communities of this great nation. If this is what you want than I suggesting passing over Hong Kong altogether as well as Shanghai for that matter. But, if you are the kind of person that requires stability, manners, and cleanliness, or that doesn't have Chinese language skills, then I suggest sticking with Hong Kong, Shanghai, and some parts of Beijing. Neither of these two experiences of China are superior to the other. They merely fit a certain type of personality.

 Furthermore, while my girlfriend prefers Hong Kong, that doesn't mean she can't tolerate living in Chinese society. In fact she has adapted quite well and should be congratulated on taking on the challenge successfully, especially since she lives all the way in the far out Fox Conn Factory district. Also, just because I find Hong Kong frustratingly clean and banal doesn't mean I didn't find anything that struck me as fun, interesting, or beautiful. The two places are just different. That's why they call it One China Two Systems. 

George W Bush: America's Worst President?

At the end of his presidency, George W Bush's legacy was scarred by negative public opinion and numerous ratings as the worst presidency in history by well respected historians. While I firmly stood by this conclusion, now I can't help but confess that the timing of the "worst President" claim was a bit immature. About four years after his departure from office I believe now is a more appropriate time to judge President Bush's leadership in the context of the history of the American presidency. 

When assessing a president, it is essential to answer a series of questions. How effective was the president's leadership style? What were his foreign policy victories or mistakes? What were his domestic policy victories or mistakes? How did he handle the challenges presented to him during the time of his tenure? Did he inspire a narrative with the public? Most importantly, did he leave the presidency with the nation better off than when he started?  

Bush's leadership style was top dow oriented and he lacked tolerance for details. Bush liked to make decisions based on his ideals as opposed to facts. The Iraq War provided the best showcase of Bush's leadership style. During cabinet meetings Bush clearly sided with the Defense Department and the CIA's vague certainty that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs. The actors in the theatre of this decision for war were far from coherent. Secretary of State Colin  Powell contributed a strong dissenting voice. In the end Bush made the decision for war despite the lack of hard facts and lack of accordance amongst the national security council. In making this decision, I believe that President Bush primarily relied on his relationship with God to assure that what he was doing was right. 

In assessing leadership style we must also identify the president's world view. President Bush grew up in a privileged family and for most of his life had very little sense of purpose. He was an average student in college, quit numerous jobs in the oil business, lost his bid for congressional office, and poorly managed the Texas Rangers  baseball team. Family rivalry complicated Bush's early life. His father had a very successful political career which led him to the presidency in 1988-1992. His brother Jeb was considered the most likely to serve as his father's political portage. Furthermore, George W Bush's life was marred by alcohol abuse until he became a born again Christian and gave up alcohol in 1986. After being elected governor of Texas and later President of the USA, I believe George W Bush had a deeply religious world view combined with a personal objective to prove himself to his family and the world. This is what influenced his "I am the Decider" leadership style. 

Ultimately President Bush's leadership style says little about his rating amongst other presidents. Bush's leadership style was shared by good presidents such as Ronald Reagan and Abe Lincoln and bad presidents such as Richard Nixon alike. Sometimes a bold sense of confidence the president holds for his convictions and values is exactly what the country needs in a time of crisis. In the end, leadership style is assessed by the results.

So what of the results? In the domestic realm, President Bush yielded little. There were only four major domestic policy victories, the Bush tax cuts, Medicare D, No Child Left Behind, and the Patriot Act. There were numerous failed legislative attempts such as the privatization of Social Security and comprehensive Immigration Reform. The Bush tax cuts were enacted to encourage economic growth, but mostly they contributed to higher income inequality, greatly benefiting the wealthy. They did little in terms increasing middle class income or creating jobs. Instead, by 2009, these tax cuts left the nation almost $2 trillion in debt. Medicare D, a provision in Medicare to provide prescription coverage for seniors, contributed $180 billion dollars in debt by 2009. Combined with the Iraq War, Afghanistan, Homeland  Security and an unprecedented increase in Defense Spending, $5.1 trillion was added to the national debt during Bush's presidency. 

The Patriot Act represented a tyrannical government response to crisis. Following 9/11, the nation had become overwhelmed by hatred, fear, and anger. Instead of inspiring a narrative upholding the freedom from fear, President Bush actively sought to enslave the American public with fear. The Patriot Act essentially erased any sense of right to privacy. All Americans are now under the suspicion of the Department of Homeland Security. In my assessment, the Bush Administration failed to respond to the challenges that were presented to it during the period of the president's tenure. Members of the Administration, especially Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Karl Rove acted with a sense of opportunism to advance their own power and interests during a time of national uncertainty. In the end it was about ideology as opposed to national security and the protection of liberty. Dissenting voices were labeled as traitors and America was sharply divided into Blue and Red, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican. "Either you're with us or you are with the terrorists," as the president said.

As for foreign policy, President Bush entered office with promising goals, none of which were accomplished. Bush wanted to focus on Latin America in his foreign policy and engage China and Russia as rivals as opposed to partners. Following 9/11, the focus became an undefined War on Terrorism with no boundaries, no limits, and no conclusion. Such an abuse of power advanced an image of belligerent hegemony to the world regarding American power. During the 1990s, America was popular and respected everywhere and our cultural soft power equaled the superiority of our hard military power. That moment of unipolarity was squandered by the War on Terror and later the Iraq War. Unlike Vietnam, there was no geopolitical reason for invading Iraq. Yes the US had a strained history with the Hussein regime, Iraq was a threat to regional stability, and Iraq contained large oil reserves that could be cut off from the global market as an economic threat.  But none of these factors related to the War on Terror or 9/11. The reason for war itself was poorly crafted to the American people. First we went to war to prevent Saddam from making and using WMDs. Then we went to war for the freedom of the Iraqi people to live in a Democracy that we would help set up. Two incredibly different goals, two incredibly different missions that entailed incredibly different obligations from the US. The world responded with destain for America's action. Time and time again, Bush soiled the image of American integrity to the people of the world. Instead of forging new policies  with Latin America and Asia, foreign policy during the Bush Administration focused exclusively on the Middle East, an area of the world the US has no business bothering with. 

After reviewing Bush's presidency, we must ask: did he leave the presidency with the nation better off than when he started? Not at all. Bush entered the presidency with a balanced budget, a relatively peaceful world, a strong economy, and a confident public. When he finished his tenure, he left the nation the great recession, two wars, the largest amount of debt in terms of unneeded government spending in our history, draconian executive precedents such as the Patriot Act (which his predecessor has unfortunately refused to repeal), a loss of American appeal worldwide, and worst of all an angry and divided American public. George W Bush is certainly one of the worst presidents in American history. But is it fair to call him the worst? 

In the modern era there are only two presidents that are viewed with as much negativity as George W Bush, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter. Are either of them worse than Bush? Nixon is viewed as a bad president due to the audacity of his abuse of executive power and privilege during such instances as the Watergate Scandal and the invasion of Cambodia. However, it is important to note that there were plenty of positive aspects in the Nixon Presidency. Nixon's tenacious leadership style passed the Environmental Protection Act and ended the Vietnam War. His diplomatic ability and partnership with Henry Kissinger opened China to the world and started nuclear disarmament agreements with Russia. Nixon has a split image of bad and good but I don't think he was worse than George W Bush. 

Jimmy Carter's story can be characterized as a political tragedy. Carter was president during a period of national anxiety due to Vietnam, Watergate, and the OPEC Energy Crisis. His foreign policy was marred by the Iranian Hostage Crisis but positively enhanced by the Camp David Accords. Ultimately Carter, while seen as a failed president, is a lot like President Hoover. Both were good men who just couldn't personally face the monumental challenges presented to them during their tenure. Ultimately they needed a Reagan or an FDR to clean up the mess after them. Furthermore, Jimmy Carter's legacy as an ex president far exceeds any ex president except for perhaps Bill Clinton. President Bush on the other hand has resorted to walling himself off from the world at his Texas ranch to escape the embarrassment of his presidency. Bush didn't even speak at the 2012 Republic National Convention. Therefore I don't think Jimmy Carter is a worse president than George W Bush. 

Are their any other presidents that qualify for a rating lower than George W Bush? I believe so yes. Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan both let the country fester with civil unrest over the slave issue thereby allowing the ideological rift between the North and South to widen. The lack of action or inspiration for unity in both of these presidencies would later lead to the Civil War. Andrew Jackson, albeit a great general, was a terrible president. Besides being the nation's first populist president, he destroyed the nation's finances by resolving the national bank, violated states rights by calling the national army to attack South Carolina for nullifying a tariff, and forced thousands of Native Americans off their lands in the trail of tears. Ulysses S Grant, another great general but bad president, was an irresponsible alcoholic unfit for leadership. He let his administration be run by opportunists and flatterers. Warren G Harding and Calvin Coolidge lived by the governing motto that the government that governs least governs best. The results were scandals such as Tea Pot Dome and irresponsible business transactions and investments that led to the Great Depression. Other than those examples, I can't think of any other president worse than George W Bush. With that, I will say, may history have mercy on his soul. 

Is a China-Centric World Possible?

China has certainly proved to be a nation worthy of global integration and respect in the modern era. It is a multicultural nation with 55 ethnic minorities. It's cities are teeming with cosmopolitan cells complete with McDonalds, KFC, Dairy Queen, Walmart, and Star Bucks. It is a country with well established expat communities from Europe, Africa, the Middle East, North America, and other parts of Asia. It is a country that attracts millions of foreign tourists to its numerous natural wonders and UNESCO Heritage sites. 

China's state capitalist model has successfully attracted the world's largest Multi National firms which have invested billions of dollars into the Chinese economy. Such economic activity has lifted millions out of poverty and has been highlighted as a successful model for other developing nations to emulate. 

Chinese soft power is expanding through film, art, gymnastics, athletics, and opera. The most effective soft power tool Beijing has employed is China's numerous worldwide Confucian Institutes. Confucian Institutes not only provide Mandarin training but also craft a positive image of China abroad. 

China has already hosted several large and impressive international events including the Beijing UN Conference on Women in 1995, the Beijing Summer Olympics in 2008, the Shanghai World Expo in 2010, and the Asia Games in Guangzhou 2010. Such events were signified by globally inclusive mottos such as One World One Dream and Thrilling Games Harmonious Asia. We also must not forget China's permanent seat of the UN Security Council and membership in the G20. 

China is certainly one of the most powerful nations in the 21st century and several have predicted that China will dominate the world in the near future. In fact, it has been suggested that geopolitical environment is experiencing a power polarity shift from the US to China. Whether such claims are accurate or premature, the question must be asked, what would the world be like under Chinese hegemony? More importantly, is China capable of holding such a power position? 

In order to answer these questions we must look to China's history as a civilization. For a majority of its existence, China has been the central pillar of power and stability in Asia. The Mandarin word for China (Zhong Guo) literally means Middle Kingdom. The Chinese capital, whether it was Chang'An, Kaifeng, Hangzhou, or Beijing served as the central authority of all domains under Chinese occupation. Furthermore, the Chinese emperor was given the title "son under heaven." This meant that China was the center of civilization in the known world. All foreign lands outside Chinese domain were considered barbarian and uncivilized in the Chinese world view. 

During the reign of the Yongle Emperor in the Ming Dynasty, maritime voyages led by the infamous eunuch Zheng He yielded annual tributes to Beijing from kingdoms as far as the shores of Malay and Sri Lanka. How peaceful or belligerent these voyages were we may never know. However, we do know that after reaching the shores of East Africa, the voyages ceased. Instead of conquering the world while China had the opportunity, the Ming saw no need to. As the center of civilization, the Middle Kingdom was all that the Ming desired to control. To proceed forward in their eyes would be a waste of state funds. 

I see this as an indication of how China would act as a unipolar power. Chinese people themselves are enthusiastic about their county's global rise. But when asked about the spread of Chinese influence in an imperialist sense, the Chinese don't believe that their government would militarily occupy other countries or provoke armed conflict through offensive posturing. Furthermore, China's leadership has not indicated any enthusiasm for a greater military evolvement on the international stage. China abstained from the UN Security Council vote on a No Fly Zone over Libya and Chinese diplomats have cautioned against NATO military action in Syria. China's official foreign policy doctrine upholds principles of mutual respect for sovereignty, nonaggression, equality, and non-interference as opposed to a universality of human rights or Wilsonian liberalism as American foreign policy currently employs. 

The only reason China would use military hard power is in defense of its claims over maritime territorial disputes in the East and South China Seas. These are territories considered as part of China historically. Such conflicts fit into the narrative of China as the Middle Kingdom (hegemon). These territorial disputes merely reflect that China has returned to its previous status as Asia's central power holder.  

Overall, China's influence in the world is almost exclusively economic. China has invested heavily in mineral extraction in Australia, Africa, and the Middle East as well as agricultural resources in Latin America. China has also invested in foreign infrastructure projects such as highways in Kenya, hydroelectric dams in Laos, and railroads in Angola. A Chinese hegemony would probably employ economic influence to manipulate international affairs in the shadows, as opposed to the pomp and circumstance of the US armed forces. What this means is that the international stage would lack a unipolar military force to ensure the security of free trade and basic human rights. 

This is why I am skeptical of a Chinese hegemony in the future. Outside of East Asia, China has shown no interest in engaging its military resources in order to ensure the security of the overall geopolitical environment. That being said, only about a century ago Americans had no interest in getting involved with Europe's problems. In fact, Americans preferred  to remain isolated. So who knows where China will be in 50 years. But for now, China will continue to address domestic problems before it takes on Atlas's burden. 

The Pacific President: Why Asia Matters Now

Conservatives often compare President Obama's foreign policy with the Carter Administration's. Their argument has been bolstered by handshakes with Hugo Chavez, so called apologetic speeches directed to the people of the Middle East, and the disastrous Benghazi affair, the worst event to hit the State Department since the 1979 Iranian embassy hostage crisis. 

However, while the analogy between the Carter and Obama Doctrines can be cleverly crafted by terrestrial evidence, I believe that reality illustrates a far different historical comparison, Richard Nixon. Why you may ask? Because Nixon and Obama have shared one common goal in their foreign policy doctrines, engagement with Asia as a Pacific power, in particular China. However, I believe President Nixon came to the conclusion of Asia's importance due to his top foreign policy advisor Henry Kissinger. 

President Obama on the other hand was raised with a Pacific centric world view. Born in Hawaii and raised in Indonesia, Obama's world view not only has a strategic connection with the region but a personal one. He is America's first Pacific President, and in an era with so many international distractions from Europe and the Middle East, this world view is needed more than ever. The strategic shift from the Middle East to Asia will undoubtedly be President Obama's greatest foreign policy legacy.

But why Asia? Why now? As it now stands all signs point to Asia as the center of geopolitical importance in the 21st century. Asia accounts for a majority of the world's economic growth and military expansion. Furthermore, there are plenty of problems to be dealt with. 

Like the Middle East, Asia suffers from numerous nontraditional security threats such as piracy in the Melaka Straights, drug/human trafficking in Southeast Asia and muslim extremism in the southern islands of the Philippines. Geopolitical posturing occurs between several regional actors especially India, Pakistan, the Koreas, Japan, ASEAN, and China. India, Vietnam, North Korea and China have all expanded military capabilities within the last decade as a result of mutual distrust. Japan has even considered building a military beyond peacekeeping purposes. 

The region's primary destabilizing force is China, whose power and influence has made it the region's hegemon. Recent diplomatic spats with China over islands in the East and South China Seas have erased China's image as a peaceful rising power previously held by other cautious regional actors. The only force that can serve as a balance to China is the US. So it is no surprise that we have heard demands for an increased US presence in the Asia Pacific from Vietnam and the Philippines. It should come as no surprise that Australia welcomed 2,500 US troops with open arms. It should be of no surprise that conservative pro US factions have won parliamentary majorities in recent elections in Japan and South Korea. 

US presence in the region isn't only important for Asian nations. Security threats brought by a rising China and nontraditional security threats have the potential to affect global trade routes in the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. US soft power would improve dramatically in region by providing a positive security role. Such soft power has the potential of advancing economic interests such as free trade agreements and other economic partnerships. Furthermore, as has been the case with previous engagements with the Asia Pacific, the American military and diplomatic establishment can build a sense of understanding about how Asian cultures and political systems affect geopolitics. Such knowledge would prove invaluable in the 21st Century.

In recent decades, the US has yielded very little from our efforts in the Middle East, as the Arab Spring has demonstrated. It is a region far more unpredictable than the Asia Pacific. The region provides far less strategic value in the 21st Century as America continues to use domestic natural resources and develop clean energy technologies. In regards to the War on Terrorism, the threat will continue to exist, if not in the form of Al Qaeda than some other organization. Furthermore, the presence of US forces only provides more fuel to the coercive ideologies of Islam based terrorist organizations. Ironically, it was the Carter Doctrine that initiated America's path as the security policeman of the Middle East. After 30 years, it's time for America to hang up the baton and return to the proper theatre for the 21st Century, the Asia Pacific. If anything, President Obama is attempting to leave the Carter Doctrine behind. 

Will President Obama be able to make the transition to the Asia Pacific a reality? Perhaps not. Several environmental constraints hinder the administration's efforts such as an inflammatory Middle East, nuclear bound Iran, and a massive fiscal sequester expected to hit the Defense Department. But the president has at least been able to get the ball rolling. Like Reagan, Obama's successor will probably be in office to see the finalized results of his efforts. If that's the case, President Obama still deserves credit for acknowledging and acting upon the necessary geopolitical challenges of the 21st Century. For America, it's Asia or bust. 

The Essential Alliance of the 21st Century

During the Cold War, American foreign policy was riddled with mistakes that often led to blatantly hubristic results. The Domino Theory which defined the world in abstract ideological blocks of influence led to an embittered struggled throughout East Asia. The American government's unapologetic support for radical right wing factions in Nicaragua, Chile, the Dominican Republic and others led to a wave of brutal dictatorships and political assassinations. Support for these regimes illustrated the general image of the US as an unethical beast of burden to the people of Latin America. The CIA's stunt that eliminated the elected regime of Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953 continues to define the US-Iranian relationship to this day. 

But of all the mistakes America made in the Cold War, the one I find most detrimental to American interests is the support of Pakistan over India in the divide of the partition. The choice to side with Pakistan was, like all other decisions in the Cold War order, based in ideology as opposed to reason and virtue. Like most new nations born from the sweat and blood of imperialism, India's first elected leader, Jawaharlal Nehru, put India on the path of socialism. India is a large and poor country, so it's no surprise that India's leadership was skeptical of Free Market Capitalism and the Cold War had a long way to go before the ideological struggle proved victorious for capitalism. To make matters worse in the eyes of the US, the Soviet Union soon replaced the UK as India's largest trading partner. Through the many armed conflicts between India and Pakistan during the Cold War, most notably the battle over East Pakistan(now Bangladesh), America continued to side with Pakistan. 

After the Cold War, the Clinton Administration marginally improved relations with India, but the new relationship was immediately cast aside after 9/11. Under the Bush and Obama Administrations Pakistan has once again become a vital partner, this time in the War on Terrorism. But it has been a cantankerous partnership, one marred by unclear boundaries of sovereignty and acts of distrust. On numerous occasions Pakistan has closed its boarder to NATO and the US Army, and it is assumed that the bulk of the Taliban's activity is within its border. US drone strikes in Pakistan have affectedly pissed off the entire Pakistani political spectrum. Most alarming was the discovery that Osama Bin Laden had resided in a compound in Abbotabad at a location fairly close to a Pakistan army facility. Pakistan is now one of the most anti American countries in the world and yet we continue to fund its military autocracy. On the other hand, Indian public opinion of America, while not perfect, is rosier than Pakistan's. A partnership with India would prove far more trustworthy. 

Furthermore, the cultural congruencies between America and India are too great to ignore. Pakistan is a military dictatorship without a flicker of democratic flame in its political system. India is the worlds largest democracy. Unlike China and other Asian nations, India developed a successful parliamentary government at its origins. Why is this so? Well one could easily point to Britain's long standing administration and presence on the subcontinent as the obvious cause. Britain built India's transportation system, gave India a unifying language, and developed a robust education system for India's elites. Undoubtedly India would revert to a British style government given Britain's influence. Yet there are several examples of former states of British imperialism, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, Singapore, and until recently Egypt that have not developed pluralist democratic societies. 

Therefore, I believe that the primary cause for India's success as a democracy is the inherit pluralism in its culture and identity. India is the most ethnically, politically, and religiously diverse country in the world. It is a country of Hindus primarily, but also with large populations of Muslims, Sikhs and Catholics. It is a country where Jewish communities have thrived for centuries, while Jewish communities in Europe had suffered antisemitism until less than a century ago. It is a country with states administered by communists, the far right BJP party, and centrist Congress party factions. According to the 2001 Indian census, 30 languages are spoken by over 1 million native speakers in India. It is a country of castes, creeds, classes, crescents and Kalis. But yet it has endured to define itself as a united nation and people. Sounds a lot like America to me. In fact, India shares the central idea of America as the melting pot. If such a message was pontificated by our leaders, the opportunities for a historic alliance would be endless. 

Furthermore, like America, India has a fully developed popular culture with soft power potential. In fact, Bollywood yields more films for the world than India imports from foreign film industries. Even in China I have come across fans of Bollywood entertainment. Pakistan on the other hand is a country dominated by corrupt religious extremists. Such an environment dampens Pakistan's potential to develop a robust popular culture. Once again, culturally India is more congruent with the US than Pakistan. 

However, in the war of terrorism, India doesn't provide much in terms of strategy. Pakistan is at the heart of the action, and since it is a nuclear power, eliminating the partnership altogether would yield more accessibility for terrorist groups to nuclear weapons. But India does provide a greater strategic piece to the game of geopolitics. The Obama Administration's primary foreign policy objective is a strategic shift to East Asia in an effort to balance China. As of now the US can count on South Korea's and Japan's newly elected conservative governments to cooperate. Southeast Asian countries such as the Philippines and Vietnam are hedging towards the US due to recent spats with China over islands in the South China Sea. American relations with Myanmar have opened after a half century of separation, and President Obama has deployed 2,500 troops to Australia with full support from the host country. 

India provides the final piece of the puzzle, and it shouldn't be too hard to persuade India to join. India is the only country in Asia that matches China's potential. Furthermore India is China's biggest military and economic rival in the region besides the US. India is a victim of China's String of Pearls strategy, it has a territorial dispute with China that has brought tensions between the two nations since a military exchange in 1962, and China has been aiding Pakistan's military development for years. The ultimate balance against China would be a triangular military alliance between India, the US, and Australia. The only major roadblock is America's alliance with Pakistan which unfortunately cannot be ignored due to America's current goals in Afghanistan. 

For his part, President Obama has done his best to ignite a friendship between India and the US. He has signed off on numerous economic and military agreements with India and has promised to support India's bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. But more work needs to be done. In Asia the Obama Administration has several obligations. It has placed the bulk of its diplomatic efforts in ASEAN and its members, and it still must deal with the withdrawal of the American military from Afghanistan as well as the lingering effects of the Arab Spring. But following the American withdrawal from the Middle East, I believe that the US will enough resources to invest in the Subcontinent to foster such an alliance. Perhaps the best place to start is with the Indian public. Indians may have their complaints about the American government, but they generally admire American society for the same reason they admire their own, for culture, diversity, and democracy.