What lousy timing: I was in
the USA when Obama was traipsing through our backyard. I kept up
with what was going on by reading online, with the local
newspapers seemingly uninterested in the goings of a small third
world country of no consequence. Where are you from? Malaysia ...
you know, where that plane disappeared? Oh yes, of course. I
remember the plane, but I forget the name of the country. Oh, well.
Finally, on April 28, there was a photograph of Obama and a bunch of
excited teenagers on page A6 of the NYT with a report on the visit In
Malaysia, Obama Works to Mend Troubled Ties.Why did Obama decide to come to Malaysia, anyway? We are a nothing country in their scheme of things, a fourth division or non-league player. Anyway, that was the impression I got from reading three American newspapers daily for the ten days I was there. Could Obama's visit be due to the way China has been flexing its muscles in the region? This was abundantly clear during the MH370 search; nobody wanted Chinese ships in their territorial waters! Or could it be due to our shaky human rights record? Even Myanmar appears to have moved ahead on that front. The TPP could have been another reason but, seriously, are we the only country standing in the way of a predatory trade agreement?
It didn't add up. The bulk of the NYT story was about the niceties and platitudes that heads of states exchanged publicly when they visited one another, making plenty of meaningless noises. (We don't know what they spoke about during private conversions, though.)
The NYT reported Obama saying things like, "We are working more closely together than ever before," 'treading gingerly on human rights issues, and saying', "The prime minister is the first to acknowledge that Malaysia still has some work to do on these issues, just like the United States ...", pleading lack of time and not lack of concern for not meeting with opposition leaders ... and yadda, yadda, yadda: typical non-statements and plenty of soft shoe dancing that we have grown to expect during visits of presidents and prime ministers, kings and queens, and others representing them, besides the fake pomp and pageantry. (Some would simply call it bullshit.) Obama's comment about non-Muslims was reported, although I would argue that 'no country in world can afford to ignore half its population, men and women of any religion' would have been a better way to put it. Especially, if they are the ones paying the rent.
"On Sunday, president Obama visited Malaysia to underscore how much has changed in the last 16 years (since Al Gore's visit) -- not the lest in this country's attitude towards the United States, which has evolved from deep seated suspicion to a cautious desire for cooperation." Really? Perhaps, if NYT reporters had looked out of their windows, they might have noticed some protesters and placards on the streets. Maybe, they were too preoccupied with Syria and Ukraine to bother. In truth, nothing much has changed in the last 16 years. If anything, the situation is now worse. True, we do not have a vituperative leadership spewing bile at the US at every turn like 16 years ago, but merely one that's unready, unwilling and unable. And perhaps, clueless.
There was one bit in the story that I found quite interesting, though. (And the NYT does have a reputation for having the inside track on some White House thinking). The newspaper said, "White House officials liken Malaysia to a "swing state" in Southeast Asia, falling somewhere between the free-wheeling democracy of the Philippines, and the rigid one party authoritarianism of Laos. Encouraging Malaysia's evolution into a more open society, could make the country a model for the rest of the region." Whoa! Now, this is making sense, and becoming scary. Is that why Obama thought it necessary to visit Malaysia? Are these our choices: either become a shining democracy or a failed state, a rigid dictatorship? There is no need to guess which way the US will lean, but one can't help but wonder if they are underestimating Sauron's army again. It has a whiff, too, of the the domino theory all over. If we fail, will we destabilise the entire region? Will it become an excuse for China to try to fill the vacuum? Will Malaysia become the new US battleground for world democracy?
When I was in school in the sixties, I remember Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos being crowned the King and Queen of Asia by the western press. Philippines was the 'darling' country of the Asian continent, the sign of progress. It took only 20 years for it to be reduced to a basket case, surviving by exporting their women around the world to wash other peoples' dirty clothes. Is this a lesson? Yes, but one we're likely to avoid learning anything from. In Orhan Pamuk's My Name is Red, master miniaturists deliberately blind themselves with needles so as not to be influenced by change or reality that might affect their 'perfect' paintings. And certainly not by the truth or knowledge. Jose Saramago, too, used a similar metaphor of political vision control quite devastatingly in his novel, Blindness.
Well, things do change fast, and failures come quickly.
