Obama cancels meeting with Philippine prez after called name

[mr friendly guy]

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/143941 ... hite-house

Obama scraps meeting with Duterte — White House

06:47 AM September 6th, 2016

VIENTIANE, Laos — President Barack Obama called off a planned meeting Tuesday with new Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, seeking distance from a U.S. ally’s leader during a diplomatic tour that’s put Obama in close quarters with a cast of contentious world figures.
It’s unusual for one president to tell another what to say or not say, and much rarer to call the other a “son of a bitch.” Duterte managed to do both just before flying to Laos for a regional summit, warning Obama not to challenge him over extrajudicial killings in the Philippines.

“Clearly, he’s a colorful guy,” Obama said. “What I’ve instructed my team to do is talk to their Philippine counterparts to find out is this in fact a time where we can have some constructive, productive conversations.”

Early Tuesday, National Security Council spokesman Ned Price said the meeting with Duterte was off.
“President Obama will not be holding a bilateral meeting with President Duterte of the Philippines this afternoon,” National Security Council spokesman Ned Price said.
“Instead, he will meet with President Park (Geun-hye) of the Republic of Korea.”

Duterte has been under intense global scrutiny over the more than 2,000 suspected drug dealers and users killed since he took office. Obama had said he planned to raise the issue in his first meeting with Duterte, but the Philippine leader insisted he was only listening to his own country’s people.

“You must be respectful,” Duterte said of Obama. “Do not just throw questions.” Using the Tagalog phrase for “son of a bitch,” he said, “Putang ina I will swear at you in that forum.” He made the comment to reporters in Manilla.

“We will be wallowing in the mud like pigs if you do that to me,” Duterte said.
Eager to show he wouldn’t yield, Obama said he would “undoubtedly” still bring up human rights and due process concerns “if and when” the two do meet.

The bizarre rift with the leader of a U.S. treaty ally was the most glaring example of how Obama has frequently found himself bound to foreign countries and leaders whose ties to the U.S. are critical even if their values sharply diverge.
In Hangzhou this week, Obama’s first stop in Asia, he heaped praise on Chinese President Xi Jinping for hosting the Group of 20 economic summit in his country, an authoritarian state long accused of human rights violations. His next stop was another one-party communist country with a dismal rights record: Laos, where mysterious disappearances have fueled concerns about a government crackdown.

And sitting down with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Obama made no mention in public of the roughly 35,000 people Erdogan’s government detained following the summer’s failed coup in Turkey. Instead, he worked to reassure the NATO ally the U.S. would help bring to justice whoever was responsible for plotting the coup.
Obama also spent about 90 minutes Monday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, another leader whose fate seems intertwined with Obama’s in all the wrong ways. On opposing sides of many global issues, the U.S. and Russia are nonetheless trying to broker a deal to address the Syrian civil war and perhaps even partner militarily there.
“President Putin’s less colorful,” Obama said, comparing him with Duterte. “But typically the tone of our meetings is candid, blunt, business-like.”

Managing Duterte has become a worsening headache for Obama since the Filipino took office on June 30, pledging his foreign policy wouldn’t be constricted by reliance on the U.S. Washington has tried largely to look the other way as Duterte has pursued closer relations with China, a marked shift for the Philippines considering recent tensions over Beijing’s aspirations in the South China Sea.

A public break from the Philippines would put Obama in a tough position, given the Southeast Asian nation’s status as a longtime U.S. ally. The Obama administration has sought to compartmentalize by arguing that military and other cooperation won’t be jeopardized even if it detests the current Philippine leader’s tone.

Last month, Duterte said he didn’t mind Secretary of State John Kerry but “had a feud with his gay ambassador — son of a bitch, I’m annoyed with that guy.” He applied the same moniker to an Australian missionary who was gang-raped and killed, and even to Pope Francis, even though the Philippines is a heavily Catholic nation. He later apologized.

With a reputation as a tough-on-crime former mayor, Duterte has alarmed human rights groups with his deadly campaign against drugs, which Duterte has described as a harsh war. He has said the battle doesn’t amount to genocide but has vowed to go to jail if needed to defend police and military members carrying out his orders.

Question - is Obama a drama queen and inappropriately raising tensions for cancelling, or is he right because the office of the president must be respected, because the office is going to get its feelings hurt or something. I mean I have seen people criticise others for calling Bush an idiot because of the office of president thing, and I have seen people criticise other countries, cough China cough for withdrawing ambassadors and disapproving of them "raising tensions" when Stas suggested they hypothetically tell some country to fuck off, so hey, is Obama raising tensions here. LOL.

[Omega18]

Question - is Obama a drama queen and inappropriately raising tensions for cancelling, or is he right because the office of the president must be respected, because the office is going to get its feelings hurt or something. I mean I have seen people criticise others for calling Bush an idiot because of the office of president thing, and I have seen people criticise other countries, cough China cough for withdrawing ambassadors and disapproving of them "raising tensions" when Stas suggested they hypothetically tell some country to fuck off, so hey, is Obama raising tensions here. LOL.

The difference here is the leader of the country blatantly crudely insulted Obama publicly with his comments rather than something like the recent China situation which at least could be someone plausibly claimed to have purely been mistakes by lower level officials. (And clearly wouldn't remotely apologize for doing so.) Its also worth noting that China or another country actually withdrawing an ambassador is actually a substantially greater reaction than Obama canceling a meeting, officially at least purely because he no longer believes it would be productive rather than in reaction to the insult.

While we don't know what precisely happened behind the scenes, Duterte and his officials apparently also made if clear that Obama's concerns about the domestic assassination campaign involving drug deals was not going to get a fair hearing. Duterte also recently called the US ambassador to the Philippines a "gay son of a whore" so this was not even just about one crude public comment. (If Obama publicly called President Xi a son of bitch, barring an extraordinary justification, I would say China would be completely entitled to pitch a fit and it would be Obama's fault for damaging relations with the foolish unnecessary comment.)

Another huge difference between especially the China situation is that when considering realistic political and strategic realities China is a major power, with the US typically wanting things from China in terms of their behavior such as them recently agreeing to sign the Paris Climate Agreement. The US's displeasure is far more likely to be shown less blatantly behind the scenes, although recent US naval patrols in the South China Sea show there is a point when the US is willing to clearly react. By contrast, the Philippines is a much less powerful and geopolitically important country whom to a far greater degree is the side wanting things from the US right now. (Like US support including potentially of the military variety in response to how far China seeks to potentially go in claiming what would by international law be considered part of the Philippines EEZ in the South China Sea.)

In this case a strong argument could be made that tolerating this behavior would give the Philippines the wrong impression that their position in the US/ Philippines relationship (including the effective needs on both sides) is much stronger than it actually is and lead to the Philippines constantly making unrealistic diplomatic demands in negotiations between the two countries. (While its a more complicated question with there being plenty of cases where its better to just ignore these things, there is a point where the US always tolerating insults from comparatively minor counties actually does become problematic and legitimately start giving other countries the idea they can simply get away with major things without consequences when dealing with the US.)

[mr friendly guy]

The difference here is the leader of the country blatantly crudely insulted Obama publicly with his comments rather than something like the recent China situation which at least could be someone plausibly claimed to have purely been mistakes by lower level officials. (And clearly wouldn't remotely apologize for doing so.) Its also worth noting that China or another country actually withdrawing an ambassador is actually a substantially greater reaction than Obama canceling a meeting, officially at least purely because he no longer believes it would be productive rather than in reaction to the insult.

I wasn't referring to the recent China situation where different protocols led to a stuff up with US officials breaking the planned routine. I am referring to how previously people on this board slammed China for reacting to worse than a personal insult to its leader, ie denying the existence of massacres against Chinese civilians or because a poster suggested China tell another country to fuck off.

While we don't know what precisely happened behind the scenes, Duterte and his officials apparently also made if clear that Obama's concerns about the domestic assassination campaign involving drug deals was not going to get a fair hearing. Duterte also recently called the US ambassador to the Philippines a "gay son of a whore" so this was not even just about one crude public comment. (If Obama publicly called President Xi a son of bitch, barring an extraordinary justification, I would say China would be completely entitled to pitch a fit and it would be Obama's fault for damaging relations with the foolish unnecessary comment.)

Obviously you are more fair than some of those people than those whose lines I was parroting.

In this case a strong argument could be made that tolerating this behavior would give the Philippines the wrong impression that their position in the US/ Philippines relationship (including the effective needs on both sides) is much stronger than it actually is and lead to the Philippines constantly making unrealistic diplomatic demands in negotiations between the two countries. (While its a more complicated question with there being plenty of cases where its better to just ignore these things, there is a point where the US always tolerating insults from comparatively minor counties actually does become problematic and legitimately start giving other countries the idea they can simply get away with major things without consequences when dealing with the US.)

Of course, all countries have to do this to send a message that they will play hard ball for certain positions. What's the betting that if the US president (lets imagine a hypothetical Trump presidency) called another president a son of bitch, and that country refused to meet the POTUS, what would Western media say about it? Would it be "toughen up snowflake" or what an idiot the POTUS is? I suspect it would be both, but purely depending on which party the particular media outlet supports.

[Simon_Jester]

Duterte has been under intense global scrutiny over the more than 2,000 suspected drug dealers and users killed since he took office. Obama had said he planned to raise the issue in his first meeting with Duterte, but the Philippine leader insisted he was only listening to his own country’s people.

“You must be respectful,” Duterte said of Obama. “Do not just throw questions.” Using the Tagalog phrase for “son of a bitch,” he said, “Putang ina I will swear at you in that forum.” He made the comment to reporters in Manilla.

“We will be wallowing in the mud like pigs if you do that to me,” Duterte said.

This sort of thing, and the reaction, is an excellent example of why you don't want to elect a "tells it like it is" leader with a gift for grandstanding to his own voters. Having filters and a "Miss Manners" persona in public is a good thing in international affairs, because it is really, really not supposed to get personal. If you get used to being the guy who insults people crudely and aggressively as a way of trying to show dominance, especially with people who have power greater than your own, you will end up sorry and sore.

Obama also spent about 90 minutes Monday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, another leader whose fate seems intertwined with Obama’s in all the wrong ways. On opposing sides of many global issues, the U.S. and Russia are nonetheless trying to broker a deal to address the Syrian civil war and perhaps even partner militarily there.

“President Putin’s less colorful,” Obama said, comparing him with Duterte. “But typically the tone of our meetings is candid, blunt, business-like.”

Right... because Putin, like most successful, long-lasting powerful men, knows how to make nice and to be polite regarding people with enough power that they cannot be bullied.

Duterte's remarks suggest that he tried to bully Obama, or tried to convince his own voters that he was bullying Obama. This is not a good move.

Question - is Obama a drama queen and inappropriately raising tensions for cancelling, or is he right because the office of the president must be respected, because the office is going to get its feelings hurt or something. I mean I have seen people criticise others for calling Bush an idiot because of the office of president thing, and I have seen people criticise other countries, cough China cough for withdrawing ambassadors and disapproving of them "raising tensions" when Stas suggested they hypothetically tell some country to fuck off, so hey, is Obama raising tensions here. LOL.

I don't even remember the incident involving China.

What it comes down to is that when you're involved in international diplomacy, you can call policies stupid, and you can disapprove of what people say and do. But you should not lightly, willfully insult people you expect to have a working relationship, ever. It's just that simple.

Unless you are in a social circle where insults are a widely accepted form of humor, and everyone involved knows that, the insults will damage your working relationship. And you cannot reasonably expect powerful people to let crude insults and "yeah, he better not talk about my human rights record!" huffing and puffing go unchallenged or unanswered. They didn't get into positions of power by being people it was easy to push around.

Of course, all countries have to do this to send a message that they will play hard ball for certain positions. What's the betting that if the US president (lets imagine a hypothetical Trump presidency) called another president a son of bitch, and that country refused to meet the POTUS, what would Western media say about it? Would it be "toughen up snowflake" or what an idiot the POTUS is? I suspect it would be both, but purely depending on which party the particular media outlet supports.

Well, the media certainly should be calling hypothetical President Trump an idiot for this kind of thing. And indeed this is one of the best arguments against electing Trump, near the top of a very long list. Trump is unlikely to show judgment and discretion, and he does not have a gift for being polite or tactful to people he isn't in a position to bully.

[K. A. Pital]

On the other hand, smaller countries get humiliated by larger ones all the time.

Telling a major power to fuck off in clear terms could be seen as a sign of self-respect which the prior elites had been lacking. Domestically, at least.

It is little consolation to a country's people to have a polite, but servile cleptocrat in power.

This is not big news. Chavez also insulted US leaders, as did some other Third World politicians.

[The Romulan Republic]

One can stand up for themselves without resorting to such crass language to describe the leader of a nation with whom one is, ostensibly, supposed to be on friendly terms.

Far too many people, however, mistake ugly bravado for strength (a big part of Trump's popularity, I dare say), so I don't doubt that Duterte's bullshit will find an eager domestic audience in his country.

[Q99]

One can stand up for themselves without resorting to such crass language to describe the leader of a nation with whom one is, ostensibly, supposed to be on friendly terms.

Far too many people, however, mistake ugly bravado for strength (a big part of Trump's popularity, I dare say), so I don't doubt that Duterte's bullshit will find an eager domestic audience in his country.

Agreed. This was a mistake on Duterte's part international-politics wise, and canceling a meeting is a normal response.

[LaCroix]

Especially, since that meeting will only result in more fallout, since Obama would bring that point up, especially after that slight, to make a point he will not be bullied. And Duterte cannot afford to back down from his proclaimation to fling mud if he is called on his policy.

Cancelling was the only sane solution.

[Simon_Jester]

On the other hand, smaller countries get humiliated by larger ones all the time.

When this involves one head of state crudely insulting another, it is a stupid and obnoxious example of a strong party bullying a weak one.

That doesn't make it any less stupid or obnoxious when weak parties elect to try and bully strong ones. Especially since a man like Duterte also bullies people who actually are weaker than him, as illustrated by the way he's allowed the war on drugs in his country to turn into a randomized purge with lynch mobs running around.

Posturing bullies do not make good national leaders, regardless of whether or not they have supporters.

Telling a major power to fuck off in clear terms could be seen as a sign of self-respect which the prior elites had been lacking. Domestically, at least.

Well yes; you can always find an idiot willing to vote for an idiot as long as the second idiot seems 'badass' enough to the first.

This is not big news. Chavez also insulted US leaders, as did some other Third World politicians.

It's not big news, it is small news; we discuss small news too. And Chavez died a bloviating fool, who had left his country no allies and no ability to survive after the global bubble in oil prices burst. Venezuela is a mess, and will remain one as long as the people in charge try to be Chavezists.

[Zixinus]

Question - is Obama a drama queen and inappropriately raising tensions for cancelling, or is he right because the office of the president must be respected, because the office is going to get its feelings hurt or something.

A president meeting a president is about two nations talking to each other. If one namecalls the other, then there is something wrong with the namecaller's understanding of the situation. Especially when the namecaller outright tells the other not to question him about a topic that the other president wanted to talk about. Remember that these talks happen behind closed doors. So the namecaller practically raised a flag of "I am not going to listen to what you have to say".

Cancelling a meeting that wasn't going to go anywhere is hardly surprising in response. Obama has better things to do than talk to an idiot who doesn't realize that words has consequences in diplomacy.

Telling a major power to fuck off in clear terms could be seen as a sign of self-respect which the prior elites had been lacking. Domestically, at least.

It is sacrificing foreign influence for local influence. Not a great idea when you are saying that to someone who is supposed to be your ally. To be honest, the only time it is a good idea is when you have no (or worse, cannot get any positive) foreign influence with said party to begin with.

[K. A. Pital]

Of course it is stupid, from a purely neutral standpoint. But from the internal political point of view it helps to get domestic popularity - and also carries little real cost if the insults are only verbal.

Real action - seizing foreign assets, expelling ambassadors etc. - has greater costs than just saying "fuck you".

[Simon_Jester]

The up-front costs are small, but the opportunity costs can be quite large.

I understand that Duterte is doing this to win approval from domestic voters who like the idea of having a leader who insults the president of the United States. I'm simply observing that if you want such a person running your country... you can expect the results to be rather negative.

[Rogue 9]

That and Duterte's approval rating is stupidly high already for some godawful reason, so it's not like he needed to make desperation moves like pissing off the United States to gain approval.

[PainRack]

Actually, dueterte was apparently calling the reporter a son of a bitch and not Obama, although he did call the ambassador that.


More important however is the idea of sovereignty. Dueterte is playing the sovereignty card, that his anti crime policy cannot be dictated by foreign concerns....

[Simon_Jester]

Which is fine, but if you're saying "fuck off, I won't answer questions about my human rights record," you're not just playing the sovereignty card, you're laying the "Kim Jong Il wannabe" card on the table beside it for a double international pariah score.