'America's First Pacific President' Reaffirms U.S.-Japan Alliance

Sorry but Obama is stretching the truth again. His self-proclamation as the first "Pacific President" is also all about him. If living in the Asia/Pacific -- as he lived in Hawaii and Indonesia -- is the requirement -- he is actually the fifth "Pacific" President not the first, after William Howard Taft, who served as Governor General of the Philippines; Herbert Hoover, who lived as an engineer in China during the Boxer Rebellion, and George Herbert Walker Bush, who served as head of the U.S. liaison office in Beijing. And how does he reaaly want to imply that JFK and Bush were not Pacific Presidents, since they, unlike him, actually survived being in the waters of the Pacific in service to their country -- JFK with the sinking of PT 109 off the Solomon Islands and the elder Bush being shot down and then floating for hours on an inflated raft in Pacific waters. If JFK and old Bush are not PACIFIC Presidents then who is? But it is always about Barack!

wasatPresident Obama is showing respect to all leaders that also show respect to him. A humble bow of respect is important. You choose to show your ignorance and lack of respect to a great American President. All Tutu's protect Obama as Ohana. Kindness begins with me. President Obama is respectful, sincere, and with the highest integrity. He is showing his Aloha. We all see it. You either have it or you don't. All the negative comments show they don't have it. Aunty Zee Tutu

Jay, a "waiters bow" while shaking hands would not be a show of repect to the Emperor. It would be an embarrassment to the Emperor.

Obama's talk may be directed to please the East asian countries and in particular Japan. There is nothing wrong if an American president is polite and respectful to other cultures. It won't kill any American ego as I read in other websites about Obama's bow to the Japanese emperor. It is just a symbol of respect!

CenterOne: "I find the "Pacific President" comment demeaning to my Pacific ancestry."

As I posted before he didn't call him what you said. He called himself "America's first Pacific President."

"Talking to friends from back there today, they're equally as dismayed, especially when he's not actually interested in the Pacific as a whole; just a specific set of countries."

Doesn't make much sense, unlike Europe's EU community, most Asian/Pacific countries are almost not on speaking terms with one another on various topics.

How can ANY American President set policies that would be relivant under these circumstances. Would you have Obama have the same policies that encompass China and the Marshall Islands or Burma and Chile?

Obama has to tailor US policy based upon the US's relation with each country.

Give the guy some slack, the previous American regime screwed-up US relations all over the world you can't expect Obama to wave a magic wand and change things in only 10 months.

Several previous postings here are really misunderstanding what Obama introduced himself as.

He didn't call himself the first Pacific President, rather he called himself as "America's first Pacific President." That's a big difference.

Also, it was mentioned that Hoover, Nixon and Reagan (note all GOP presidents) had connections to Pacific Coast states. Again a big difference between generations ago and their Euro-American in perspective. And Obama's experience.

I have extensive family from Hawaii and we are of Japanese background. Growing up in Hawaii most folks have friends and relatives who are from all over the Pacific rim and a great appreciation of different cultures (including American).

Also don't forget that Obama's stepdad was Indonesian and mostly likely raised aas a Muslim (maybe not observant, however???).

That's a whole lot different and those previous presidents who were born and bred in likely middle-class White communities. Geographicly those guys were living on the Pacific Rim, but their mindset was more like the Mid West than Mid Pacific.

Please, folks read the article more closely and get the key data correct before you argue bogus points.

What a lot of nonsense.

I read the full text of the speech in Tokyo in full and thought it was very good, as the vast majority of the President's speeches are. It was important, IMO, due to the reasons outlined in a NYT article titled "Obama, in Japan, Says U.S. Will Study Status of a Marine Base on Okinawa" (see also Australia's ABC News: "Obama vows solution for Japan base dispute". Did you know that at the end of his Asia trip, the President will have visited 20 countries in his first year in office - a record for a United States president? I didn't but that's what the Australian news says.)

I'm unclear why the press stressed the America's first Pacific president, thing. Personally, I thought it was a little joke, a little play on being the first black president of the United States, given that growing up he seems to have had closer ties to the Pacific Islander culture than the African American culture Michelle grew up surrounded by. But maybe that's just me...

Anyway, speaking of Japan I read an interesting post at Matthew Yglesias's blog about "Inflationary expectations." this is off topic, but the post does provide a link to something Paul Krugman wrote in 1998 regarding Japan, which may have implications for our economy today.

Tokyo the venue for his speech, a symbolically important choice that displayed respect for Japan's long history as the U.S.' chief ally in Asia and one of the region's foremost democracies. The U.S.-Japan relationship is on newly delicate footing after a change in leadership in Tokyo that has the Japanese moving toward greater independence from Washington and closer ties with the rest of Asia.

Posted by: MayBee | Nov 14, 2009 5:11:18 PM

What could he possibly have meant by saying "American's first Pacific president"?

Let me see, born and raised in Hawaii and then Indonesia until the age of 18. As he said himself, "the Pacific rim has helped shape my view of the world."

What could he have possibly meant MayBee? Must be a complete mystery to you heh?

Are Hawaii and Indonesia deep out into the Pacific?
=========
How do we define "deep out into"?

Indonesia is partially in the Indian Ocean, and partly in the part of the Pacific that is made up of the Java Sea/South China Sea/etc.

The Pacific Ocean makes up about a 1/3 of the earth's surface. What could it possibly mean to be the "Pacific President"?

Posted by: GeeGi | Nov 14, 2009 3:24:38 PM

Let me see, born and raised in Hawaii and then Indonesia until the age of 18.

Could that have anything to do with him being the first 'Pacific president'?

Are Hawaii and Indonesia deep out into the Pacific?

"First Pacific President" my foot...! If it is not bowing to
other heads of state, and if he is not apologizing for America's wrongdoings, then maybe calling himself
the First Pacific President might get a few giggles from
other countries. In the end: who does he want to be?!
I thought he felt he was the first black president ( maybe only when he is here in the US). I can just picture the whole scene: First Pacific President nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Will he be the First Antarctic President when he travels there?

CenterOne: Perhaps demeaning was the wrong choice of words, considering I understand the way it was actually meant; but many people from the Pacific will (and do)have issues with it. It will be seen as another American 'bully take-over' tactic.

As for the 'not interested in the pacific as a whole comment', I believe I'd made that clear - the countries visited are only a small part of the Pacific. There are many, many more. When they're all encompassed in his vision and he has touched base with each and every one, my opinion will change and I will believe he has the best interests of the entire Pacific at heart.

===@MayBee – it’s “America’s” First Pacific President.==

But again, let's see the policy be implemented (if that's what he truly means) and see if it is something the Pacific countries like. Because, as I said, they have competing interests.

Besides, it doesn't make him "First". It just is a policy idea he as.

I don't agree with your interpretation, by the way, because he gave his biographical details to give him credibility.

Would we hear a US President call himself "America's First European President?" or "America's First South American President". No. It would be equally ridiculous.

@MayBee – it’s “America’s” First Pacific President. I do not interpret this to mean he is presuming to become “their” Pacific President.

And yes, very different from previous policy.

Sorry to say, I have to bow out (no weakness intended) and leave my keyboard; let’s meet again sometime.

Obama's just doin' what he does best... running away, er, I mean, traveling... talking... NOT making decisions... maybe even getting in a basketball game or two.... apologizing... DAMNED he's good!

CenterOne- so you propose that Obama declared himself as "The First Pacific President" based on the policy he *plans* to pursue there? A "new sense of multilateral cooperation"? So different from previous American policy it must be labeled in advance of implementation?

If so, that's quite presumptuous of him. Why not just pursue the policy and let the individual Asian nations decide if *they* would declare him their First Pacific President?

FWIW, many of the Pacific Rim countries have competing interests. They aren't all going to agree on any one policy. There's no pretending they will.

GeeGi | Nov 14, 2009 2:29:16 PM posted: “I find the "Pacific President" comment demeaning to my Pacific ancestry….especially when he's not actually interested in the Pacific as a whole; just a specific set of countries.”

I’m curious, how is his comment to you demeaning? And what exactly do you mean by “interested in the Pacific as a whole”?

@ Axey and MayBee – It’s true that Hoover not only lived in Oregon, he also attended college in California. By 1900 he had worked in both Australia and China – however during Hoover’s presidency the US was an emerging world power, focused inward during Prohibition and the Great Depression, not toward the Pacific Rim.

Nixon was assigned to the South Pacific during WWII, and his Presidency's improved relations with the People’s Republic of China was one of his most successful diplomatic achievements. But Vietnam, the Indo-Pakistani War, and Yom Kippur took focus over the Pacific Rim.

Under Reagan, China and the US continued to be at odds politically, but did work together to send weapons to the mujahedin in Afghanistan. Since then the Pacific Rim economic tigers emerged and the value of goods crossing the Pacific Ocean has become greater than the value of goods crossing the Atlantic. The Pacific Rim has grown to produce roughly 80% of the world's computer components.

IMO, Obama’s description of himself as the “First Pacific President” points to his view regarding a new sense of multi-lateral cooperation with ALL the nations of the Pacific Rim. I don’t see it as “odd” or a claim his Asian audience won’t relate to.

Since Hoover, Nixon, and Reagan, Indonesia has grown to over 80% Muslim. In sharp contrast to the Reagan years, Japan recently turned away from American policy, deciding it will sharply increase nonmilitary aid to Afghanistan, pledging $5 billion for a variety of projects that include building schools and highways, training police officers, clearing land mines, and rehabilitating former Taliban. And like it or not, over the past decades the US has developed a symbiotic relationship with China – recovery from the current recession will not happen with Hoover style isolationism.

I grew up in a Pacific country too - lived there for more years than Obama lived in either Hawaii or Indonesia combined. It's a large area and encompasses many, many countries, religions and cultures. Just because you have understanding on one Pacific country and culture does not mean you have the slightest inkling of another, even if it is only an hour away by boat.

I find the "Pacific President" comment demeaning to my Pacific ancestry. Talking to friends from back there today, they're equally as dismayed, especially when he's not actually interested in the Pacific as a whole; just a specific set of countries.