Communist China restores Chiang Kai-shek's house, and image
Only six months ago, a deal on Iran's nuclear programme appeared impossible. But after the Iranian people elected the pragmatic Hassan Rouhani as president, a 17-minute phone conversation between him and President Barack Obama, and several weeks of secret talks, the deal is now a reality.
How did this stunning change of events come about? In my book A Single Roll of the Dice - Obama's Diplomacy with Iran, I point out that both sides have lacked the political will to break the institutionalised enmity between them. I listed three factors on the US side that, alone or in combination with each other, needed to change before a full-scale investment in diplomacy could be made.
First, there had to be a significant geopolitical shift in the region that simply rendered the continuation of the USIran enmity too costly. Second, the domestic political landscape in Washington had to change so that the key vested interests opposing a US-Iran deal would no longer be decisive. Or third, the president had to muster
It is difficult to imagine that the American public would be so ferociously opposed to a relatively minor military engagement in Syria but favour a potentially unending war and invasion of Iran
enough political strength and will to decide to do the right thing for the US national interest, regardless of the domestic political price that would be inflicted on him.
To varying degrees, all three factors have changed in the past six months.
Regionally, the strategic interest of the US and two of its key allies in the region -- Israel and Saudi Arabia -- have been diverging on several important fronts: on Iran, on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and on the Arab uprisings. Washington seeks a nuclear accord with Tehran to avoid both a nuclear Iran and war with Iran. The Saudis and Israelis, on the other hand, fear that any improvement of relations between Tehran and Washington will legitimise Iran's role in the region and increase its influence at their expense.
On the regional balance of power, Martin Kramer, a fellow at the conservative Israeli Shalem Center points out the main issue of contention: The American belief that the regional status quo is unsustainable - the Arab populations are rising and America's Middle East strategy has to adjust to this reality instead of continuing to back pliant Arab dictators. Kramer disagreed: "In Israel, we are for the status quo. Not only do we believe the status quo is sustainable, we think it's the job of the US to sustain it." On this issue, the Saudis and Israelis tend to agree. An Arab official who was briefed on talks between President Obama and King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud told the New York Times the Saudi monarch was unwavering in his opposition to the largely Shia pro-democracy protests in Bahrain. "King Abdullah has been clear that Saudi Arabia will never allow Shia rule in Bahrain - never."
Secondly, the debacle over Syria made it clear that the domestic political landscape in the US has changed dramatically. As Obama sought support from Congress for an attack on Syria, the US population ferociously resisted, flooding Congress with phone calls. The most credible threat that was issued throughout this episode was not Obama's threat to bomb Syria, but the American people's threat to unelect members of Congress if they supported the war. In spite of support for the war from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a lobby often viewed as invincible, which is also in favour of confrontation with Syria's ally Iran, the American people prevailed. Obama could not get support from Congress. AIPAC was defeated.
This dramatically changed the landscape because it showed that the politically safe position was not to be hawkish and pro-war, but to be sceptical of military action and favourable towards diplomacy. While this has not fully spilled over into the Iran debate, it is difficult to imagine that the American public would be so ferociously opposed to a relatively minor military engagement in Syria but favour a potentially unending war and invasion of Iran.
Thirdly, the commitment of the President to diplomacy -- in spite of its potential political fallout -- could not be any stronger right now. "Tough talk and bluster may be the easy thing to do politically, but it's not the right thing for our security," he said a day after the deal had been struck. Once Rouhani was elected and the White House concluded that he was serious and committed to diplomacy, the US president mustered the same dedication, regardless of the domestic political price. He did so partly because it was the right thing to do for US national security, but also because Iran is now - - paradoxically -- the lowest hanging fruit in the Middle East. There is no other issue in the Middle East that has as high of a likelihood of being solved. Here, unlike Syria, Egypt and elsewhere in the region, the US president had a good chance of making a difference.
If the parties reach a final, comprehensive deal, this will undoubtedly be a game-changer in the region. But it will also come about to some extent because both the region and the political dynamics in Washington have already changed.
Trita Parsi is President of the National Iranian American Council and author of A Single Roll of the Dice - Obama's Diplomacy with Iran.
Courtesy alJazeera.com
NANJING, China, Nov 29, 2013 (AFP) -
China's Communist authorities have reverently restored an 80- year- old house once used by Nationalist leader Chiang Kai- shek, as changing relations with Taiwan transform an arch enemy into a recognised historical figure.
Political differences were plastered over as Nanjing city -- once China's capital under the Nationalist party, also known as the Kuomintang -- spent $ 4.9 million to renovate the three- storey house at the base of a hill.
It was one of several used by Chiang and his wife Soong May- ling before they fled to Taiwan in 1949 at the end of China's brutal civil war, which killed millions of people on both sides.
Chiang led Taiwan as president until his death 26 years later, still proclaiming himself the rightful ruler of the whole of China.
For decades, the building was kept as a state guesthouse and closed to the public but the doors were thrown open after a year- long renovation completed in October.
" This renovation has a very important use for cross- strait cultural exchanges, so we considered that," said Liao Jinhan, deputy head of the government agency that administers the surrounding scenic area.
" Our feeling is that the house is a very important cultural heritage landmark." The chance discovery of an original architectural plan in a closet in the house let workers faithfully restore the building, down to the basement coal room and Chiang's Buick car parked out front.
" We completely followed the blueprint from that time. You can see from photos of the time, it is exactly the same," said Zhou Zhongxing, who manages the property.
The election of Ma Yingjeou, also of the Kuomintang, as Taiwan's president in 2008 has improved relations with Beijing, which were strained in the mid-1990s.
" The renovation is significant for cross- strait cultural contacts as it shows the mainland's focus on preserving historical heritage related to the Kuomintang," said Tong Liqun, a research fellow at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies.
" To take relations one step further would mean exchanges in the field of politics, and that is where the two sides are having trouble," she said.
' The manor is like its mistress'
The sensitivity of the history is such that officials commonly refer to the house as the " May- ling Palace" after Chiang's wife, despite its status as the former residence of a Chinese head of state.
May- ling was one of the three Soong sisters, who between them married two top Chinese leaders and a wealthy businessman who served as finance minister.
Few images of Chiang can be seen inside the property, although the study holds a portrait of Sun Yat- sen, Republican China's founding father -revered by both Communists and Nationalists, and whose tomb up the hill is visible from the house.
An exhibit on the couple's lives in Taiwan is called " Years on Taiwan island", highlighting the position that it is not a country but part of China's territory.
The house has Chinese features, such as the curved roof, but the interior is Western in style, reflecting Soong May-ling's education in the United States.
The building also gives subtle hints about the couple's lifestyle.
Chiang had a separate room for sleeping off the main bedroom, reflecting his military habit of rising early, while Soong required a Western- style oven, which still survives, and kept ashtrays in the rooms for smoking -- a habit she picked up in the US.
A small chapel shows the couple's embrace of Christianity: Soong, who was Methodist, insisted her husband convert to her religion.
" The manor is like its mistress, graceful and elegant, knowing both Chinese and Western style," a sign reads.
The former First Lady's achievements are on display in an exhibition which praises her for building support for China in its fight against Japan in the 1930s and 1940s, and her charitable causes.
"She had class," said tour guide Chen Chen. " Soong Ching-ling, the second one, was very pretty." The middle Soong sister, Ching-ling was Sun Yat-sen's wife and stayed in China after the Communist takeover. The eldest of the trio, Soong Eling, married financier H.H. Kung.
Since opening in October, tens of thousands have paid the 30 yuan ($ 5) ticket price to see the house but it has proved especially popular with the elderly, some of them old enough to remember Chiang's time.
A panel in one of the exhibitions reads: " The perfect combination of traditional Chinese architectural style and modern Western construction technology puts this building in the perfect realm of architectural history in modern China."