Part 1: Hanoi

If you read my previous post you already know that I'm on a 4 week trip through south east Asia. My first stop was Hanoi, Vietnam.

When I arrived it was wet and overcast. It would stay that way for the full 5 nights I was there. I stayed four of those nights in the Old Quarter of Hanoi; just to the north of Hoan Kiem Lake. My first impressions of the city were that it was dirty, crowded and insane. There was garbage in the streets (in fact I watched as at the end of the day businesses would sweep all their garbage into the gutter; it would later be picked up), people pissing in the streets and various other things.

My impression of the people is incomplete as all of those I met were either serving me, or trying to get me to buy something from them. I even had one guy follow me for 4 blocks trying to get me to take a ride on his motorbike (scooter actually and a popular form of taxi in the congested city). I had to duck into a restaurant so that he would leave, but in fact he still hung around for about 2-3 minutes seeing if I'd come back out.

In all I saw the Army Museum, the Ho Chi Minh Museum, the downed B-52, the Hanoi Hilton and a performance of water puppets. All of this was in the city.

For 2 days - 1 night, I took a boat cruise through Ha Long Bay. It was spectacular. The sun never shone but it wasn't hot and the boat was wonderful. Some the best food I've ever eaten was on that boat; all fresh seafood (and I'm not a fan of seafood) that was incedibly delicious. We toured through the bay, were taken to a floating fishing village and then to one of the many caves that dot the more than 1000 islands.

My impression of the city changed a bit as the days went by. I couldn't help but think of the city as being akin to a medieval city struggling with change. Hanoi even more so. Its hard to lay aside our western notions of modernity and right and wrong. It constantly shades how we (or at least me) see the world around us.

When I first got there I was unconsciously making comparisons between Hanoi and other western capitals; it paled in comparison. It was easy to forget that they had only been without war for the past 30 years. It was easy to forget that as early as 70 years ago they were wearing loin cloths and living in tribal villages. The west forced them modernize at the barrel of a gun and continuous wars that stretch as far back as the 1890s ending only in 1979 with their defeat of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

Given this reality (?) its hard to judge the city and people of Hanoi (and perhaps Vietnam as a whole) harshly. They weren't given the opportunity to enter the "modern world" or interact with the western world on their own terms. Given this I'm actually surprised at how congenial and friendly the people of Vietnam were to westerns who come parading through their streets looking for cheap goods, cheap thrills or even worse. Sure one could argue that they are only that way in order to get money from us, but aren't we to blame for that?

A side note: During the tour of Ha Long we went to a floating fishing village. It was essentially a fish farm. Each house had an area that had a net and in that net they raised various fish. They would go out and actively fish the waters of Ha Long, using what they caught to eat, to supplement their farm stocks or to feed to their fish. This was a small village containing approximately 55 families. One of the highlights for me was seeing their school. It was explained to us that the school only goes up to grade 5, and that the children only go half days (morning or afternoon). The teachers lived on the main land and would boat out to the school a week at a time. We were told that the school was limited in this way as it was determined that the children really didn't need any more education considering the fact that they would live and most likely die in that village. One doesn't need calculus to raise fish. It was easy to look down your nose at such an attitude but it is the wrong reaction. Its really not all that different than the way we were even a hundred years ago. In fact the classroom was a huge improvement as only 7-10 years ago none of the people who grew up in that village ever went to school.

The one down side to my Hanoi experience was that my camera got stolen. I had just gotten back from my overnight cruise through Ha Long Bay and thought I'd grab a bite to eat. I took my camera with me to look over the pictures and videos that I had taken up to that point. I set it down and allowed my mind to wander. I lost track of it. When it was time to go, my camera was gone. An expensive lesson to be sure, but the real cost is in the loss of the pictures.

Next: Part 2 - Phnom Penh

Once in a lifetime

I haven't written in a while.

Not that I haven't wanted to, but I guess I just never bothered to take the time.

On Saturday I begin, what for me, will be the trip of a lifetime. A four week tour through south east Asia that will take me to Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand.

My first stop is Hanoi, Vietnam. There are many things to see and do in the capital of Vietnam, the most important for me is Ha Long Bay.



Considered by many to be one of the most beautiful places on earth, I've therefore secured an overnight stay on one of Ha Long Bay's many islands. A two day, one night stay that will see me touring the bay on a private junk, kayaking, visiting a floating village, and exploring many of the caves that dot the area.

Next on my list of visits is Cambodia. I'll stay in both Phnom Penh and Siem Riep. My stay in Phnom Penh will be a short one but while I'm there I'll be visiting the Killing Fields of Cheoung Ek and the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum. A tragic piece of human history. My stay in Siem Riep will be longer as I want to explore the Angkor Archeological Park.



My next stop will be Luang Prabang, Laos. I think that one of the best things about my stop here will simply be to take some time and relax and watch Laos. Laos is becoming more popular with tourists but its not the tourist mecca that my other stops will be.

After the relaxing and slower pace of Laos I'm heading off to Chiang Mai, Thailand. The highlight of this stop will be a two day, one night stay at the Elephant Nature Park. Its here that I'll get a chance to feed and bathe elephants and see them in action. Definitely something you can't do in Canada.

My final stay will be Bangkok. I've heard different things about Bangkok; some good, some bad. I guess that that is the point of travel, to see the world for one's self. One of the highlights of my stay in Bangkok will be a day trip out the smaller town of Kanchanaburi. Many would know this site from the movie Bridge on the River Kwai. While the movie is mostly fictitious, the historical reality of the Death Railway is real and something of interest for me.

Twenty-eight days.

Four weeks of traveling through SE Asia is something that I would not have dreamed possible even a few short years ago.

It becomes a reality starting Saturday.

ODS

I understand Ms. Maddow's point but I find it somewhat hollow and here's why.

One of the pillars of Ms. Maddow's defence of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize (NPP) win is a comparison to a series of people who had won the award over the previous century who hadn't 'achieved' success in their stated aims. While true its a misleading comparison. . However I think that if one is honest they will recognize that those individuals had been striving towards those aims for longer than three weeks.

First there is Desmond Tutu. Bishop Tutu began his public opposition to apartheid in South Africa during the Soweto Riots of 1976. Bishop Tutu struggled and fought against the racist and oppresive policies of the South African government for 8 years by the time he was awarded the NPP in 1984. True, apartheid had not been abolished at the time Bishop Tutu's recognition by the Nobel committee, but he had put forth much time and energy in his struggle prior to his win. The same can not be said about Obama.

Next there was mention of former US President Woodrow Wilson who had been awarded the NPP in 1919. President Wilson won the award in recognition of his work in negotiating the Treaty of Versailles that put an official end to World War One as well as being a key player in the creation of the League of Nations (precursor to the United Nations). Ms. Maddow is correct that neither the League or the Treaty ensured lasting peace in Europe as Hitler's rise to power was only 13 years away and World War Two was only 20 years distant. However when President Wilson won the NPP he had accomplished to great tasks that strove in concrete ways for world peace. The same can't be said for Obama.

Ms. Maddow also made mention to another US President; Jimmy Carter. Carter was a one term President who served from 1977 through 1981. During those four short years he helped to negotiate the Camp David Accords, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks II that saw the reduction in the nuclear arsenals of the US and their cold-war adversary the USSR, the Torrijos-Carter Treaties that ensured that Panama would gain control of the Panama Canal and reduce the influence of America in the Latin world, as well as removing nuclear weapons from South Korea, he put human rights at the forefront of American foreign policy, and he formalized diplomatic relations with China. He didn't win the NPP until 2002 and Ms. Maddow is correct that peace remained and remains elusive in the mid-east despite the efforts of President Carter. Such a simplistic reductionist attitude towards the efforts of President Carter does his efforts a supreme disservice and yet Obama can't claim to have accomplished even this 'failure'.

The fourth person that Ms. Maddow mentions in comparison to President Obama is Carl von Ossietzky who won the NPP in 1936. Once again Ms. Maddow brings for a blatantly and almost flippant reductionist attitude to the efforts of Mr. von Ossietzky. This was a man who during the turbulent period of the Weimar Republic was a staunch supporter of democracy and pluralistic society. He was charged and convicted of treason in 1931 for making public information on how the German government was violating the terms of the Treaty of Versailles by rebuilding its air force and training its pilots in the USSR. He was a leading figure in the German Peace Society and was an opponent of Hitler's rise to power. He was arrested on 28 February 1933 after the Reichstag Fire and put in Spandau Prison due to his speaking out against the Nazi Party. He would die on 4 May 1938 as a result of abuse suffered during his time in concentration camps and of tuberculosis. Ms. Maddow is correct though that Mr. vo Ossetzky's efforts did not end the Nazi regime but he struggled long and hard for peace in Europe and in Germany prior to winning the NPP. Obama can't say the same.

I personally find Ms. Maddow's characterization of these people demeaning and insulting in the extreme. It is doubly so given that she is comparing the real and concrete actions of these people with what are essentially a series of campaign speeches by a campaigning politician.

Another of the pillars in Ms. Maddow's defence of President Obama's winning of the NPP is the notion of convincing the 'most powerful nation on the planet' as being a significant matter. However, that is a bit of stretch as Obama received what 55% of the vote in the election? So 55% of the 70% of the electorate that voted, which is only 60% of the population. That works out to approximately 70 million people (Obama's official vote total was 69,456,897 nearly ten million more than his opponent John McCain) in a nation of 300+ million. So really he convinced 23% of the people in America. That is better ratings than American Idol though.

In the end I think that Ms. Maddow should have come up with a better argument for justifying Obama's victory given that the mandate for the Nobel Peace Prize is recognize the person/people who have “done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

No doubt Obama deserves recognition for his stance on nuclear weapons but he is not alone in this regard so does everyone who holds a similar stance deserve the Nobel? What about the American presidents who actually signed into law nuclear reduction treaties?

What Obama has said isn't unique, but what differentiates Obama from the other Nobel winners who 'achieved nothing' is that those people had concrete actions supporting their ongoing efforts prior to winning the award. Whereas it appears that President Obama won the award based on what people HOPE he will accomplish in the future. The question that has to be asked and answered is what has he ACCOMPLISHED or at the very least been working on over the past several years that would be worthy of such a prestigious honor?

Barack Obama was inaugurated President on January 20th. The deadline for NPP nominations was February 1st. That leaves 11 days of his presidency to be considered.

Obama has done a lot of things but if you look at the first 11 days of his presidency there are three things of international note. One is the declaration of the closing of Guantanamo within a year. Two is the phone calls and pressers to foreign nations. Three is the attack by US forces by drone aircraft on Pakistan.

Other than that things were domestic in nature and had little bearing on 'world peace'.

Given that much of what Obama had to have been nominated for (I don't know when or who nominated him) must surely have been for things prior to taking office. That being the (most likely) case then Rachel Maddow was equating political stump speeches by a political candidate with the real actions of the people she mentioned.

Being President isn't enough to earn you that award. There needs to be something more and Obama hasn't met that standard. Yet (at least I hope its yet).

The support that was offered in the piece for Obama's win has nothing to do with Obama as each of those people had done something of note in the field before winning the award. Sure the win can be seen as a voice of support for continued action but to equate Obama's campaign speeches with the work of these people is an insult to these people and the efforts they put forth against tyranny and injustice.

When Obama actually closes Guantanamo, reduces nuclear arms and ends the two wars that he is a part of (one of which he is escalating) then, in my opinion, he will be deserving. Till then some will continue to wonder why he won while others will simply bask in the fact that he did.