It is one of those rare moments of history when
one wishes that America had been truly a part of the
"global village", where the "citizens" of the world
could cast votes for the two current candidates for
presidency. John Kerry would have been more of a sure
shot for the White House than he appears today. Still
the race is too close to call. Not too many pundits of
public opinion polls can recall such a tight race. Why
are American voters so unable to make a clear choice,
while the majority of the citizens of the world, who of
course cannot vote in the US election, have no doubt in
opting for Kerry? What is wrong with this picture? One
has to go back in time to get some answers.
George W Bush talked about humility in America's
foreign policy behavior in the presidential election
campaign of 2000. He talked about consultation with its
allies, while clearly spurning the role of the American
military in nation-building. But he was speaking totally
as a greenhorn, with no foreign policy experience. That
particular reality was not new about American
presidency. Many previous presidents were elected to
office with little or no such experience. However, once
they enter into office, they are overwhelmed by the real
"burden" of carrying out the US's awesome global
responsibilities. Only then, and in due time, they
develop their own styles. All of them learned to be
multilateral in the post-World War II era, since that
approach facilitated the emergence of America as a
superpower. By being multilateral, in the Cold War
years, the US presided over the creation of, and even
controlled, such important institutions as the United
Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund. Then it decided to bring the ever-squabbling
European countries into the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization alliance. Of course one of the objectives
underlying that alliance was, as an old wisecrack notes,
"to keep America in Europe, Russians out and Germans
down". All of the objectives were fulfilled.
It
follows, therefore, that multilateralism should have
been tried as a genuine modus operandi of US
foreign policy in the post-Cold War era. But that did
not happen when Bush entered into office. It can be
argued that the September 11 terrorist attacks were the
chief reason underlying that changed approach. But that
is not entirely true.
Bush as a president
negated all that he said about humility and consultation
or multilateralism. Somehow, he developed a frame of
mind that the litmus test of America's foreign policy is
solely what's good for America. The rest of the world
does not have to like it. That was quite obvious between
January and September 2001, when the national missile
defense systems were one of the dominant topics of
America's foreign policy. The US was all set to abandon
the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, arguing that
deterrence and the "mutually assured destruction"
doctrine of the Cold War years had become irrelevant,
only because the Soviet Union had imploded. Of course,
there were other examples of the US's unilateralism in
the abandonment of the Kyoto Treaty, its refusal to join
the International Criminal Court, etc. There were
purported reasons for doing that, but the then newly
found unilateral instinct was charting the course of
Bush's foreign policy. Then came September 11 and
America has never been the same, in many ways.
For the world at large, America's unilateral
action in Afghanistan did not become an unpopular reason
for anti-Americanism. The Taliban regime had been
violating a whole lot international norms and writing
new rules of violation of human rights in the name of
religion, and was bent on destroying the Afghan heritage
in the name of destroying idol worship. But its time was
limited, largely as a result of its alliance with Osama
bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire turned terrorist
par-excellence, and his terrorist organization,
al-Qaeda. The Taliban-al-Qaeda nexus was bent on
rearranging the map of Central Asia, and even China's
western province of Xinjiang. It was also eagerly
participating in the liberation of Chechnya. Ironically,
al-Qaeda's involvement in those genuine causes of
freedom from the Slavic and Chinese tyranny might have
condemned them for a long time to come. However, the
clincher was al-Qaeda's involvement in the attacks on
America.
The world was very much with Bush
during his military campaign against the Taliban regime,
but then he decided to digress and carry out his
personal vendetta, it seemed, by toppling Saddam
Hussein. At first it was the pretext of doing away with
his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities that
"necessitated" a preemptive attack on Iraq - thereby
waging a war of choice. Once those fictitious WMD
weren't found, the new catechism of the Bush
administration was that the "liberation" of Iraq was
good enough for its war of choice.
Not many in
the world of Islam even mildly liked Saddam, but no one
was for a war of choice, especially America's many major
European allies. But Bush did not care. He was right in
his mind because he prayed a lot and, as a born-again
Christian, he had a certain air of certitude even when
he was dead wrong. In the make-belief world of his
imagination, God was on his side and rest of the world
was on the other side. He even created a seemingly
secular version of that imagination by declaring to the
world: "Either you are with us or you are with the
terrorists." That wrong-headed moral certitude has
caused so much of the bloodshed in Iraq (a reported
100,000 dead Iraqis to date), including the deaths of
young Americans; it has caused so much turbulence in the
region and promises to cause even more in the coming
months and years, no matter who is in the White House.
That very wrong-headed moral certitude has placed the
current American president on a "crusade" for democracy
in a region where bin Laden and his likeminded Islamists
are equally certain about establishing Islamic
governments. The die has been cast. The struggle of our
time is on with a vengeance.
No matter what
happens to Bush on November 2, the struggle of at least
the remainder of this decade, and even the next, will
involve the radical Islamic perspective of government
and America's presence in the Middle East and even South
Asia (Afghanistan and Pakistan). Bush has stirred the
hornets' nest of radical Islamists by attacking and
occupying Iraq. What the US does not understand is that
no matter how bad Saddam was, no one is in favor of a
Christian country occupying a Muslim/Arab state, and
then determining what type of government that country
will have. If Iraqis were to prefer democracy, they
would vote for it. They are showing that they despise
the US occupiers as much as they hated Saddam and his
clique. Even without Bush, the US is not about to leave
Iraq any time soon. But it will be interesting to see
how much American blood a president John F Kerry is
willing to spill before arriving at a painful decision
that Iraq must not be occupied. Even then, bad days for
Iraq are not over.
Iraq with American occupation
is increasingly looking like hell. Iraq without American
troops would look worse than hell. What a choice,
indeed. What is more significant is that what Bush has
started in Iraq promises to engulf the whole region in
turbulence. No, the struggle is not likely to be between
Western-style democracies versus authoritarianism. In
all likelihood, the struggle will be about the
initiation of regimes that would be more Islamist than
the extant governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Pakistan already appears like a power keg, with a
military ruler bent on prolonging his regime, while
increasingly facing a deadly challenge from Islamist
forces. And he has America's backing for his
dictatorship as a partner in the "war on terror".
When it comes to Pakistan, Bush is not thinking
about democracy. He is only thinking about eradicating
bin Laden, and only then will he think about his next
move. All three governments with claims to Islam - Saudi
Arabia, Iran and Pakistan - appear quite unsteady. In
each of these examples, the opposition is looking for a
harder version of Islam as the basis of government,
while moderate forces appear baffled and weak. At the
same time, America is also thinking of another regime
change, in Iran, if Bush is reelected. Even if he is
not, Kerry is equally determined to have his own version
of a squabble with Iran related to that country's
alleged aspirations to develop nuclear weapons. One
wonders whether his somewhat hard rhetoric regarding
Iran is only for public consumption. Let us hope it is.
Not a word has been mentioned about the
worsening plight of the Palestinians, while the father
of their nation, Yasser Arafat, has been rendered
irrelevant by the Bush-Ariel Sharon nexus. A sick Arafat
went to Paris for medical treatment and, equally
important, for restoring his pride as a head of a nation
- since he has experienced ample humiliation as a
virtual prisoner to satisfy Sharon's power trip - the
future of Palestine remains as uncertain as ever.
The juxtapositioning of the preceding creates a
grim picture of the world of Islam involving the Middle
East and South Asia. The future of these regions will
significantly affect the future of the world. Since
America has a major role in the current state of affairs
in Muslim regions, it is only fair that America's
presidential elections should also include the
participation of the world's citizenry. Such a
suggestion, alas, is only wishful thinking. However, the
world citizenry, like many Americans, are expressing
their preference for Kerry only as the lesser of two
evils.
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an
Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic
analyst.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online
Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
