|
|
|
|
The negative force of
anti-Bushism
By Ehsan Ahrari
The re-election of George W Bush has
created intense reaction against him, particularly
in Europe and the Muslim world. In general, the
broad outcome is increasing anti-Americanism,
which in reality is anti-Bushism. Looking for
reasons is almost a never-ending exercise, for the
sitting president continues to act impulsively
while creating an impression that there is some
sort of thoughtfulness behind those impulses. If
you are one of the Bushies or neo-conservatives,
you might agree with those impulses. However, if
you are not, you could wonder why he is so
determined to amass such strong feelings against a
truly great country.
In a moment of
fortuitous creativity, former secretary of state
Madeleine Albright described the United States as
an "indispensable power". Whatever hubris others
read into that depiction, more often than not it
is close to reality. The origin of that
indispensability may be found in America's
ceaseless endeavors to emerge as an egalitarian
state in the realm of domestic politics. The
constitution that was created during the
Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was not
exactly a blueprint for crafting an egalitarian
state. However, as a "living document", it
contained ample procedural mechanisms to continue
its march toward that goal. The social revolutions
of the 1950s - in the form of a civil-rights
movement - and 1960s - in the form of Lyndon
Johnson's "war on poverty", the feminist and the
anti-Vietnam movements - were America's version of
the "great leap forward" in the true sense of the
phrase toward becoming an egalitarian state.
Today, the United States of America remains a work
in progress toward that end. "Work in progress",
in this observation, is the key phrase. There are
still a lot of glaring examples of imperfection.
The absence of a free universal health-care
system, the stubborn remnants of racism, and
rather sophisticated approaches to hide old-style
sexism are only a few examples. But as man-made
systems and arrangements go, the United States is
a hopeful example of an emerging egalitarian state
where human dignity is always one of the uppermost
objectives in the thinking and actions of the
mandarins of America's domestic policies.
In the realm of foreign policy, the United
States has been driven by the promotion of
Wilsonian notions of self-determination and
democracy, a passion that was behind its failed
attempt to create the League of Nations. After
World War II, the US emerged as the most
articulate champion for the creation of a "free"
world as an antithesis to the communist version of
the dictatorship of the proletariat. It
established the United Nations, and the Bretton
Woods system, which included such institutions as
the International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank, whose purpose was to level the playing field
in the realm of international economics. The
United States was largely responsible for the
creation of some of the most durable and robust
international arrangements after its emergence
after World War II as one of the world's two
superpowers. Its own durability was proved when
its chief rival, the Soviet Union, imploded at the
end of the Cold War, and along with it collapsed
the subsystem of the enslaved Central European
countries and the Warsaw Pact.
America's
commitment to equal treatment under the law and
its Bill of Rights are seen by many as integral
aspects of "universal values". But the most
enviable character of the United States is the
constant willingness of its citizens for
self-criticism and their earnestness, indeed
eagerness and fervor, to take corrective measures,
never mind the circumstances or the cost. When
Japan attacked the United States in 1941, a
backlash against US citizens of Japanese origin
was a natural, albeit unfortunate, reaction. But
corrective measures were taken later on. By the
same token, when al-Qaeda-sponsored terrorists
attacked the United States on September 11, 2001,
Muslims residing in the US became targets of mass
arrest and deportation. However, the process of
public scrutiny and self-analysis related to the
harsh and, in a number of cases, unconstitutional
treatment of those individuals is already in
progress. America's commitments to the rights of
an accused to a fair trial, and to the principle
of "treating an accused as innocent until proven
guilty", are inviolable.
No claim is being
made here about the absolute and universal
application of these principles in the US;
however, more often than not, every attempt is
made to implement them and, whenever violations
are made, there are ample mechanisms to take
corrective measures. These are some of the sacred
principles of US democracy for which the country
is admired even in the remotest corners of the
world, at least where people bother to study what
the US is all about and where people aren't swept
away by the highly contentious rhetoric of such
organizations as al-Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiya (of
Indonesia) or similar Islamist groups elsewhere.
Where does George W Bush fit into this
description of what the United States really
stands for? His impulses regarding unilateralism,
about regime change, and about proactive
counter-proliferation are just that, impulses. No
systematic thinking has been done regarding their
long-term implications for America's image or
about its strategic dominance abroad. The
practitioners of America's foreign policy for the
past four years seem to specialize in making
short-term gains and pretending that the future is
an unaltered extension of present strategic
realities. Major foreign-policy decisions of any
sitting US president cause reaction worldwide. The
more contentious and provocative those decisions
are, the more intense the reaction. In this sense,
anti-Americanism in the recent past has been
escalating.
Strategic dominance by the
United States may not be its "birthright" in the
sense of Harvard University's Joseph Nye's catchy
book title Born to Rule. But as the most
dominant military power and as one of the most
dominant economic powers, its strategic dominance
is incontrovertible. Assuming the incontestability
of America's strategic dominance, Bush's impulses
are potentially deleterious. The implementation of
regime change has caused (and continues to cause)
enormous hostility toward the US in the world of
Islam, and substantial ill-will in Western Europe
- even in those countries of Europe that are
participating in America's continued occupation of
Iraq as part of a "coalition of the willing".
The implementation of the doctrine of
proactive counter-proliferation turned out to be a
sham in Iraq, where no weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) were found. Then, instead of admitting its
mistakes, the Bush administration kept harping
about what a super service it has rendered the
Iraqis and the rest of the world by toppling the
brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. Then why are
Iraqis not showering their gratitude on the US
troops, and why is the international community not
expressing its approval by passing hortatory
resolutions in the UN General Assembly? To make
matters even worse, the whispers of a potential
regime change and implementation of proactive
counter-proliferation in Iran are getting louder
in the beginning of Bush's second term.
In
the Middle East in particular and the Muslim world
in general, America's militaristic impulses are
fanning the flames of terrorism. Afghanistan is a
simmering cauldron of instability, despite the
successful conduct of a national election in
November. Iraq has become a place where the
whirlwind of terrorism has become a norm since the
toppling of Saddam's regime. Al-Qaeda could not
have acquired better reasons than Bush's "war on
terrorism" for gaining popularity in the Muslim
world. It has never stopped concentrating on three
aspects of its strategy: attacking US assets and
personnel, waging battles against the US-installed
regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, and attempting to
topple pro-American regimes such as those of Saudi
Arabia and Pakistan.
If any military
action is taken against Iran, the global jihadists
of al-Qaeda could not be happier about turning a
number of Muslim countries into their battlefields
of mayhem and destabilization. All peace-loving
Muslims wonder when or how their inability to take
charge of their future will end. They view
America's policies as a direct reason for the
deterioration of their way of life. Inside the
United States, "Muslim rage" is routinely
dismissed as something without base and even
apocryphal. "Blaming America", we are told, will
not get any sympathy from any quarters inside the
United States.
In Europe, reasons for
anti-Bushism also revolve around America's
palpable eagerness to use its military muscles.
But in the United States, not enough time is spent
on understanding European anti-Bushism. Instead,
anti-Bushism is conveniently equated to
anti-Americanism. On January 20 New York Times
columnist Thomas Friedman asked, "Why are
Europeans so blue over George Bush's re-election?"
His answer: "Because Europe is the world's biggest
'blue state' [a reference to Democratic blue].
This whole region is rhapsody in blue. These days
even the small group of anti-anti-Americans in the
European Union is uncomfortable being associated
with Mr Bush. There are Euro-conservatives, but,
aside from, maybe, the ruling party in Italy,
there is nothing here that quite corresponds to
the anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-tax,
anti-national-health-care, anti-Kyoto, openly
religious, pro-Iraq-war Bush Republican Party ...
"While officially every European
government is welcoming the inauguration of
President Bush," Friedman continued, "the
prevailing mood on the continent (if I may engage
in a ridiculously sweeping generalization!) still
seems to be one of shock and awe that Americans
actually re-elected this man."
Friedman's
analysis notwithstanding, the current Western
European irritation with the Bush administration,
aside from its invasion of Iraq, seems to be
focused on the EU-3 countries' (France, Germany
and the United Kingdom) diplomatic endeavors to
persuade Iran to abandon its uranium-enrichment
program and make its overall nuclear program
highly transparent. While the United States
encouraged the EU-3 to proceed with their
undertakings prior to the presidential elections,
now it is registering its dissatisfaction with the
result, especially since Iran is frequently
shifting its position about what its nuclear
program should comprise.
In the beginning
phase of Bush's second term, a potential conflict
with Iran seems to be in the cards. Whether this
particular conflict becomes a converging point of
anti-Americanism in the Muslim world as well as in
Europe depends upon how it ends up getting
resolved.
Under the best-case scenario,
Iran would listen to the EU-3 perspectives and opt
for postponing the uranium-enrichment program in
exchange for considerable economic assistance from
Europe. However, considering the fact that inside
Iran the nuclear issue is increasingly linked to
national sovereignty, it will be difficult to
assume that it would indeed accept the EU-3 advice
in the absence of a heightened threat of some
precipitous US action. The current escalated noise
level in Washington - especially Vice President
Dick Cheney's recent remarks - over the nuclear
issue involving Iran may be part of some sort of a
nuanced "good cop, bad cop" interplay between the
EU-3 and the US, with the former playing the good
cop and the latter the bad cop. Under the
worst-case scenario, there could be several
possibilities: a US invasion of Iran, limited US
military action, or even an attempted
destabilization of the Islamic regime with the use
of US Special Forces, or preemptive strikes by
Israel against Iran's nuclear facilities.
If anti-Bushism causes increased
anti-Americanism, it stands to reason that the man
at the top of the US government should take
corrective measures. What is troubling is that
President Bush has proved time and again that he
is convinced of the moral correctness of his
policies. The world can go take a hike as far as
he is concerned. The fact of the matter is that
everything negative that stems from his actions is
the price the United States has to pay for his
self-styled moral correctness.
Ehsan
Ahrari, PhD, is an Alexandria, Virginia,
US-based independent strategic analyst.
(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd.
All rights reserved. Please contact us for
information on sales, syndication and republishing.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
Asian Sex Gazette Sex and Religion News
|
|
|
