4 days ago
21
Far from being a detraction from his organisational ingenuity, power of oratory, infectious appeal to youths/ first-time voters and outstanding personality, it was the melt-down in the US financial markets that proved the decisive factor in the election of the first African-American Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, as the 44th President of the United States of America.
But for the collapse of the Wall Street, Obama’s victory – if it ever came – would have been very slim. This is because, for the average voter, the world begins and ends with America. Therefore, any subtle war-monger that is able to orchestrate some international crises through a bellicose foreign policy of unilateralism, expansionism and unipolarism, the reactions from “enemy” or “rogue states” which would then be regarded at home as new threats of the 21st century, would most likely secure the votes of majority of Americans. The average US voter therefore is swayed by emotions rather than reason and acts – in spite of her acclaimed level of sophistication – on the spur of the moment. Perhaps this is the lot shared by electorates all over the world (in countries where votes count) but one would have expected something better from the most advanced democracy in the world. (Majority is not always right but then there’s no yet better alternative to majority rule.)
But for the financial turmoil in the US that has sparked off a global wave of financial crisis and economic recession, the Republican candidate, John McCain, would have harped on the Russia-Georgia crisis, threats from the nuclear arms-inclined Iran and nuclear-armed “rogue state” of North Korea (George Bush’s axis of evil) in order to make foreign policy the dominant election issue. Yes, the veteran John McCain is a war hero, he would fight your wars, he would subdue terrorism and terrorists, but this callow – black – Barack, his time has not come!
The hawks (found more among Republicans) seem to understand the psyche of the average American voter and that’s why it seems almost difficult to dislodge a party or president that is immersed in overseas wars. The Kremlin appreciates this mentality as well and its leaders did issue a statement to that effect when they referred to the timing of US manoeuvres in Poland and Georgia’s “aggression” as election agenda.
Save for the global financial crisis, the US of 2004 was not much different from that of 2008. (The battle against Afghanistan was won but the war was never won; insurgents and suicide bombers continued to operate almost on the same scale in Iraq; Israel-Palestine conflict remained at the worst level.) But for her warped view of the world and a false sense of security, which encourages political brinkmanship of her leadership abroad, views such as the one I expressed shortly after the mid-term elections in 2002 – reproduced hereunder – should have spurred the rejection of George Bush in the 2004 presidential poll.
“The mid-term elections into the United States Congress have come and gone. The results of the polls, however, remain stunning and a source of concern to observers of the US and global politics. The American voters have inadvertently strengthened the hands of the hawks in the Bush administration who, wittingly or unwittingly, are bent on creating more enemies for the US than friends.
“It is an indelible record that Bill Clinton took the US to the summit of prosperity and admirably trod the path of peace and reconciliation in world politics, creating more friends for the people of America than foes. That was reversed after the ‘judicial victory’ of George Bush in the year 2000. It is a matter of debate today if September 11th would have taken place with Bill Clinton still in power in the US!
“George Bush came to the White House with a truculent heart, in spite of the relative global peace of the time. The upshot of his belligerent postures and policies is what today has opened the door of the most deadly terrorism that will be difficult to close. There is nothing as dangerous as having an unseen enemy, lurking in the dark and ready to strike fatally at any opportunity and time. Today, the good people of America no longer live in peace and safety. Threats and attacks, fear of terrorism have defined the daily life of a people who once knew and enjoyed peace a few years ago. So, has George Bush brought peace and prosperity to the citizens of America or trouble, war and blood?
“W. Bush has only been in power for two years, yet it seems he has spent eight years. Bill Clinton was in government for eight years, yet it appears he was never in office for up to twelve months. How fickle can the fortunes of a people be! The nature of man is to increase in breadth, not necessarily depth. Adolf Hitler could therefore not be entirely wrong when he declared that “every man strives for expansion.” And so, history is replete with leaders, who, in an attempt to increase in breadth, have appealed to the emotions, ego, pride, strength, and nationalistic spirit of their unwary citizens. They got what they wanted but ultimately led their people on the road to destruction. The American electorates have a choice to make in 2004.”
Clearly, Americans did not make that right choice in 2004. But now that a force majeure or divine intervention has forced them on the right path, it is hoped that American voters would henceforth think twice before they vote; and when they “misvote” – to err is human – they would immediately seize the next elections to repudiate their “choice”.
I am under no illusion that there is – most of the time – just a little to choose between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to foreign policy – right or wrong, well or ill, it is US interest first and foremost. In spite of having to work within the hidebound US establishment, the deprived background that threw up Barack Obama is bound to lead to ideological shift. Obama choices and policies will be tempered and sobered by a sense of history, both remote and immediate.
The seed of 2008 African-American presidential victory was sown decades ago and watered with the sweats, tears and blood of his people. Besides, “I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn’t start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington – it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston.” It was these historical events that combined to move Rev. Jesse Jackson to tears as he watched Obama deliver his acceptance speech in Chicago on Tuesday, November 4, 2008.
Barack Obama knows what it means to fight unjust or piratical wars. He understands the inherent goodwill in seeking more friends than creating enemies. His worldview will therefore reject unilateralism, expansionism and unipolarism. To do otherwise would amount to unforgivable disservice to Fate – for Obama is a product of Fate.
Postscript: Hillary Clinton, as the Secretary of State, has her job well cut out. America needs Russia more than Russia needs her in the war against terrorism. The Kremlin is not now going to suddenly make a volte-face in her overtures to the US named “rogue/enemy nations” to ensure the retention of a bipolar world. Obama-Clinton has to renounce George Bush’s missile shield plans in Eastern Europe and begin the process of dismantling NATO. That surely will take the world away from the road to the Cold War era – another horror that the 21st century can ill afford.
…First published 6 February, 2009
English (US) ·