| |
US foreign policy and presidential
aspirations
By Ken Sanes
At
the moment, America is entangled in a series of crises
involving Iraq, North Korea and the loss of one of its
space shuttles. In addition, there are now growing fears
that another terror attack may soon take place on
American soil.
But, overshadowed by all these
problems, something interesting is happening in the race
to see who will win the Democratic nomination and
challenge George W Bush for the presidency in 2004. The
two candidates who have the best chance of defeating
Bush are proposing a radical change in American foreign
policy. They still want the US military to fight the war
against terror and to try to reduce the threat from
weapons of mass destruction. But, in addition, they are
calling on America to set up something like a Marshall
Plan for Muslim countries, to combat the poverty and
oppression that creates many of the conditions for
terrorism. To achieve their goal, they are prepared to
have America break some of its longstanding alliances
with dictators and provide aid to groups that are
fighting for democracy.
It is too early to say
whether their ideas will have an impact on American
foreign policy. But even if only some of what they are
proposing is implemented, it could result in a shift in
politics throughout the Muslim world, with new political
movements and priorities. It could also generate new
conflicts as undemocratic governments begin to feel
threatened by America’s actions.
One of the
candidates who is suggesting these ideas is US Senator
Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. What Lieberman says
carries a good deal of weight because he is a more
credible threat to Bush than most of the other
candidates. As a political moderate, he has the ability
to win over middle-of-the-road voters who might
otherwise turn right and re-elect Bush. And since he
strongly supports an invasion of Iraq, he would appeal
to a large block of voters who want an assertive
military policy.
A good place to go to see what
Lieberman is calling for is his campaign web site. On
arriving at the home page for the site, the visitor is
confronted by a large image of Lieberman, along with
text in which the candidate speaks in the first person.
In the text, Lieberman tells a story that is a variation
on the essential American myth about immigrant families
who came to America to create a better life. He
describes his parents as "the children of immigrants",
who "worked their way into the middle class" and made it
possible for him to live the American Dream. He then
says that he has committed his life "to making that
dream available to every American" by fighting for civil
rights and working on issues such as good schools and
jobs.
But Lieberman doesn't merely say that he
wants to help the disadvantaged and the middle class in
America. In the text of a speech from January, 2002,
that has a prominent place on the site, he also calls
for America to engage in a campaign "to combat the
despotism, poverty and isolation that terrorists
exploit". More pointedly, he accuses "the fanatical
forces of jihad" of "trying to build a 'theological iron
curtain' to divide the Muslim world from the rest of the
globe ..." To stop that iron curtain from falling, he
wants America to stand up for democracy and be "a vocal
proponent of women’s rights" in Muslim countries. He
also wants to look at re-targeting aid so that it does a
better job supporting health, education and an
independent media, as well as "tolerance, equality and
opportunity throughout these societies".
In
allied Muslim nations that are seething with
anti-Americanism, he would make clear "that we will no
longer close our eyes and ears to the anti-American
propaganda in their state-run media and state-sponsored
mosques and madrassas".
Lieberman is
similarly calling on Muslim countries to create the
conditions for an economic takeoff. He would "encourage
Muslim nations to embrace more open economies", so that
they can join the World Trade Organization. "That would
both spur further reform of their trade policies and
help them succeed in export industries," he says.
In many ways, Lieberman's proposals represent an
expansion of the Democratic Party's traditional domestic
agenda to a global level. In addition to fighting for
rights and helping the disadvantaged in America, he
would have the US government try to achieve these goals
in other nations, as well. And if governments in Muslim
nations fail to go along, he makes it clear that he
believes America should be prepared to break alliances
while it supports pro-democracy opponents.
On
paper (or in text on the web), his ideas sound like they
would add the missing component to America's foreign
policy. But one has to wonder whether many of the
dictatorships that have hung on to power for decades can
be replaced without a fight. Some might respond by
becoming more repressive and anti-American. A future
President Lieberman might also discover that he is able
to win new political freedoms in some Muslim nations,
but only long enough for popular Islamic governments to
sweep into power.
The second candidate who may
pose a threat to Bush - US Senator John Kerry of
Massachusetts - has made similar proposals on his own
campaign web site. Unlike the more moderate Lieberman,
Kerry is a traditional liberal who has criticized much
of the Bush administration’s policy on Iraq, although it
appears he will ultimately support an invasion. Where
Lieberman comes off as likeable and decent, if not
particularly inspiring, Kerry can seem professorial and,
at times, austere and distant. He is frequently
eloquent, but his word combinations are sometimes stiff
and overly poetic. Compounding whatever other obstacles
his candidacy may face, Kerry just had surgery for
prostate cancer, although his physician says that it was
successful and it isn’t expected to interfere with his
run for the presidency.
Like Lieberman, Kerry's
campaign site is an expression of who he is as a leader.
Even a quick look at his home page makes clear that it
is modeled after the front page of a newspaper, with
headlines, articles and the text of speeches Kerry has
given. "Kerry Challenges Bush on Foreign Policy", one
headline says. "Kerry Blasts Bush on the Environment",
says another.
The approach gives Kerry the kind
of forum he is looking for to criticize Bush’s policies.
And, as the headlines above make clear, Kerry goes after
Bush relentlessly on the site. On domestic policy, he
lambasts the president for "speaking the rhetoric
working Americans are so eager to hear, but offering
only words to distract from his big, new tax breaks for
the wealthiest Americans". Elsewhere on the site, in the
text of a speech, he says that the Bush administration
"sees an America where tax cuts for the wealthy are the
only priority", even if they harm the economy and
violate fairness.
But the most important part of
the site is probably the text of a recent speech on
foreign policy. In it, Kerry rejects what he refers to
as Bush's "blustering unilateralism", which has meant
"alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming
potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the
world". In a world that is becoming more interdependent,
this kind of unilateralism is "a formula for isolation
and shrinking influence", he says. In its place, Kerry
calls for "a bold progressive internationalism" that
acts in concert with other nations and works through
global institutions. Working through institutions, he
says, "invests US aims with greater legitimacy and
dampens the fear and resentment that our preponderant
power sometimes inspires in others".
In the
speech, Kerry also calls for a global campaign of social
action much like the one Lieberman supports. It would be
focused on the region he refers to as "the Greater
Middle East", which stretches "from Morocco through the
Middle East and beyond". He says this region is beset by
"harsh political repression, economic stagnation, lack
of education and opportunity, and rapid population
growth." As a result, "the streets are full of young
people who have no jobs ... no prospects ... no voice.
State-controlled media encourage a culture of self-pity,
victimhood and blame-shifting. This is the breeding
ground for present and future hostility to the West and
our values."
Kerry criticizes the Bush
administration for offering the people in this region
"retribution and war but little hope for liberty and
prosperity". Instead, he wants America and its allies to
"illuminate an alternative path to a futile jihad
against the world ... a path that leads to deeper
integration of the greater Middle East into the modern
world order".
More specifically, Kerry calls for
more trade and investment, and a reduction in trade
barriers in the region. He would invest in education and
people; have an "increased focus on the development of
democratic values and human rights," and support "the
region's democrats in their struggles against repressive
regimes". Ultimately, he says, "America needs to be on
the side of the people, not the regimes that keep them
down".
Critics might say that, with these
remarks, Kerry has taken class warfare to the global
level. Instead of merely accusing the Republican Party
of favoring the rich and hurting working people at home,
he accuses it of damaging the war against terror by
failing to fight poverty and oppression in other
countries. One might also cynically point out that many
of these ideas will play well with voters in the
Democratic primary.
But these ideas are also an
expression of deeply held values in the Democratic
Party. And others are expressing similar ideas,
suggesting that America has been shaken out of its
cultural isolation by the war on terror and the
realization that it is threatened by weapons of mass
destruction. America is now acutely aware of how the
world sees it and it now more fully understands that
events halfway across the globe can change life at home.
One response is the call for America to help institute
what Lieberman has referred to as "a new Marshall Plan
for the Muslim world". Imperfect as the analogy is, it
captures America's desire to have a global role that
more fully embodies its ideals.
How these ideas
will fare as the election campaign heats up is anyone's
guess. If they become popular, they will probably come
up against Republican criticism. But it is also possible
that a reduced version of these ideas will end up being
carried out, by Republicans or Democrats. In fact, Bush
could try to use a newly liberated Iraq as a base of
operations to carry out just such a transformation in
neighboring countries, including Iran, Syria and Saudi
Arabia. He will have the US military stationed in Iraqi
territory, near the borders with all of these nations.
And Iraq will likely begin to develop a democracy, an
independent media and an expanding economy anxious to
trade with its neighbors. All of these factors could
strengthen the forces pressing for change in nearby
countries.
There are other signs that the region
may be moving toward reform, as well. The Washington
Post, for example, has carried a number of pieces
recently describing new forces coming into play in the
region. One column says that Egyptian President Hosni
Mubarak may be grooming his son, Gamal Mubarak, as his
successor. And the younger Mubarak is talking like a
reformer on such issues as free markets and expanding
trade, although not when it comes to the issue of
creating a true democracy. According to another column,
Syrian President Bashar Assad is interested in
modernizing his country, and has said that looser
political controls would be good, within the context of
a larger state of stability. But the column also raises
questions about how far and how fast Assad is willing to
go. Meanwhile, according to an article in The Post, the
Arab satellite station Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, will
soon have more competition as various TV news
organizations prepare to compete for audiences in the
Arab world.
So it seems that change has already
started to come. In addition, the presidential election
may finally provoke a real debate in America about how
it can help bring free markets, an open media and
democracy to more Muslim countries. Given America's
enormous power, the outcome of that debate could affect
the shape of things to come far beyond its borders.
Ken Sanes is a writer living in
suburban Boston, US. Please visit his website at
www.transparencynow.com.
(©2003 Asia Times
Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com
for information on our sales and syndication policies,
or to submit a letter to the editor.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
