Dainik Bhaskar, India
Obama’s Victory and America
By Siddiq Wahid
The question now is what does this election mandate mean for the world globally? Not much if we keep in mind the American government’s foreign policies.
Translated By Roohi Khan
19 November 2008
Edited by Christie Chu
India - Dainik Bhaskar - Original Article (Hindi)
Viewpoint
In the past eight years, America's image around the world has been damaged. George W. Bush has proved to be the most unpopular president since Lyndon B. Johnson, America’s president in the 1960s. If we see from the beginning, Bush’s election in the year 2000 evoked a combination of laughter and surprise, which was further confirmed by the fact that he had expressed such ignorance, suspicion, and mistrust during the recount of votes in Florida.
This amazing behavior received tremendous support due to the frivolous nature of his predecessor, President Bill Clinton, and Bush’s inherent differences got silent approval. It is true that Bill Clinton’s behavior was such that no one would like to copy, but this helped the opposition in making a completely contrary Bush generally acceptable.
People who have lived in the U.S. must have been very depressed to see these conditions. During my trip to America, immediately after the 9/11 tragedy, what I saw was very difficult to believe. I saw mistrust even in those people who considered mutual trust to be very important; the country's values co-existence were blown to pieces, and the feeling of hatred towards “others” was prevalent in small parts of the country. Innocence was crushed here.
There was fear present in the American citizens and in most of the people who were visiting the country. These were not the American people whom I knew and admired. I was shocked to see all this.
As far as I am concerned, my pain was dramatically over with the victory of Obama. Along with the majority of U.S. citizens, the rest of the world also heaved a sigh a relief. John McCain ran a weak campaign, one cannot even imagine how boring his criticism of his opposition was and he chose a candidate for the post of vice president whose extreme enthusiasm was clearly untouched by fundamental elements. Due to this he was defeated substantially, but there is still some confusion here.
Nevertheless, McCain received almost half of the popular vote. Do the American presidential election results (which were overall a vote against Bush and his foreign policies) show that there is still in fact a lot of support for Bush’s policies in America? And what does this public mandate mean for the world?
In reply to the first question I would say it is possible. We will have to see later on. For a long time America’s presidential elections have been decided by what is popularly seen as “undecided or independent voters,” which represent a very small percentage of the electorate.
This figure can be anywhere between 4 to 6 percent. They are not distinct ideologically and they are vote based on practical considerations. In this election they tended strongly to dismiss Bush’s aggressive domestic and foreign policies. It was their strong opposition that was reflected in the electoral college vote and became a tremendous victory for the Democrats.
The outgoing government’s domestic policies went against everything that was good for the American people. Its generosity and trust towards the rest of the world was especially disappointing. Bush’s ambiguous and arrogant cabinet converted these qualities into a greed, suspicion, and superiority complex, which was not accepted by most Americans, but by then it was too late. Poor McCain became the scapegoat and he had to pay for this ugly change.
The question now is what does this election mandate mean for the world globally? Not much if we keep in mind the American government’s foreign policies.
For more than 30 years, the American government has been slowly moving towards establishing military supremacy over the rest of the world, which is primarily completely different from the economic supremacy efforts which were first begun by the Wilson government in the beginning of the 1900s.
Then why was Obama’s victory celebrated in America and most parts of the world and what does his election mean for them? America’s newly-elected President Obama has raised the hopes of people by promising change, but the people of the world should understand the nature of the hopes dependent on these promises since politics is mostly local.
He will first focus on the deeply rooted divisions, the dismal condition of the economy, health and global changes. Second, like all imperialists, the American government will focus on maintaining its supremacy over the world.
It wouldn't be a surprise, but is Obama going to make true Bush’s already established policies of making America the “only” empire in this world? Is Obama going to let go of the Cold War mindset of the good and ultimate evil of hardcore unipolar and self-importance policies and adopt a multi-polar approach?
Thirdly, just like Iqbal Ahmed said, empires need “enemies and ghosts.” The Bush administration very quickly found a mature way of replacing communism and called it as a “war against terrorism.” The ease with which he linked “Islam” with it is a symbol of the pure opportunism of the Bush administration. No other policy approach has negatively affected the credibility of America on the global platform. Are those who are under Obama going to change this?
But at this moment my trust in the American people has been restored and I will be eagerly waiting for the 20th of January, 2009, when Bush will leave the White House and be a common citizen.
Author is the Vice Chancellor of the Kashmir-situated Islamic University of Science and Technology.
CLICK HERE FOR
ORIGINAL VERSION
|
|
CLICK HERE for... 
