Evaluating America’s Failure

In a general evaluation of his policy before leaving the White House, President George Bush said that he is “leaving behind solid foundations for the next American presidents and military leaders to build on.”

The strongest reply on this claim came with choosing the black Democrat candidate, Barak Obama, to be the next president of the United States of America. This election expressed a clear rejection of Bush’s policy by both the Republicans and the Democrats. There is no need to exhaust yourself in order to see the negative effects of this policy; it is enough to watch the current global financial, economic and political tragic scenes.

Bush is leaving the presidency with a tired economy and a decrepit empire that is sinking into the greatest and most serious financial and economic crises in this period. When he assumed office, the public debt did not exceed $5 trillion, and now he is leaving the White House with $11 trillion public debt which might even increase because of wrong political policies and the precautionary and pre-emptive wars under the claim of fighting terrorism.

As for terrorism, it doubled four times compared to before September 11th, and that’s according to the American research and study centers. The question is: Why did the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq happen? Why did this become the situation?

The conservatives in the Bush’s administration, led by Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, forged the U.S intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; they replaced the sentence “maybe there are weapons of mass destruction” with the sentence “there are weapons of mass destruction.” This is just an example, and now we see the war of statements continue between the staff of this falling administration.

And Mr. President is talking about making freedom in Iraq! It is true that the situation during Saddam Hussein’s rule was tragic, but the question is: Are things better in Iraq now that one million Iraqi civilian have been killed since occupying Baghdad? Does stealing the Iraqi oil and wealth conform to human rights after making the Iraqis prisoners of hunger? And the threatened security? And Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo?

As for Afghanistan, it’s destiny as a country and a society is unknown; it is suffering from drugs smuggling under the NATO control and the Taliban has regained control on a vast part of it.

The international security was never threatened like it was under Bush’s rule. Global warming is engulfing the world and affecting agriculture, nature and human beings; violence and terrorism are increasing causing serious worries about the future. This is what caused President- elect Barak Obama to consider global warming a priority in his general policy along with scientific research for clean energy substitutes because of the oil crises in international trade.

In another topic, Bush used to hold Yasser Arafat responsible for the failure in resolving the Palestinian- Israeli conflict, along with the expansionism of Arial Sharon, as if they were equal! The land owner and the one occupying the land and displacing its people! This president did not confess that he used the veto in the Security Council over and over again to prevent condemning Israel internationally. Only condemnation is prohibited for the sake of protecting Israel’s security. But the security of the Palestinians is absent and not important.

And before everything mentioned above and everything to be mentioned, history will remember than the United States during the leadership of George Bush caused the biggest financial crisis in the world, which later became an economic one. There are of course other non-American causes, but the American role was essential.

It is hard to guess whether or not the new American administration would be able to handle this crisis that might last for a long time and will surely cause structural changes in the international financial system and the balance of competing international forces. What is clear so far is that the assumption of one controlling international system or unipolarity system was proven wrong. What to expect next is just a matter of guessing.

Multipolarity was obvious in the G-20 Summit (20 developing nations), along with the G-8. There is an international trend to give the opportunity for the international and regional organizations to participate in solving the current crisis, but after modifying their structure and function to “enhance observation and transparency”. So, multipolarity is not limited to the great countries, but it also includes the increased role of international organizations and companies; this might also lead to increasing the role of individuals who are able financially and politically in the international financial system.