Obama's Chances and American Legitimacy Worldwide
World attention to the American elections has not seen before as it is now. The years of President Bush have become an obsession for the world because he was the president of the most powerful nation in terms of military capabilities, proliferation, technology, as well as economy. The United States remains as equally capable as the next ten countries in terms of power in the world. But in the past eight years, the United States lost a lot of its political and moral strength, as well as its ability to mobilize allies and supporters.
These years have shown that China, Europe, Russia, and Iran have made political gains at the expense of the United States because of the war on Iraq and the direct consequences of that war. It was shown in the past eight years that military force alone can not win and achieve consensus; and it was shown as well that, more than ever, force needs international legitimacy. On the contrary, military force becomes a problem when it is used without a consensus based on truth in its use and on justice in its way.
Take the big difference between the war of liberation of Kuwait in 1990, during which the United States succeeded in mobilizing tens of countries behind a just cause in the face of clear injustice, and the liberation war of Iraq in 2003, during which the United States changed the Iraqi regime by force without support at the regional and international levels. The difference between the two events is large, despite the many grievances against the Iraqi regime and the problematic that it posed to its people. In the first case, the world intervened financially and militarily alongside the United States; even Syria mobilized its forces alongside the United States. In Iraq after 2003, Iran and Syria massed their capabilities against the United States, and Turkey refused to allow U.S. forces to cross its territories, as did Saudi Arabia.
The war has turned from being for regime change in Iraq into an American political problem that doesn't have internal popular support, while American credibility at the global level was shaken after the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was shown.
This does not mean that the U.S. is demanded to withdraw from Iraq now, and at the same time it doesn’t mean that Saddam was not unjust to his people, or that the new regime in Iraq is not a good system for Iraq that is capable of evolving with time to better meet the needs of justice, democracy and development; but this means that the United States was able to build convincing coalitions and take more time before proceeding to change a political regime alone by force. Better mobilization and better leadership by the United States in all preparations for the war and the actions that followed it was required. Those American behaviors showed an amplified sense of power and diminution of what the opponents of military attack or proponents of strengthening the Iraqi army and state agencies. This weakness in the American leadership turned out to be a principal factor in the declining legitimacy of the United States at the global level, thus contributing to the growth of countries such as China, India, Europe, Russia and Iran. These countries have benefited a lot from American mistakes.
The emergence of Barack Obama in the United States at this particular time is not a coincidence, but falls within the framework of history that was created by the current U.S. administration, which asserts a considerable decline in America's global power and the legitimacy that accompanies it. In this context, Obama has become the world's candidate for the presidency of the United States, besides being the candidate of a large segment of Americans, especially young people. He is the first colored man who takes us into a new phase of race relations, in the U.S. and globally. This tumultuous campaign in its expressions and its new concepts re-defines the United States, and at the same time ends much of what President Bush raised in the world in terms of rejection of the United States as well as narrowing of the way America deals with peoples of the world.
Obama may be able to play this global role because of what he has in terms of leadership capacities and other abilities to understand others and listen to the world. Obama has a direction based on diplomacy. The chances of restoring the status of the United States are nonexistent without an effective American effort to build a better and more peaceful world, more understanding and further upgraded from the world that President Bush helped create during his soon-ending presidency.
The Obama phenomenon has been a surprise to every observer to the American elections. There were large crowds at each symposium or meeting called for Obama during the first stage of his candidacy, with tens of times more attendees than expected, and with teach attempt to collect donations for his campaign, the responses came from ordinary people, reflecting their willingness to contribute to the campaign. Thus, Obama leads the most popular campaign in the history of U.S. elections in decades, and at the same time he turns out to be the candidate of many Americans as well as the candidate of the new generation, young, ordinary and low-income people. Obama combines in his style and symbolism many positive contradictions.
As for McCain, he at this second presents a power in the American arena. He represents the old generation with all its expertise, as well as a very important historical and military side. He represents a view of the world and foreign policy that possesses the infrastructure and foundations that help it to continue. So McCain is representing the expert generation, the generation of big wars and the Cold War. The generation that promises Americans to continue the war on terrorism and to continue to protect the United States from its enemies, and at the same time as that pursuit, to build a better American economic situation.
Obama sees the world in a more humane and a more civilized way, no matter how he tried to communicate with the Middle [East], which represents a vision of a dialogue of civilizations and the convergence of differences and continuing of contradictions. He is committed to return to the United States in the glow of a new global trend.
Obama will focus on building alliances and would try to use U.S. influence to solve transcontinental problems. Obama symbolizes the opposite of the [U.S. political] right. He comes to the presidential competition from positions closer to the left, but at the same time he tries to learn how to deal with the demands and burdens of reality as well as its necessities, including the limits of the use of power and the imperatives of international legality.
The United States is in transition from being the first major state into a major state dealing with several other major states emerging in financial, strategic and military fields. The United States, which established the World Bank, contributed to establishment of the United Nations and NATO, led the world in globalization and the opening of global trade; which leads the world in scientific, cultural, and cinematic areas; is requested now as it nears the election of a new president, to change its image and return to the historic policy that was based on long-term realism and persuasion, and building global consensus before embarking upon the use of force.
With this, the new president will restore the credibility that was distorted by prisons like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. When Americans vote in November, they will vote on the future direction of the United States. They will vote on the extent to which the American voter adopts this transition and would like to convey it to the White House.
These years have shown that China, Europe, Russia, and Iran have made political gains at the expense of the United States because of the war on Iraq and the direct consequences of that war. It was shown in the past eight years that military force alone can not win and achieve consensus; and it was shown as well that, more than ever, force needs international legitimacy. On the contrary, military force becomes a problem when it is used without a consensus based on truth in its use and on justice in its way.
Take the big difference between the war of liberation of Kuwait in 1990, during which the United States succeeded in mobilizing tens of countries behind a just cause in the face of clear injustice, and the liberation war of Iraq in 2003, during which the United States changed the Iraqi regime by force without support at the regional and international levels. The difference between the two events is large, despite the many grievances against the Iraqi regime and the problematic that it posed to its people. In the first case, the world intervened financially and militarily alongside the United States; even Syria mobilized its forces alongside the United States. In Iraq after 2003, Iran and Syria massed their capabilities against the United States, and Turkey refused to allow U.S. forces to cross its territories, as did Saudi Arabia.
The war has turned from being for regime change in Iraq into an American political problem that doesn't have internal popular support, while American credibility at the global level was shaken after the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was shown.
This does not mean that the U.S. is demanded to withdraw from Iraq now, and at the same time it doesn’t mean that Saddam was not unjust to his people, or that the new regime in Iraq is not a good system for Iraq that is capable of evolving with time to better meet the needs of justice, democracy and development; but this means that the United States was able to build convincing coalitions and take more time before proceeding to change a political regime alone by force. Better mobilization and better leadership by the United States in all preparations for the war and the actions that followed it was required. Those American behaviors showed an amplified sense of power and diminution of what the opponents of military attack or proponents of strengthening the Iraqi army and state agencies. This weakness in the American leadership turned out to be a principal factor in the declining legitimacy of the United States at the global level, thus contributing to the growth of countries such as China, India, Europe, Russia and Iran. These countries have benefited a lot from American mistakes.
The emergence of Barack Obama in the United States at this particular time is not a coincidence, but falls within the framework of history that was created by the current U.S. administration, which asserts a considerable decline in America's global power and the legitimacy that accompanies it. In this context, Obama has become the world's candidate for the presidency of the United States, besides being the candidate of a large segment of Americans, especially young people. He is the first colored man who takes us into a new phase of race relations, in the U.S. and globally. This tumultuous campaign in its expressions and its new concepts re-defines the United States, and at the same time ends much of what President Bush raised in the world in terms of rejection of the United States as well as narrowing of the way America deals with peoples of the world.
Obama may be able to play this global role because of what he has in terms of leadership capacities and other abilities to understand others and listen to the world. Obama has a direction based on diplomacy. The chances of restoring the status of the United States are nonexistent without an effective American effort to build a better and more peaceful world, more understanding and further upgraded from the world that President Bush helped create during his soon-ending presidency.
The Obama phenomenon has been a surprise to every observer to the American elections. There were large crowds at each symposium or meeting called for Obama during the first stage of his candidacy, with tens of times more attendees than expected, and with teach attempt to collect donations for his campaign, the responses came from ordinary people, reflecting their willingness to contribute to the campaign. Thus, Obama leads the most popular campaign in the history of U.S. elections in decades, and at the same time he turns out to be the candidate of many Americans as well as the candidate of the new generation, young, ordinary and low-income people. Obama combines in his style and symbolism many positive contradictions.
As for McCain, he at this second presents a power in the American arena. He represents the old generation with all its expertise, as well as a very important historical and military side. He represents a view of the world and foreign policy that possesses the infrastructure and foundations that help it to continue. So McCain is representing the expert generation, the generation of big wars and the Cold War. The generation that promises Americans to continue the war on terrorism and to continue to protect the United States from its enemies, and at the same time as that pursuit, to build a better American economic situation.
Obama sees the world in a more humane and a more civilized way, no matter how he tried to communicate with the Middle [East], which represents a vision of a dialogue of civilizations and the convergence of differences and continuing of contradictions. He is committed to return to the United States in the glow of a new global trend.
Obama will focus on building alliances and would try to use U.S. influence to solve transcontinental problems. Obama symbolizes the opposite of the [U.S. political] right. He comes to the presidential competition from positions closer to the left, but at the same time he tries to learn how to deal with the demands and burdens of reality as well as its necessities, including the limits of the use of power and the imperatives of international legality.
The United States is in transition from being the first major state into a major state dealing with several other major states emerging in financial, strategic and military fields. The United States, which established the World Bank, contributed to establishment of the United Nations and NATO, led the world in globalization and the opening of global trade; which leads the world in scientific, cultural, and cinematic areas; is requested now as it nears the election of a new president, to change its image and return to the historic policy that was based on long-term realism and persuasion, and building global consensus before embarking upon the use of force.
With this, the new president will restore the credibility that was distorted by prisons like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. When Americans vote in November, they will vote on the future direction of the United States. They will vote on the extent to which the American voter adopts this transition and would like to convey it to the White House.