November 14, 2004
U.S. Election Impact on India
Syndicated columnist Amulya Ganguli writes in the Kerala News on Nov. 5 about what a Bush victory means for India. Ganguli writes that Bush will be more lenient than Kerry on India's nuclear ambitions and the outsourcing of jobs. However, Bush will also likely continue a softer stance on Pakistan's violent struggle with India over Kashmir because Pakistan is a strong U.S. ally in the war on terror.
Ganguli writes that Bush and Kerry's position on terrorism fuels more anti-Americanism and Islamic terrorism. Perrenial Muslim-Hindu clashes in India are likley to continue.
Pros and cons of the Bush victory for India (COMMENTARY)
India ; Pros and cons of the Bush victory for India (COMMENTARY)
5-November-2004
India News, The positive side of George W. Bush's re-election for India is obvious. But that doesn't mean there aren't any negative aspects. To take the plus points first, New Delhi will not have to undertake the tedious task of explaining its policies to a new administration in Washington. It can simply continue to build on the understanding that is already there between the two capitals on a number of issues.
These include the menace of terrorism and, more important for India, an appreciation of New Delhi's position on Kashmir -- that a redrawing of the map on religious lines will be tantamount to playing into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists. In addition, India will expect the US to persist with its dual policy towards Pakistan even if New Delhi doesn't approve of it.
This policy comprises the tactic of overlooking the Pakistan establishment's reluctance to sever all links with jehadi outfits via the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) outfit and rogue elements in the army in return for an attitude of restraint in Kashmir and, of course, cooperation in the battle against the Al Qaeda. A Kerry administration might have wanted Islamabad to crack down harder on the militant organisations in Pakistan, thereby further inflaming the prevailing anti-American sentiments and fuelling bigotry and terrorism in Kashmir as a consequence.
A major reason why India benefits from a Bush White House is that the latter is more pragmatic than the more ideological Democrats who would have continued to chide India for having tested an atomic device and for the alleged violations of human rights in Kashmir.
In contrast, the Bush administration is likely to continue turning a blind eye to these supposed transgressions in western eyes presumably because it is aware of the possibility of India becoming a counterweight to China in Asia. It may be remembered that prior to 9/11, China was a major foreign policy concern for the US and that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to deliver a speech on China and the missile defence shield on the morning of 9/11.
Apart from these advantages for India from a second Bush presidency in the field of diplomacy, New Delhi will be pleased that the controversy over the outsourcing of American jobs to India created by Kerry will be put to rest. In the WTO also, a pro-free trade Bush regime (at least in the formal sense) will be of help to India.
But even if India expects to feel more at ease with the sense of continuity which the re-election of Bush provides, it cannot be oblivious of the negative sides. First and foremost, his return will exacerbate the already volatile anti-American sentiments in the Muslim world, including Pakistan and Bangladesh. The resultant impetus to terrorism can affect India, although the present prime targets of the fundamentalists are America (and Americans wherever they are) and Israel and Jews.
Since there is little chance of an immediate improvement of the situation in Iraq or of a definitive forward movement on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, conditions in West Asia will verge on the explosive. Added to this will be the tension and uncertainty caused by Iran's now virtually open move towards the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Because of India's large Muslim population, it has to be extremely sensitive to any sharp deterioration of the situation in the region.
India will also have to be mindful that its traditional cordial relations with Iran and the Arab world, as well as the more recent improvement of its ties with Israel, are not undermined by the unpredictable developments in West Asia. So far, India has managed to tread carefully through the minefields of the region. But the implications of an election in Iraq whose legitimacy might be in doubt, or of the aftermath of a post-Yasser Arafat era, are yet to be carefully assessed.
In this context, the first Bush regime might not have made much of a fuss about India's refusal to send troops to Iraq. But it might not look kindly on a similar noncommittal Indian approach to the question of an 'elected' government in Baghdad since the US would like to showcase it as a sign of the success of its plans to bring democracy to the region.
Much will depend, therefore, on how ideologically driven the new team led by Bush will be. If it continues to be guided by the messianic neo-conservative concepts of pre-emptive strikes and unilateral action, there is bound to be much discomfiture in the decision-making chambers in New Delhi. While there is no question of a return to the virtual anti-American position of the non-alignment days, as the Indian communists would want, India cannot also go along wholeheartedly with policies which undermine the United Nations and denote a certain arrogant ruthlessness in dealing with international affairs.
India will have to tread a fine line, therefore, to balance the pros and cons of the new administration, a task made all the more difficult by the realisation that it is dealing with a hyperpower without a challenger in the world and with a presidency which is likely to regard its electoral success as a popular endorsement of its policies.
(Amulya Ganguli is a political analyst. He can be reached at amulyaganguli@yahoo.co.in)
Indo-Asian News Service
Posted by Ki-Min Sung at 9:21 PM
November 8, 2004
George W. Vajpayee--Indian vs. American conservatism
Senior Editor and columnist Sagarika Ghose compares the outcome of the U.S. presidential election to the Indian election. A majority of Americans voted for conservative Bush and she compares that population to conservatives in India. Ghose argues that conservative Indians prefer to separate their politician's church from the state explaining President Atal Bihari Vajpayee defeat for reelection this year. Strong conservative values now have little room in India, according to Ghose. She says that Indians, like conservative Americans, hold deeply traditional beliefs on marriage. Ghose praises India for not reelecting the VJP as the ruling party, which recieved 23 percent of the vote.
The Indian Express
Monday, November 08, 2004
Columns
George W. Vajpayee
There are natural limits to a right wing revolution in India
Sagarika Ghose
One of the interpretations of the American election results is that it was a religious insurrection. George W. Bush’s 58 million votes constitute a mass Christian movement, a holy war against gays, feminists and scientific research and an endorsement of the unilateral action in Iraq.
Can this utterly depressing interpretation be true? After all, the motivations of the American voter cannot be adequately proven and the dangerous aspect of the Bush victory could lie in the manner in which it is interpreted rather than the manner in which it was actually achieved. With 48 per cent of the vote, had it not been for Ohio, Kerry might well have won and if a right wing revolution was so close at hand, why did none of the pundits sense it before the results? Nonetheless, America has obviously shifted towards a right wing social conservatism. Given the presidential power of appointments, a right wing consensus now sits firmly across the American executive, legislature and judiciary.
Thus every liberal worldwide should share the sorrows of liberal America. But in India there is room for cheer. Because in India, unlike in America, a religious right wing socially conservative social agenda has, for many excellent reasons, very little political space. Pity the poor BJP! How it must yearn to be the Republican Party riding confidently to power on the shoulders of terrorism and God, or in our particular case, terrorism and mandir. Narendra Modi has in fact declared how similar his own campaign had been to Bush. But today, while the right wing in America is on the ascendant, the right wing in India is floundering. This time last year George W. Bush and Atal Bihari Vajpayee were embracing at the UN General Assembly, both with their faces turned towards an election in 2004. Months later Bush has swept back to power while Vajpayee is getting ready to ride into the sunset. The comparison must be qualified. Vajpayee’s defeat in 2004 may well have been a psephological accident, simply the fallout of bad alliances in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. Bush’s victory may on the other hand have everything to do with the American winner-takes-all system, key southern and mid-west states simply nullifying results elsewhere. Also, electoral and political systems in India and the US are substantially different.
But the fate of the Indian right wing, or the Indian social conservatives, or the BJP, or the Hindutva ideology is an interesting one. While Bush won 51 per cent of the popular vote, the BJP and its particular cultural ethos has never been able to win more than 23 per cent of votes and has been able to rule only through coalition dharma. The majority of Indians, most of whom might well be just as socially conservative as their counterparts in the American mid-west, don’t vote for a politically conservative party like the BJP. Take a poll from Kochi to Jalandhar and you’ll find that most denizens of apartment and mohalla do not believe in inter-religious marriage, nor even in inter-caste marriage, regularly visit mandir, masjid or gurdwara, are deeply suspicious of “English-speaking” people and disapprove strongly of young men running around trying to blow up the Lok Sabha. In short, they are conservative. So why has the BJP failed to harness this unique Indian conservatism centred on religion to its political cause?
Simply because the BJP has failed to become a “normal” modern conservative party rooted in the soil. Instead, the BJP remains hostage to a divided sangh, elements of which (like the VHP) are like the Ku Klux Klan, other elements simply lost in strident rhetoric about “pseudos” and “leftists”. It is in fact a caricature of a right wing rather than a credible right wing. It has no political ancestors of its own and must reach out, as Vajpayee did, for the moral legitimacy of the liberal Nehru. None of its pet issues have yielded durable popular support. After the attack on Parliament in 2002, the BJP hoped to win the elections in Uttar Pradesh barely two months later, on the calculation that fears about terrorism would bring electoral rewards. But surprisingly, the Avadhi farmer showed that he couldn’t care less about terrorism and the BJP finished in third place in UP. The Ram Mandir issue worked in the 1991 elections, giving the BJP its first ever tally of 123 seats, but mandir has now become very boring. Cultural policing such as the attacks on films like Fire or on Valentine’s Day found no resonance in an upwardly mobile aspirant electorate. Vajpayee alone perhaps tried to create a modern right wing by adding “market” to the BJP’s list of causes. Unfortunately the BJP’s espousal of “market” ended up in TV images of Pramod Mahajan huffing and puffing on a treadmill which got everybody including the RSS very angry.
There are naturally sharp limits to any kind of ideological constituency in a country where caste, region and bijli, sadak, pani are the touchstones of politics. Caste is far too empowering a device to ever be surrendered to umbrella categories like Hindutva. Unlike the American Bible-bashers, a poor electorate like ours generally doesn’t vote on ideological issues. In Mumbai in 1995, the Shiv Sena was able to emerge as a protector of Hindus because of the riots and bomb blasts of ’92-93. In Gujarat, Modi’s terrorism crusade delivered an election victory in 2002. But these results were exceptions, and born out of local incidents of violence which were used to create fear and mobilise the “threatened Hindu” voter.
Without violence, in the “normal” course of things, it’s almost impossible to see a Republican-type large socially conservative class which visits the temple, plays the markets and votes BJP ever emerging in
India. Sharp divisions in the political space will always create roadblocks for an ideologically driven conservative party and thankfully India will never see a right wing revolution. God may have taken Bush to power in America. But in India, even God is powerless against a dizzyingly heterogenous janta janardan.
URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=58491
Posted by Ki-Min Sung at 7:35 PM
November 6, 2004
Policy continuity welcomed by most East Asian nations
In the official congratulatory statements to the newly re-elected Bush, most leaders stressed that they welcome the continuity of US policies or the stability that comes with Bush's re-election. Especially in East Asia, continued US growth was dubbed to be "important for East Asia's export-oriented economies".
With the exception of South Korea, key players in Asia, such as Japan and China seemed to favor Bush's victory. Despite having displayed a slightly more pro-Kerry stance, South Korea has also swiftly shifted gears; President Roh and President Bush have already agreed to the early resumption of the six-party talks to end North Korea's nuclear weapons program (source: Korea Herald)
While this outcome has not been the most optimal for everyone, each nation recognized the importance of immediately building on this new relationship, to maximize mutual benefit.
Good for East Asian nations because of policy continuity
Good for East Asian nations because of policy continuity
By Narendra Aggarwal
Economics Correspondent
GOOD for fast-growing East Asian economies - that's the verdict of American Express Bank's chief economist on the effect here of US President George W. Bush's re-election.
That's because these economies stand to benefit from the continuity in US policies which will help the world's largest economy to expand at a healthy pace in the coming year, said Mr John Calverley, speaking yesterday while on a visit to Singapore.
'We got a quick result, and this will help to spur growth going forward. The markets are already saying so,' he said, referring to an overall positive response in the first day's share market trading after Mr Bush's victory.
The London-based economist and strategist said in an interview with The Straits Times that he did not expect any US policy changes and that a 'steady as you go' stance would be generally good for the global economy.
The US budget deficit would continue to remain at about 5 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), as President Bush would want to keep his tax cuts in place, he said.
But there was no room for more tax cuts in view of the high budget deficit.
Mr Calverley said that as continued US growth was important for East Asia's export-oriented economies, President Bush's victory was good for the region.
'The expected continuity of US policies will help the region, I believe. There would have been a lot of uncertainity under Kerry.'
Predicting 3- to 4-per-cent growth in the American economy next year, Mr Calverley thinks it would still be slightly above the 3.3-per-cent growth trend.
Acknowledging that global economic growth had slowed somewhat of late, he pointed out that markets were still in the early upswing stage of world economic growth and had not yet even reached the mid-point of the cycle.
Posted by Shi Min Tan at 4:24 PM
Check on religion
Religion has immense potential in determining democratic outcomes, as seen from the results of the US Election. Many newspapers have pointed out that one of the reasons Bush won was that he was able to mobilize millions of evangelical Christians to vote for him in this election. This insight was echoed by his political aide, Karl Rove, before the elections and has proved to be a correct one.
In this article, Straits Times journalist Chua Mui Hoong pointed out that in the crucial state of Ohio (eventually won by Bush), one quarter of voters identified themselves as evangelical Christians. This played no small part in swinging the state in favor of Bush. In a deeply religious country such as the United States, this too has had significant impact in getting many Christians across the country to vote for Bush.
The author herself disapproves of religious groups imposing their values to influence political outcomes, ie. the inability to keep political and religious spheres discrete. While she notes that this delineation is pivotal to maintain harmony in a multi-religious society such as Singapore, we are cautioned that religion is indeed a crucial platform from which to mobilize people, especially when politicians can and intentionally distort matters to create the outcome they want. When the heat of elections is on, not-so-clear-headed individiual voters are most unlikely to recognize that politicians pander to their religious affiliations to gain their votes.
Beware of mixing religion and politics
Beware of mixing religion and politics
By Chua Mui Hoong
IN THE end, evangelical Christians in the United States helped determine that Mr George W. Bush would remain President.
Ohio, the crucial, closely fought state, had 5.8 million people who turned out to vote. Associated Press reports said a quarter of them had identified themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians.
(That's in contrast to 'liberal' Christians who view as metaphor many of the things evangelicals take as fact, such as the resurrection of Christ and the notion that only Christians go to heaven.)
This pivotal bloc backed President Bush by a three-to-one margin: enough to swing the state to Mr Bush, and give him the 20 electoral college votes that clinched the presidency.
Will the religious lobby in Singapore one day amass electoral clout?
While not a homogenous group, with Buddhists, Catholics, Protestant Christians, Hindus and Muslims among them, religious groups here can become a voice for moral conservatism in Singapore, as they are in the US.
Which is not necessarily a bad thing.
The danger comes if any one group tries to impose on others its notion of what is right and wrong. That's a very, very thin line to cross.
Already, some groups have tried to mobilise members on policy matters. In July last year, there was an online campaign by a group of Christians, urging fellow Christians to lobby their MPs, the Government and the media against gay lifestyles.
'The battle lines are now drawn and it is time for the Church in Singapore to rise up and make a stand,' it said in rather charged language.
This campaign followed news that the Government was now open to hiring gay people even in sensitive jobs.
The group's militant tone did not draw much support, even from fellow Christians.
In fact, the National Council of Churches, representing Anglicans, Methodists and Presbyterians, adopted a more moderate position. While Christians consider homosexuality a sin, gay people should not be despised nor discriminated against in jobs, it said.
The difference between the two positions is small, but vital.
One seeks to impose on others its view of what is right and wrong. (X is a sin for all, and therefore anyone who engages in X should be jailed or deprived of jobs, housing or whatever.)
The other group views something as wrong for adherents to its beliefs, but stops short of wanting to ban everyone from doing it. (We consider X a sin, and discourage anyone from doing it. But we cannot impose on others who may not see X as a sin.)
When religious values enter public debate, that distinction is a crucial one to make, to prevent intolerance.
One ongoing issue that polarises public opinion is the proposal to build a casino in Singapore.
The proposal is opposed by the National Council of Churches, the Catholic Church and Pergas, the Singapore Islamic Scholars and Religious Teachers Association.
Each of these groups has issued statements against the proposal - which is a legitimate thing for any citizen to do.
But so far, none has actively mobilised its members to put pressure on the Government or MPs to scrap the proposal. Nor has any group suggested that anyone who frequents a casino should be punished or otherwise shunned.
This is as it should be, for religious groups must be mindful to exercise their influence over their flocks with great care.
Fortunately for Singapore society, they usually mobilise them to do good, such as helping the needy or taking part in worthy national events. The Buddhist Singapore Soka Association, for example, is a regular feature at National Day Parades, mobilising 1,000 people each time.
With their organisational capability, it's a small step from there to mobilising members in order to sway a vote.
But wait, you say. Surely religious groups won't do that?
Well, if online gossip is to be believed, some churches have. There are allegations of churches that mobilised members to support singing contestants in the Singapore Idol contest this year, or the MTV Asia Awards last year.
I have my doubts as to the truth of these allegations. In any case, there's nothing very sinister about mobilising friends - in church or elsewhere - to support you.
The pertinent question here is: Might the day come when a religious leader uses his influence over his flock not only to support a singing contestant, but also to influence a political election? And will Singaporeans accept that?
Some churches here have more than 10,000 members. Not all stay in the estate where the church is based, but probably a number do.
Catholic parishes, for example, draw thousands from a particular neighbourhood. All that translates into potential sway over elections at the constituency level.
I know some of these points may sound far-fetched to Singaporeans used to an iron-curtain divide between religion and politics.
After all, we have a well-defined architecture that promotes religious harmony, including the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, a volunteer-driven Inter-Religious Organisation and a declaration on religious harmony that pledges to keep the state secular and to 'grow our common space while respecting our diversity'.
But as we become a more open, diverse, cosmopolitan society, issues touching on lifestyle choices and morality will emerge.
Singapore's conservative groups, including the religious organisations, will certainly want a say on those issues. Some have the potential to amass electoral clout to make their views count.
Before that day comes, it will be good if Singaporeans can develop some consensus on what is acceptable and what is not when it comes to religious values influencing public issues.
My own view is that so long as Singaporeans can agree to disagree, we'll be able to negotiate potentially polarising issues.
Religious groups can focus on keeping their own house in order (discourage fellow believers from doing something considered immoral), and not throwing stones at the houses of others (prevent others from doing something you consider immoral, but which they think is fine).
As long as that remains the consensus, multiracial, multi-religious Singaporeans can live and let live together.
Posted by Shi Min Tan at 3:38 PM
November 4, 2004
US Election Eye Opener in Kabul
The American elections were a lot smoother than the Afghan elections, reporters in Kabul say. The day Karzai was officially announced president, Bush was waiting for his electoral votes to come in.
For an interesting read on Afghan observations of the US elections and what Americans in the US embassy in Kabul had to say, IWPR offers us this.
I don't necessarily agree with the analysis that John Kerry would have been more committed to Afghanistan, but I think he definitely would have pushed for the much needed expansion of international peacekeepers across the country. As much as too much foreing interference is not good for any sovereign nation, Afghanistan is a weak state still, dependent on US aid, partnership and long term committment. Bush, having exported and spread democracy in the form of one elections may dust his hands and walk away.
Afghans are holding their breath.
US Election Eye-opener in Kabul
Afghan reporters surprised at frank debate between political rivals and high levels of support for the opposition in United States election.
By Wahidullah Amani and Suhaila Muhsini in Kabul (ARR No. 145, 04-Nov-04)
The election atmosphere was almost festive, with people from different sides of the political divide happy to talk about their choice of candidate and why they wanted to see him win.
Two of IWPR’s Afghan reporters who watched the returns coming in were surprised by the frankness with which voters spoke - but then this was the United States presidential election. Both journalists had also covered Afghanistan’s first direct presidential ballot on October 9, and recalled that voters were often reluctant to disclose who they had voted for.
The reporters spent much of November 3 - the day interim president Hamed Karzai was officially declared the winner in the Afghan election - at the American embassy in Kabul, joining US nationals as they watched the early returns from the previous day’s vote.
It was an exercise on comparative politics. To their surprise, the reporters found that most of the Americans they interviewed supported John Kerry, the Democratic candidate, over Republican incumbent George W Bush, and felt that a change of US administration would also be good for Afghanistan.
To cover the story, they had to arrive at the embassy early in the morning to pass through tight security screening. Night still blanketed the city, and after guards checked their names against the roster and let them through, they were led to the embassy cafeteria, opposite the main building.
Inside the cafeteria, two wide-screen televisions were set up in different corners, providing live CNN coverage. Americans, most of them civilians, arrived from all over Kabul to watch the election results unfold. They ate breakfast but their eyes were glued to the screens.
It quickly became clear who most of this unscientifically selected group of Americans supported. Whenever Kerry picked up another state, the audience clapped and shouted. But as Bush started to pull in more votes, the disappointment could be read on their faces, and some broke out in a sweat.
Most interviewees said they supported Kerry, and grew increasingly unhappy with the emerging results.
"Well, from the numbers, it's looking like it will be President Bush, which for me is not a good thing," said Leslie Wilson, from Illinois. She said she voted for Kerry, adding, "I really value the things he values and the messages that he holds. I would be really disappointed if things turn out the way the early signs are. But until the big states report, we can remain hopeful."
Asked whether she thought a Kerry presidency would be better for Afghanistan, Wilson said, "If Kerry does win, I think he will do a thoughtful analysis of how the Bush policy actions have gone, and if he feels there's a need for adjustment - perhaps to continue to try to engage NATO and other nations more - then he will do that."
Scott Braunschweig, from Wisconsin, agreed, "With Bush, the fear is that they will pull troops out of Afghanistan, he'll move on and there'll be another focus. Whereas with Kerry, I think he will be more likely to stay, work with the UN and make sure that we help Afghanistan continue rebuilding."
Asked which candidate was more likely to increase the US military presence in Afghanistan, Braunschweig said, "I don't think with either one there's going to be an increase in troops. If anyone, Kerry's more likely to stay in Afghanistan."
Terry Grace from California said he thought Kerry would reinvigorate US policy toward Afghanistan.
"American foreign policy should take a different approach," he said. "If John Kerry is elected, there will be additional commitments to the reconstruction and to the security of Afghanistan, and the reason is that John Kerry recognises that Afghanistan is essential for democracy in Central Asia. Afghanistan is really a keystone and the great bridge of democracy that America is trying to build in different parts of the world."
Not everyone in the room was a Kerry supporter, however.
Scott Short from Idaho voted for Bush by absentee ballot. "I believe that George Bush … will be able to maintain the direction that we're headed [in]," he said. "I personally believe that it's important for the stability of the programmes that we're working on for the country of Afghanistan and its people."
Short, who works on reconstruction projects, said he would not comment on high-level matters of policy. But he added, "I think there's a tremendous amount of effort by the Coalition forces… to help build those structures that you need to provide security for your own country, and I think every day you see improvement in those areas."
Perhaps the most striking thing from an Afghan reporter’s point of view was the level of technical sophistication in the US election. In Afghanistan, the presidential vote was plagued by logistical and technical problems. The counting process took over 20 days so that on the day of the American election, Afghan voters were still waiting for their own results to be announced.
Another contrast was that Bush and Kerry supporters felt able to criticise each other openly and make confident projections of electoral victory. In Afghanistan, candidates exchanged recriminations, and on election day 15 of them threatened to boycott the process altogether.
Posted by Roya Aziz at 11:36 PM
October 31, 2004
Afghans weigh in on US election
Afghanistan was the first target of President Bush's "War on Terror." On the third anniversary of Operation Enduring Freedom, the country held its first popular election for a head of state. Hamid Karzai — the US picked leader who became chairman of a transitional government after the fall of the Taliban in 2001 — won the controversial election, which gave Bush a foreign policy success story in the run up to his own reelection.
Needless to say, Afghans have a big stake in the US elections, and Afghanistan came up a lot in the debates and during Bush's campaign as *proof* that democracy and freedom are flourishing. Afghanistan is also where the road to Abu Ghraib (prisoner abuses) began.
The US relationship with Afghanistan, or lack of relations, led to Afghan leaders cozying up to the Soviet Union. Afghanistan has always been a rentier state, dependent on international aid. Many Afghans felt betrayed when the US abandoned them in 1989, when the Soviet occupation ended and a civil war shortly followed. My impression is that US foreign policy in Afghanistan has been a failure, and not a success.
* The US armed and financed the same warlords it was glad to have gotten rid of after the civil war ended in 1996, the year the Taliban rose to power. These alliances have kep the central government weak and security and human rights dismal in the country.
*The US repeatedly refused to support the expansion of peacekeepers outside of Kabul, where the warlords' forces reign
*The US financed an election, but has done little to invest in real democracy for Afghanistan. Financial aid to help civil society and basic reconstruction has been insufficient for a country coming out of two decades of war. In fact, President Bush forgot to include Afghanistan in his budget two years ago. Congress came to the rescue. The bulk of the funds have been going to Iraq.
We have an expression in Afghanistan — "One Afghan, three opinions." In this article by journalists from the Institute of War Reporting, you can read for yourself what Afghans think about the US elections. I agree with the university professor quoted toward the end. Whoever wins the US election, he has to review Afghan foreign policy.
IWPR, Afghans speak out on US Vote
Many say they support President Bush because he led to the ouster of the Taleban, but other hope John Kerry might bring about a review of US policies.
By Wahidullah Amani in Kabul (ARR No. 144, 29-Oct-04)
While Afghans may not have a vote in the United States presidential election on November 2, most feel that they and their nation have a stake in its outcome.
When asked whether they supported President Bush or his Democratic rival John Kerry, most said they favoured the incumbent – perhaps not surprising given Bush’s association with the ousting of the Taleban regime.
But many also criticised current US policy towards their country and called for increased military and financial assistance in the future, no matter who is elected.
"Whoever becomes the next American president must continue financial aid, and shouldn't withdraw American forces from Afghanistan," said Mohammad Nazir Arya, 44, who owns the Arya Stationary House in the centre of Kabul.
Asadullah, 23, a Kabul shopkeeper, was worried that if Kerry were elected, he might bring troops home from Afghanistan or cut assistance. Asadullah said be believed Bush was better versed in the issues that affect Afghanistan.
"If George Bush wins the election, it will be Afghanistan's gain," he said.
But, he added, "Whether George Bush or John Kerry wins, American must strengthen its presence, otherwise there will be civil war in Afghanistan.
Daud, 40, of Kabul, says that Bush already has a track record on Afghanistan and it would be for the benefit of Afghanistan if he remains in office.
"It takes some time for a new president to set his new policy, and then he has to implement it," he said. "If our country is used as a laboratory for a new policy, we will pay the price."
"The United States must boost aid to Afghanistan and play a direct role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan - even if it does not give the cash directly to the government of Afghanistan," said Arya.
However, he added, "When peace is secured and the central government extends its control all over Afghanistan, then American forces should be expelled."
Not everyone agreed that a switch of administration would bring about a change in US policies towards Afghanistan.
Abdul Wakil Nayebi, 28, of Baghlan province, said, "In my opinion, US policy will not changed by the upcoming election. Politics and policies toward other countries will remain unchanged."
Nayebi discounted Kerry’s promise to review his country’s policy towards Afghanistan. "I think it’s just a slogan," he said.
Several people interviewed by IWPR supported Kerry.
Abdul Hasib Noori, 30, of Kabul, said a Kerry win would bring positive change in Afghanistan.
"Bush is dictatorial in his approach. He should have opted for a softer approach in Afghanistan," he said. "I oppose Bush's policy toward Afghanistan, and John Kerry may bring some changes in US policy."
Gauhar, 34, a student at Kabul University, said she supported Kerry because he has said that resolving Afghanistan's problems and pursuing al-Qaeda should have been the priority before US attention was directed toward Iraq.
"Instead of rolling up the al-Qaeda carpet from Afghanistan, Bush turned his attention toward Iraq," she said.
Gauhar added that she was not in favour of American forces staying in Afghanistan, but said that, at the moment, there was no other alternative for stability.
"When the government of Afghanistan stands on its own feet, then American forces must leave Afghanistan," she said.
Razia, 26, another student from Kabul University, said she supported Kerry because he did not seem a warlike person.
"I support John Kerry, because Bush is the one who wants to bring other countries under his domination," she said.
Tahira, 36, a student at Kabul University, was more directly critical of Bush's policies in Afghanistan.
"Bush used the pretext of al-Qaeda and terrorism to bomb Afghanistan, and they killed lots of people in some parts of Afghanistan," she said. "Instead of useless bombing, maybe John Kerry will focus on reconstruction which is beneficial for Afghanistan."
Stanekzai, a Kabul University instructor, was critical of US support for powerful Northern Alliance commanders who helped drive the Taleban from power.
"The United States primarily helped the warlords - who were nonentities during the Taliban era - to gain prominence, and even promoted them to key positions in the government," he said.
Stanekzai said it was time for US policy toward Afghanistan to undergo a much-needed review.
"Regardless of who becomes the new president, US tactics, programmes and policies on Afghanistan in the past three years must be reviewed, and mistakes carried out by the Americans must be pointed out and not be repeated in the future," he said. "If Bush wins the election, he will have to review his policies."
Khalid Azam, 25, of Kabul, said the US ignores Afghanistan at its own peril.
"At the moment the current situation in Afghanistan is totally distorted by American politics," said Azam. "Even if Kerry wins the election, he will have to continue Bush's policy. If he doesn't, Afghanistan will once again become a major threat to the United States."
Wahidullah Amani is an IWPR staff reporter in Kabul.
Posted by Roya Aziz at 9:11 PM
October 24, 2004
Political beliefs transcend national boundaries
In thinking about how foreigners view the US Elections, we sometimes make the error of thinking that countries have fairly homogeneous views for or against a particular candidate. This commentary in the Korea Herald points out why the different political divisions within South Korea may favor Bush or Kerry. In particular, the conservatives are likely to support Bush, since both are adherents of the same ideology; likewise for Kerry and his supporters within Korea.
While both candidates recognize the importance of national security, the form of internationalism that Bush advocates is a more forceful and unilateralist approach, while Kerry favors a "multinational internationalism"; in the event of a national threat, Kerry would be likely to seek the support of his main allies, as well as international organizations such as the UN.
Bringing this back to the relevance to Korea, conservatives prefer a more uncompromising policy towards North Korea, while progressives, a more conciliatory policy, which coincide with what Bush and Kerry would adopt respectively.
Post-Poll America in Northeast Asia
[Guest Column]Post-poll America in Northeast Asia
Now, the American presidential candidates have finished their three TV debates, experts and the world's public alike are busy speculating who will win. In South Korea conservatives tend to hope that Bush will stay in office, while progressives are betting on Kerry's election. The conservatives seem to believe Bush would continue to pursue an uncompromising policy toward North Korea, particularly on the North Korean nuclear issue, which they support. The progressives generally believe Kerry would pursue a more conciliatory policy toward North Korea and support South Korea's sunshine policy.
When I served as Korean consul general in Boston between 1989 and 1992, I met Kerry three times: after his speech at the Executive Club of the Boston Chamber of Commerce, a courtesy call at his Boston office, and at a ceremony commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Korean War at the Fenway Veterans Memorial Park in Boston. At the first meeting, I told him he looked like John F. Kennedy and talked like JFK. At that time I did not realize that his initials are also JFK. I was bold enough to suggest he should run for president sometime in the future. During my visit to his office, he criticized South Korea's protectionist economic policy. At the third encounter, he expressed a sincere appreciation for my speech strongly supporting the U.S.-South Korea alliance and U.S. intervention in the Korean War.
In order to find out what kind of policy Bush and Kerry will take toward Northeast Asia and the Korean Peninsula, we should examine their basic positions on international relations. Bush advocates American internationalism. It consists of traditional realism and unilateralism. In other words, the pursuit of American national interests should come before anything else. American national interests include not only national security and economic interests but also the spread of democracy and the free market system. To promote these interests, the United States should impose its will on other nations if they challenge American domination and reject American values. If necessary, the United States should not hesitate to act unilaterally and use force.
Kerry also believes in internationalism, but his internationalism is different. His internationalism is a multilateral internationalism in the sense that the United States should get involved in international issues if it believes its national interests are directly affected or likely to be affected by them, but it should pursue its interests with the support and cooperation of its allies and pertinent international organizations, particularly the United Nations. In this sense, his foreign policy posture is a mixture of realism and idealism.
Their views of international relations will be reflected in Northeast Asia. Kerry will continue Clinton's China policy, which is an engagement policy. He will seek China's cooperation and support of his policy in the world and Asia. At the same time, he will try to strengthen U.S. alliance relationships with Japan and South Korea.
His policy toward North Korea will be based on his foreign policy principle - multinational internationalism. It should be noted that he differentiates his approach to international crises from Bush by saying that America should go to war not because it wants to but because it has to, and not to win the war but to win the peace. In the first presidential debate, both candidates did not preclude preemptive attack as a last resort in dealing with international crises. But they differed on the question of when it should be employed. Bush said that it could be used if U.S. national security is endangered. In contrast, Kerry said that even if U.S. national security is threatened, preemptive attack could be used only when it has passed "a global test." In other words, Kerry believes that unless most nations support a preemptive American attack, the United States should not resort to it. He is much more cautious than Bush concerning the use of force because he says that unless the United States is sure that the use of force will bring about peace, it should not go to war. When both candidates were asked the single most serious issue the United States now faces, Kerry said nuclear proliferation, Bush terrorism.
Considering all these remarks, Kerry is likely to rely on the United Nations in dealing with any future crises in Northeast Asia and the Korean Peninsula. Take a hypothetical situation in the Korean Peninsula: it is discovered that North Korea has experimented with nuclear weapons or exported nuclear materials to hostile nations or terrorist groups. Bush may make a surgical strike without consulting South Korea and the United Nations. Kerry is likely to try to solve the issue through multilateral forums, particularly the United Nations. Concerning the denuclearization of North Korea, both candidates have no difference of opinion. But they differ on the method: Bush for the six-party talks and Kerry for bilateral talks. In other words, Kerry wants to revert to the Clinton approach. But it does not mean that Kerry will ignore the contributions by other concerned parties in view of his multilateralism. He seems to believe direct negotiations are more effective than a multilateral forum as far as the North Korean nuclear issue is concerned. Bush says North Korea will deceive America again if only the two meet, but Kerry believes that the United States will not be deceived again. He also believes that since China itself is opposed to a nuclear North Korea, it has no choice but to help the United States solve the issue.
The conservative-liberal political division in American is reflected in the conservative-liberal (progressive) political division in South Korea. On surface, the divisions in both countries look unbridgeable. Are they really?
Park Sang-seek is the rector of the Graduate Institute of Peace Studies, Kyung Hee University. - Ed.
2004.10.20
Posted by Shi Min Tan at 8:03 AM
October 23, 2004
A different take on US elections, away from hotly debated issues
Commentaries on the US Elections often pick on the issues debated by the different candidates, their positions on these issues and the credibility of the different ways each candidate proposes to solve these problems. Somewhat more overlooked is that the election is after all a political process; while economic and security issues affect the rest of the world, so does the whole process of electing a president in the United States.
Given that the US is often a role model for many things, especially in advocating liberty and democracy, many countries actually do look up to it when developing their political systems at home. Warren Fernandez, the foreign editor of The Straits Times, points out that it is perhaps not coincidental that the Indonesian electoral process for its first direct presidential election had some uncanny semblance to US electoral processes.
While there are lessons to be learnt from the US, such as open debates that take into consideration views of the public, one should be discerning. There are other lessons countries such as Singapore should take away as well -- in particular, not to emulate the flawed campaign finance rules. Overspending on campaigning in this elections has been significant and it has resulted in a massive waste of resources which could perhaps have been used more productively.
Lesson from America: How not to pick a leader
Lesson from America: How not to pick a leader
By Warren Fernandez
Foreign Editor
WITH just 10 days to go before Americans go to the polls on Nov 2, voters are being bombarded by a welter of fiery rhetoric and scary images on their televisions.
In one campaign advertisement by supporters of the Democratic party, a car bursts into an orange fireball, and Iraqis are seen scrambling to evacuate casualties. A voice intones: 'Now, Americans are being kidnapped, held hostage, even beheaded.'
The solution? Simple. Kick Mr George W. Bush out of the White House and the world will be put right, the ad suggests.
Not to be outdone, the Republicans have fired back.
In their 30-second slot, a mother - in slow motion - reaches for a carton of milk as she lovingly watches her husband load their children into a minivan. A voice, hinting of the tragedy that befell the schoolchildren of Beslan in Russia, warns: 'Weakness invites those who would do us harm.' None too subtle message: Vote Mr John Kerry and put your kids at risk.
By election day, both parties and their supporters would have spent a staggering US$1.2 billion (S$2 billion) on such attack ads and efforts to get out the vote for their candidate, according to an independent report published on Thursday.
With the stakes raised so high, candidates and parties have been upping the ante in recent weeks.
Wrote Mr Howard Kurtz, media watcher for the Washington Post: 'In their stump speeches and attack ads, the candidates have moved beyond assailing their opponents' positions and are setting up straw men that they enthusiastically knock down. They are, some analysts say, campaigning against caricatures.'
Just before the series of television debates, for example, the Democratic party contender, Senator John Kerry, unveiled a new 'policy speech' on Iraq.
He charged that the Bush administration had made 'colossal mistakes' in attacking Iraq and its subsequent handling of the situation there.
Several times over the next few days, Senator Kerry would repeat that President Bush had 'taken his eye off the ball' by diverting American troops to Iraq. This resulted in a failure to capture Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden at a supposed showdown in Tora Bora in Afghanistan because the job had been 'outsourced' to Afghan warlords.
It all made for good sound bites and headlines, which the media duly played up.
Never mind that Mr Kerry had previously voted in favour of the use of force against Iraq. Never mind that United States General Tommy Franks would declare in an article this week: 'I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events does not square with reality.'
Similarly, to appease his union base, Mr Kerry has pledged to curb outsourcing, 'review free trade pacts' and 'raise the minimum wage', when leading economists have warned that such measures would hurt the very workers he wants to protect.
This is not to suggest that the Bush team is beyond simplifying the issues to sway voters. Predictably, the Republicans have resorted to those old canards that the 'liberal' senator from Massachusetts would raise taxes, nationalise health care and weaken the nation's defences.
What do American voters make of all the sound bites and fury? Voters remain evenly split, with most polls showing that the debates and ads have had little lasting impact on support for both men.
Being this paper's foreign editor, I dutifully sat through all four presidential and vice-presidential 'showdowns'. After enduring hours of political rhetoric, I was left hardly any wiser about which candidate had better policies from watching the political theatre, or listening to the endless commentaries afterwards.
The wider issue here, however, is this: Just as American Idol has swept the world, are American-style political campaigns coming to a town hall near you?
The idea is not as far-fetched as it might seem. After all, when Indonesia recently refashioned its electoral process for its first direct presidential election, it introduced a series of reforms which seemed straight out of an episode of the television series, The West Wing. These included 'live' debates as well as political advertising on television.
The debates saw candidates fielding questions from a panel, while Indonesian journalists mimicked their American counterparts' rush to declare who 'won' and who 'lost'.
Britain, too, is said to be considering such debates when it goes to the polls next year.
In Singapore, as in some other countries, political advertising is disallowed, as are political videotapes. The country has sought to keep political discussions sober, election campaigns short and spending low.
This way, it avoids the trap of politicians having to devote much of their time to fund raising and horse trading to garner the millions needed to finance their next campaign, rather than tackling issues that will make a difference to voters' lives.
No doubt, this makes for dull politics. Many Singaporeans say they would like to see more political discussions, more openness, better efforts to communicate policies and a more level playing field for all parties contesting the polls.
I don't disagree. But having watched the American electoral process closely this year, I would argue that any move to remake politics in Singapore might draw lessons from the US, not so much on how to pick a leader, but how not to do so.
There are many things American that are admirable, such as its tolerance for divergent views, its openness to new ideas, its welcoming of foreigners and even a general fair-mindedness in its society.
But the long-drawn American presidential selection process - with its flawed campaign finance rules, its tendency to reduce complex issues to simplistic 'sound bites', and its belief that politicians and their proposals can be sold on television like some 'new and improved' detergent or the latest autumn fashion - is not something I would commend.
Singaporeans would do well to guard against political discourse being reduced to glib advertising campaigns, full of catchy sound bites and rhetorical fury that, more often than not, signify nothing.
Posted by Shi Min Tan at 4:36 PM
October 6, 2004
Asia missing from US election debate
In the midst of a barrage of Bush-bashing and Kerry-defending articles, comes a refreshing commentary by Robert W. Radtke, a senior vice-president of the Asia Society, in The Straits Times, which points out that both presidential candidates conveniently left Asia out of their debate.
While foreign policy took the centre-stage in their first debate, the first time since the Vietnam War, both focused their attention on Iraq and the war on terror.
The author highlights that Asia presents both challenges and opportunities. Furthermore, "Home to two-thirds of the world's population, Asia is the most economically dynamic and potentially powerful region in the world. We have to have some skin in the game if we are to remain relevant."
Despite the fact that opportunities abound in Asia, too much attention has been cast on unwelcome threats such as outsourcing in Asia as well as the emerging economic giant, China, and this might explain the absence of Asia in the debate- to prevent fumbling at such a critical moment on these controversial issues.
The Straits Times Commentary, 5 Oct 2004, Asia missing from US election debate
Asia missing from US election debate
By Robert W. Radtke
IN THEIR first debate, United States President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry put foreign policy front and centre. This reflects how, for the first time since the Vietnam War, national and global security issues are higher on the US election agenda than economic concerns, according to a joint policy poll by the Council on Foreign Relations-Pew Research Centre for the People and the Press.
Mr Bush and Mr Kerry are unmistakable about their views on Iraq and the ongoing war on terror.
But what are their plans for addressing other global economic and security trends that will shape the future of the US in the next five to 10 years, most of them emanating from Asia?
How will the US accommodate China's economic, cultural and strategic rise? Where does India fit into the future of Asia's development? How should we address nuclear proliferation while fostering peaceful development in South-east Asia and Central Asia?
The American electorate needs and deserves thoughtful national debate on these matters.
US security will be profoundly affected by domestic unrest in the Philippines and Thailand; warm (and sometimes hot) disputes over Kashmir, Taiwan and on the Korean peninsula; and historic animosity between China and Japan.
The dominant story line of economic progress in China and India is masking these longstanding and dangerous fissures in the region. Preoccupied by Iraq and the Middle East, we have little attention to spare for Asia, let alone capacity to deal with flare-ups there.
This summer, rising oil prices in the US were largely explained as a reaction to supply concerns in Iraq and the Middle East.
True enough - yet a long-term factor driving oil prices is economic growth of China, India and the rest of Asia. According to the US Department of Energy, China accounted for 40 per cent of world oil demand growth over the past four years. That trend is not likely to reverse itself. Future oil consumption for India is expected to grow rapidly.
Yet in this election year, even with oil at around US$50 (S$85) a barrel, there is no serious discussion yet of the implications of these trends for US energy security.
Rising commodity prices are driven by the same underlying trend. India and China will need more and more raw products to sustain growth and to satisfy domestic demand for better food, housing, and goods. What will happen to the prices of agricultural products, minerals and just about everything else we consume?
Not all of this is bad news for the US. Indeed, some of it is very good news. We have or produce many of the things that China, India and the rest of Asia need and will increasingly buy as their per capita incomes rise. Some estimates put China as the US' largest trading partner within five years, surpassing Canada.
But we are far from prepared to take advantage of this opportunity.
Public discussion on economic growth in Asia mostly focuses on outsourcing, not on engaging the potentially huge market for US goods and services.
Asia is developing on its own track without sustained US attention. Perhaps Asia will successfully manage security matters on its own while it builds up intra-Asia trade links at a quickening pace. But at what cost to US relevance and influence in the region?
To be on the sidelines of security and economic developments in Asia and not at the forefront of shaping them is disastrous for our national interest in the long run.
Home to two-thirds of the world's population, Asia is the most economically dynamic and potentially powerful region in the world. We have to have some skin in the game if we are to remain relevant.
How will the US under a President Kerry or President Bush approach the challenges and opportunities that Asia presents? That question deserves asking and answering before Nov 2.
The writer is a senior vice-president of the Asia Society. These are his personal views.
Posted by Shi Min Tan at 11:10 PM
September 27, 2004
Plain words from the Philippine
Few information on the US found in traditional foreign media is surprising. The sources remain widely the same and everybody seems to follow the same agenda. But the tone may change substantially.
The following examples are taken from an editorial published on September 26th in The Philippine Daily Inquirer. It deals with President's Bush speach at the United Nations and how well his administration is doing there.
For the newspaper: "The sad truth is, Iraq today is capable only of inspiring fear: fear that American stubbornness and stupidity will make the volatile Middle East even more unstable, and terror-stricken nations even more unsafe."
As for the President himself: "He was lying through his teeth, before an audience familiar with both his lies and the conventions of lying. They saw through him."
The Philippine Daily Inquirer (Manila) - Bush at the UN
Posted by Francis Pisani at 11:47 AM