Bush or Kerry?

Ali Gunertem
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Iraq’s current status implies that the New World Order, which started on September 11, 2001, has an unknown future. The U.S. is trying to prove to the civilized the new world order of its own by using military power.
In the 1990s the U.S. shaped the world by economic power. It adopted a new system and methodology in the new millennium. This shift is due to the change in domestic politics and the resulting conservative policies. Before the 2004 presidential elections, the Americans are evenly divided. Liberals and conservatives are separated under opposite camps, while the presidential candidates are trying to win the favor of the remaining 10% of voters by claiming that the way to prosperity leads through their respective names. We, and other capitals of the world, are watching the candidates and trying to figure out, “Bush or Kerry?”

If President Bush, Sr. had been reelected in1992, Saddam Hussein would have been toppled within a year. At that time, President Bush did not embark on this initiative and chose to enter the elections with the winds of the Gulf War victory. Despite the high popularity of 70% in summer 1991, the economic agenda gained importance and Bill Clinton won the elections. Clinton’s international policy leveraged economic power rather than military might and utilized the “globalization” concept to eliminate economic barriers.

During this process, America’s Iraq policy did not change. Clinton worked hard to topple Saddam by engineering an internal coup d'état. He imposed an embargo and bombed the country when necessary. This attitude was in fact the implementation of the same American policy in a different manner. During Bill Clinton’s tenure, the conservative right, which is in power today, kept on sending letters to the president, urging him to take a harsher stance towards Iraq. These letters were signed by the members of the current Bush cabinet. Several best-seller books demonstrate plainly that the Bush administration’s Iraq agenda goes way behind September 11. To this date, the administration did not claim that these arguments are untrue.

Bush or Kerry? The election will not make a big difference in the Iraq policy, but the method will shift for sure. If Kerry wins, a wider international alliance will become more actively involved in Iraq. New business opportunities will be awarded to the new participants in the alliance. In parallel, the United Nations will have a more active role. The U.S. made significant mistakes in its Iraq policy. However, the process is likely to continue and the US will stay in Iraq for a long time. What’s happening in Saudi Arabia shows that the U.S. will leave there as fast as it can. In other words. Iraq will become the second Saudi Arabia for the US.

One danger that the U.S. might face in the future is the conservative side, which is now fighting against terrorism and radical Islam, potentially turning the U.S. into an unlivable place for immigrants like us. The current discussion in Washington around the Patriot Act is in fact a critical point in the Bush-or-Kerry question.  The Act, which imposes restrictions on individual liberties and makes life more difficult for foreigners, will be implemented more easily if Bush is elected. The U.S. will become more conservative and continue to show its military might to the rest of the world for some time. Roots of a future global danger will grow during that time.

(June 2004, 13th Issue)

Last modified onSaturday, 06 May 2017 10:07