Posted on 03/26/2004 1:03:36 AM PST by kattracks
If elected President of the United States, will John Kerry offer the Arabs a better deal? This is the question being raised in the Arab media these days. And, despite the many different answers given, a consensus seems to be emerging that a Kerry presidency will end what the Arab élite regards as "its worst nightmare" during the presidency of George W. Bush.
The Kerry debate was kicked off by the Saudi daily Al Jazeera, which published a photograph of the Massachusetts senator with Prince Bandar bin Sultan Al Saud, the Saudi Ambassador in Washington, on its front page. The photograph was later run by several other Saudi newspapers to illustrate what they claimed is "the history of a long and close friendship between Senator Kerry and the Saudi kingdom."
The pan-Arab daily Asharq Al Awsat, which also ran the "friendship photo," claimed that Kerry's recent promise to end the America's dependency on Saudi oil was nothing more than an electoral tactic by the Democrat Party's presumed presidential nominee.
The newspaper also claimed that Kerry was introduced to the Saudi ambassador by Edward Kennedy, the senior senator for Massachusetts in 1990. The two "worked hard" to organize an exhibition in Boston to introduce "Saudi culture and civilisation" to Americans.
The Saudi media also claim that they have seen "official documents" that testify to the "close friendship" that Kerry ostensibly developed with Riyadh for more than a decade. Kennedy's "Arab connection" is even older, dating back to the mid-1970s.
Presidential nomination
In 1976 Kennedy, with an eye to his party's presidential nomination, toured several Arab capitals, including Baghdad where he met Saddam Hussain, then Vice-President of Iraq.
"Kennedy understands the Arabs because he has visited the region and developed relations with Arab leaders," says a Saudi official. "As the senior figure of the Democrat Party, Kennedy will help put a Kerry administration on the right track with regards to relations with the Arabs."
Beyond Saudi Arabia, the assumption in Arab media and political circles is that Kerry as president will abandon Bush's "dreams of change" in the Middle East and restore Washington's traditional policy of support for the status quo in the Arab world.
"We are certain that a Democrat administration will be more realistic," says a senior advisor to Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak. "Bush's talk of imposing democracy can only destabilise the region and produce catastrophe for all concerned."
Arab chancelleries are doing all they can to freeze all issues pending the outcome of the American presidential election. Some Arab politicians, however, reject this "wait-and-see" position as "a sign of weakness."
"For decades, we have geared Arab politics to the rhythm of American presidential elections," says Lebanese politician Walid Jumbalat. "Each time we deluded ourselves into believing that a change at the White House would lead to a change in our favour."
Jumbalat is right. The Deus ex-machina of American elections has seldom helped save the Arab from a tight spot.
Fail to understand
Many Arab leaders also fail to understand the sea-change that the September 11, 2001, tragedy has produced in the average American's view of the world. What Bush has tried to do is to reflect that change, which, incidentally, goes against his original inclination to keep the U.S. as clear of international affairs as possible.
Today, it is safe to say that no one can get elected president of the U.S. on an antiwar platform. The rise and rapid fall of Howard Dean, the anti-war populist, was a sure sign of that. Congressman Kucinich, the most ardent of the antiwar hopefuls, has failed to rise above the one per cent level in Democrat Party primaries.
The Arabs should not delude themselves into believing that a Democrat administration will be able to abandon the war on terror or ignore its root cause which is the absence of democracy and human rights in countries where religious fascism has established itself as the key challenger to often corrupt and despotic ruling cliques.
The Arabs are not alone in deluding themselves into believing that a Democrat at the White House will let them do as they please. Kerry's recent claim that he has been told by several foreign leaders that they need him to beat Bush is not as fanciful as the Republicans have pretended.
Some "old Europe" politicians, including France's President Jacques Chirac, also hope that a future President John Kerry will dance to their tune, not only on Iraq but also on a string of other issues such as the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court.
Dominique de Villepin, France's foreign minister, makes no secret of his belief that the Bush presidency has been an "aberration" and that a Democrat president will "lift the fog of war."
A glance at America's relatively short history reveals that the Democrats have been the principal war party. The 1812 war, the first major military confrontation the then newly-created U.S. engaged in, was provoked by a Democrat administration.
In the Mexican War it was a Democrat, President James K Polk, that sent American troops into battle in the face of diplomatic efforts to avoid war. The U.S. joined both world wars under Democrat presidents. The Cold War, the Korean War and the Vietnam War were also started by Democrats. In 1962, it was John Kennedy, a Democrat President, who brought the world to the brink of annihilation over the Cuban missile crisis.
Even President Bill Clinton, the last man one would imagine as a war leader, led the U.S. into military action in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, both times without a UN mandate.
More interestingly, of the 22 wars, big and small, in which the U.S. became involved under Democrat presidents, all but one were what one may call wars of choice. The sole exception was World War II, when the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour left President Franklin D. Roosevelt with no choice but to enter the foray. Even in the World War I the U.S. could have stayed on the ringside.
The Republicans, however, had always acted as the party that ended the wars started by the Democrats. Apart from the Civil War, started by President Abraham Lincoln, the Republicans have been responsible for only three wars: the first Gulf War to liberate Kuwait, and the latest wars to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan and end Saddam Hussain's reign of terror in Iraq. (Some historians add the American-Spanish war to the list because it was conducted by the Whigs and Federalists who are regarded as precursors of the Republican Party).
American stand-up comedians often use the adage: "Vote Republican to get a Depression, vote Democrat to get a war!"
What the outside world must understand is that most Americans now believe that they are threatened by enemies that can strike in the very heart of the U.S.
Different reaction
But the average American's reaction is quite different from that of the average Spaniard, who changed his vote because of the terrorist attacks on Madrid on March 11. Few Americans are prepared to turn the other cheek for Osama bin Laden and societies that have helped breed, raise and finance him. Nor would they share the "old-Europe" illusion that one can change the nature of a man-eater by feeding him vegetables and cuddling him.
Kerry and Kennedy may be "sincere friends of the Arabs" as the Saudi media suggest. It is also quite possible that Monsieur de Villepin told Kerry "you've got to beat Bush for all of us."
But the problem that Arabs and some in the "old-Europe" have is that they do not yet understand that, for a majority of Americans, the war on terror is a real war and not a pose that could be altered with a change of administration.
But the 72 virgins kept losing their eligibility.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.