Tweet
The Guardian, UK
29 Oct. 2004
Middle East sees benefits of Bush
There is surprising support for a second Bush term in Iran and the Arab
world, writes Brian Whitaker
Friday October 29, 2004
President Bush's election campaign received support from an unusual
quarter last week when Hasan Rowhani, head of the Iranian Supreme
National Security Council, said that four more years of George W would
be good for Iran. Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, was asked
about the Bush-Kerry contest at a meeting with journalists a couple of
weeks ago (before he was taken ill) and replied: "It makes no
difference."
In London, the consensus among Arab ambassadors - though they don't say
so publicly - is that keeping Bush in the White House would be
preferable to starting afresh with Kerry.
Such views are probably not what most people would expect to hear. Bush
denounced Iran in his famous "axis of evil" speech and has been making
hostile noises about it ever since. He has cold-shouldered Arafat and
more or less washed his hands of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
More generally, as far as the Arab world is concerned, he has spared no
effort to make himself the most unpopular American president ever.
Disliking Bush is one thing, but working up enthusiasm for Kerry is
another - and there's little sign of that in the Middle East. What
interests Arabs most is America's attitude towards the Palestinian
people. Although the US under a President Kerry might be expected to
re-engage in the peace process, Kerry's emphatically-declared support
for Israel does not inspire Arabs with hopes of an even-handed
approach.
Also pointing in Bush's favour is the popular Arab view that
second-term American presidents are better placed to take a firm line
with Israel than first-term presidents. The theory is that in their
second term they no longer need to please the Israeli lobby in the US
because they cannot seek re-election again. Although the examples of
Jimmy Carter and George Bush Sr tend to disprove this theory, it's
widely believed nevertheless. Bush gains, too, from the argument that
says it's best to stay with the devil you know. Arab politicians and
diplomats are fond of the status quo (look how long most of them have
had their jobs) and, after four years adjusting to life under Bush,
they would rather not embark on a new learning curve now with Kerry.
Advertiser links
More Th>N Car Insurance
Switch to More Th>N and save £90 on average. Buying online...
morethan.com
its4me Insurance Less Money More Service
Your quote instantly from its4me's leading insurers....
its4me-insurance.co.uk
Car Insurance for over 35s
Are you over 35? Looking for more affordable car insurance?...
insure.co.uk
In any case, the influential Egyptian daily, al-Ahram, sees no
substantial difference between Bush and Kerry, and has declared its
support for Ralph Nader (of Lebanese descent), describing him as the
only candidate who "responds to Arab-American interests and positions
on Palestine, Iraq, civil liberties and world-wide respect for
international law".
While agreeing that there may be little difference between Bush and
Kerry on Israeli-Palestinian policy, Albert Aghazerian, a
Palestinian-Armenian historian, detects a difference in their general
attitude.
"It's a difference regarding people who have taken it upon themselves
to act as if they are the liberators of the world," he said in an
interview with the web magazine Bitter Lemons. "For all his faults, I
don't think Kerry will ignore the lessons that we have learnt
throughout history. The Bush people think they have a self-righteous
justification to go and change the course of things. This messianic
spirit, I think, is less in Kerry than it is in Bush ... I believe that
Bush has broken the basic rules of common sense ... it has to do with
this messianic approach."
Bush's messianic view, some argue, will bring more polarisation in the
Middle East if he gets a second term, simultaneously benefiting the
most impatient reformers and the Islamist militants: the reformers will
be encouraged by continuing US pressure on Arab regimes, while al-Qaida
and its likes will look to Bush for further help with their recruiting.
There are various other sectional interests that could gain from
keeping Bush in the White House. Bush's relaxed environmental policies
benefit the oil-producing countries (as do the current high oil
prices). Bush is less likely than Kerry to trouble Arab governments
with complaints about human rights, so long as they continue to fight
terrorism, and there are many Lebanese who welcome American efforts to
stop Syria interfering in Lebanon's affairs.
As far as Iraq and the presidential election is concerned, the most
Machiavellian view was set out recently in the Jordan Times. On the
assumption that the war is unwinnable, the writer suggested that
electing Kerry now will allow the neoconservatives to blame him for
American failure in Iraq and to insist that everything would have
worked out fine if only Bush had been given a bit longer:
"Many on the American right still believe that the Vietnam war could
have been won if only the spineless traitors of the left had not
weakened American 'resolve' - and they say this even though Richard
Nixon, who was elected on a promise to end the Vietnam war and presided
over the whole latter phase of it, was a Republican. What could they do
with a lost war on a Democratic president's watch?"
Far better, then, to keep Bush in power and make him reap the
whirlwind. The Iraq quagmire may also explain why Hasan Rowhani and
some other Iranian officials (though not, by any means, all of them)
would like Bush to have a second term. So long as the US is bogged down
in Iraq, it cannot seriously contemplate toppling the regime in Iran -
or, for that matter, in Syria. Prospects for the US remaining bogged
down look rather better under Bush than Kerry.
Some in the Iranian government also think Bush has begun to realise
that his hostile policies towards Iran are unlikely to succeed and is
therefore likely to adopt a more realistic approach if elected for a
second term. If the dominant view of the Bush-Kerry contest in the
Middle East is one of overwhelming cynicism, the picture among
Arab-Americans - who do, after all, have a say in the outcome - is
rather different.
Despite Bush's effort to woo them with a with a message of greetings
for Ramadan ("Americans who practise the Islamic faith enrich our
society ... Laura joins me in sending our best wishes"), they
overwhelmingly support Kerry.
A recent poll of Arab-American voters in four of the states where they
are most numerous - Michigan, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania - showed
54% backing Kerry and only 28% backing Bush, with the rest undecided or
supporting Nader.
Arab Americans, though, have different priorities from Arabs in the
Middle East. For them, the most important factor in deciding who to
vote for is the American economy, followed by terrorism/national
security, according to the poll. Iraq came fourth in their list of
important issues, and Israeli-Palestinian issues only eighth.
The poll was conducted by Zogby International, a Washington-based firm
whose boss, James Zogby, is himself an Arab American and also a
supporter of the Democrats.
In an article for al-Ahram Weekly he explained last week why he would
be voting for Kerry.
"The last four years have had a devastating effect on our nation," he
wrote. "They have tested our national unity and our sense of mission.
The Bush administration has pursued domestic and foreign policies that
have been both neglectful and reckless. Because of reckless tax cuts a
record surplus was turned into record deficits."
Turning to the benefits of electing Kerry and his running-mate John
Edwards, he continued: "Whatever differences I may have with them, I
know that they will pursue diplomacy over unilateral military
pre-emption. They can be better trusted to find a way out of Iraq than
the arrogant crew that got us into that mess in the first place.
"They will protect our civil liberties ... and they will make the
pursuit of an Israeli-Palestinian peace a priority rather than a
neglected afterthought."
Optimistic words. But we shall have to wait a few more days to see if
Kerry gets a chance to prove them wrong or right.
--Boundary_(ID_r5IFOEESZiX9yzPOx8TCsA)--
29 Oct. 2004
Middle East sees benefits of Bush
There is surprising support for a second Bush term in Iran and the Arab
world, writes Brian Whitaker
Friday October 29, 2004
President Bush's election campaign received support from an unusual
quarter last week when Hasan Rowhani, head of the Iranian Supreme
National Security Council, said that four more years of George W would
be good for Iran. Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, was asked
about the Bush-Kerry contest at a meeting with journalists a couple of
weeks ago (before he was taken ill) and replied: "It makes no
difference."
In London, the consensus among Arab ambassadors - though they don't say
so publicly - is that keeping Bush in the White House would be
preferable to starting afresh with Kerry.
Such views are probably not what most people would expect to hear. Bush
denounced Iran in his famous "axis of evil" speech and has been making
hostile noises about it ever since. He has cold-shouldered Arafat and
more or less washed his hands of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
More generally, as far as the Arab world is concerned, he has spared no
effort to make himself the most unpopular American president ever.
Disliking Bush is one thing, but working up enthusiasm for Kerry is
another - and there's little sign of that in the Middle East. What
interests Arabs most is America's attitude towards the Palestinian
people. Although the US under a President Kerry might be expected to
re-engage in the peace process, Kerry's emphatically-declared support
for Israel does not inspire Arabs with hopes of an even-handed
approach.
Also pointing in Bush's favour is the popular Arab view that
second-term American presidents are better placed to take a firm line
with Israel than first-term presidents. The theory is that in their
second term they no longer need to please the Israeli lobby in the US
because they cannot seek re-election again. Although the examples of
Jimmy Carter and George Bush Sr tend to disprove this theory, it's
widely believed nevertheless. Bush gains, too, from the argument that
says it's best to stay with the devil you know. Arab politicians and
diplomats are fond of the status quo (look how long most of them have
had their jobs) and, after four years adjusting to life under Bush,
they would rather not embark on a new learning curve now with Kerry.
Advertiser links
More Th>N Car Insurance
Switch to More Th>N and save £90 on average. Buying online...
morethan.com
its4me Insurance Less Money More Service
Your quote instantly from its4me's leading insurers....
its4me-insurance.co.uk
Car Insurance for over 35s
Are you over 35? Looking for more affordable car insurance?...
insure.co.uk
In any case, the influential Egyptian daily, al-Ahram, sees no
substantial difference between Bush and Kerry, and has declared its
support for Ralph Nader (of Lebanese descent), describing him as the
only candidate who "responds to Arab-American interests and positions
on Palestine, Iraq, civil liberties and world-wide respect for
international law".
While agreeing that there may be little difference between Bush and
Kerry on Israeli-Palestinian policy, Albert Aghazerian, a
Palestinian-Armenian historian, detects a difference in their general
attitude.
"It's a difference regarding people who have taken it upon themselves
to act as if they are the liberators of the world," he said in an
interview with the web magazine Bitter Lemons. "For all his faults, I
don't think Kerry will ignore the lessons that we have learnt
throughout history. The Bush people think they have a self-righteous
justification to go and change the course of things. This messianic
spirit, I think, is less in Kerry than it is in Bush ... I believe that
Bush has broken the basic rules of common sense ... it has to do with
this messianic approach."
Bush's messianic view, some argue, will bring more polarisation in the
Middle East if he gets a second term, simultaneously benefiting the
most impatient reformers and the Islamist militants: the reformers will
be encouraged by continuing US pressure on Arab regimes, while al-Qaida
and its likes will look to Bush for further help with their recruiting.
There are various other sectional interests that could gain from
keeping Bush in the White House. Bush's relaxed environmental policies
benefit the oil-producing countries (as do the current high oil
prices). Bush is less likely than Kerry to trouble Arab governments
with complaints about human rights, so long as they continue to fight
terrorism, and there are many Lebanese who welcome American efforts to
stop Syria interfering in Lebanon's affairs.
As far as Iraq and the presidential election is concerned, the most
Machiavellian view was set out recently in the Jordan Times. On the
assumption that the war is unwinnable, the writer suggested that
electing Kerry now will allow the neoconservatives to blame him for
American failure in Iraq and to insist that everything would have
worked out fine if only Bush had been given a bit longer:
"Many on the American right still believe that the Vietnam war could
have been won if only the spineless traitors of the left had not
weakened American 'resolve' - and they say this even though Richard
Nixon, who was elected on a promise to end the Vietnam war and presided
over the whole latter phase of it, was a Republican. What could they do
with a lost war on a Democratic president's watch?"
Far better, then, to keep Bush in power and make him reap the
whirlwind. The Iraq quagmire may also explain why Hasan Rowhani and
some other Iranian officials (though not, by any means, all of them)
would like Bush to have a second term. So long as the US is bogged down
in Iraq, it cannot seriously contemplate toppling the regime in Iran -
or, for that matter, in Syria. Prospects for the US remaining bogged
down look rather better under Bush than Kerry.
Some in the Iranian government also think Bush has begun to realise
that his hostile policies towards Iran are unlikely to succeed and is
therefore likely to adopt a more realistic approach if elected for a
second term. If the dominant view of the Bush-Kerry contest in the
Middle East is one of overwhelming cynicism, the picture among
Arab-Americans - who do, after all, have a say in the outcome - is
rather different.
Despite Bush's effort to woo them with a with a message of greetings
for Ramadan ("Americans who practise the Islamic faith enrich our
society ... Laura joins me in sending our best wishes"), they
overwhelmingly support Kerry.
A recent poll of Arab-American voters in four of the states where they
are most numerous - Michigan, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania - showed
54% backing Kerry and only 28% backing Bush, with the rest undecided or
supporting Nader.
Arab Americans, though, have different priorities from Arabs in the
Middle East. For them, the most important factor in deciding who to
vote for is the American economy, followed by terrorism/national
security, according to the poll. Iraq came fourth in their list of
important issues, and Israeli-Palestinian issues only eighth.
The poll was conducted by Zogby International, a Washington-based firm
whose boss, James Zogby, is himself an Arab American and also a
supporter of the Democrats.
In an article for al-Ahram Weekly he explained last week why he would
be voting for Kerry.
"The last four years have had a devastating effect on our nation," he
wrote. "They have tested our national unity and our sense of mission.
The Bush administration has pursued domestic and foreign policies that
have been both neglectful and reckless. Because of reckless tax cuts a
record surplus was turned into record deficits."
Turning to the benefits of electing Kerry and his running-mate John
Edwards, he continued: "Whatever differences I may have with them, I
know that they will pursue diplomacy over unilateral military
pre-emption. They can be better trusted to find a way out of Iraq than
the arrogant crew that got us into that mess in the first place.
"They will protect our civil liberties ... and they will make the
pursuit of an Israeli-Palestinian peace a priority rather than a
neglected afterthought."
Optimistic words. But we shall have to wait a few more days to see if
Kerry gets a chance to prove them wrong or right.
--Boundary_(ID_r5IFOEESZiX9yzPOx8TCsA)--