this is hot from the editor's desk at 'The Nation,' an independent english-language newspaper based in Bangkok, Thailand. if you wanted to know an international perspective on the U.S. elections, then read ahead. if not, then it won't hurt to spend 4 minutes of your precious precious free time to skim through this editorial; i promise to be nice to you. you may or may not agree with what he states, but who said that opinions don't matter?
so, yay thailand; we up in this mutha.
---
REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE: Why John Kerry is the better candidate
Published on November 01, 2004
I wish I could vote in the US presidential election tomorrow. Doubtless my choice would be John Kerry. Whoever becomes the next US president will matter a lot to the people of Asia, because his leadership will have large repercussions on our lives here, more than we can imagine.
We can easily look back and take stock of the extraordinary changes that have take place since 2000. For me, a vote for Bush is a vote for more violence and more anti-Americanism and therefore a more dangerous world.
Conversely, a vote for Kerry is a vote for a more humble America that is willing to listen and mend fences. An America that is not hated overseas will make the world safer. An America that is at peace with itself will bring peace to the world.
Unfortunately, this is the choice that the American people have to make, and it is theirs alone. Never before has the electoral choice in a country been so closely scrutinised and prayed for internationally. As a Thai who follows closely President George W Bush's foreign policy, I wish him well and hope he languishes at his farm in Texas. I mean it.
Nothing personal, but he is too dangerous to the future world. It is just the way he thinks. The way he sees global politics and its operational mechanisms makes him unfit to be the leader of the world's most powerful nation. The US, he contends, can do anything it sees fit to fight terrorism.
American exceptionalism, the act of distinguishing the US from the rest of the world, has been more frequently invoked by the Bush team than by any past administration. This mind set views the world as a hostile place for the American people because the justice and protections guaranteed by the US constitution are not universal. But there are other reasons why the US needs a new leader.
First, every time I watch Bush speak, especially during the war in Iraq and its aftermath, I become upset. His body language is very vulgar. He likes to lean forward with his left arm resting on the edge of the podium whenever he refers to American fire-power. When he says he will kill more terrorists, he raises his eyebrows. Foreigners who watch CNN or the BBC immediately feel offended because of this aggressive body language. Indeed Bush himself has generated anti-Americanism with such gestures.
He has made people around the world dislike the United States, an accomplishment that no past president can claim. To re-elect him would mean more of the same, and in some cases the effects could be worse. Bush has said the war on terrorism will continue with a vengeance, no matter what. That could be lethal to everyone.
Second, Kerry knows better the scope and consequences of the uses of American power. He was in Vietnam. He also knows what a friendly American can do with lots of help from friends around the world. This quality alone should inspire American voters to pick Kerry.
The Americans should have realised by now that there is a strong link between their homeland safety and US policies abroad. Bush's claim that he will make America safe from terrorism is rather pompous given the level of anti-American sentiment he has created.
In a globalised world, how can the United States be safe if the rest of the world dislikes it for whatever reason? It is difficult to make a country safe if it insists on the unilateral use of force to solve its problems.
Third, although in the past three years the US has been very close to Southeast Asia because it is considered a second front in the fight against terrorism, I still think a Kerry presidency would be good for Southeast Asia.
Under Bush, the US has placed a premium price on the campaign against terrorism. Everything has been framed by this campaign. Bush is lucky to have General Colin Powell as his diplomatic front man. Without him, The US' image and position in the region would be worse than it is.
Powell has become the only US secretary of state never to have missed an Asean-related meeting. He has attended both the Asean Post Ministerial Conference (PMC) and the Asean Regional Forum. That alone has won him admiration and respect in the region. He even sang and danced at a PMC party.
If Kerry wins, he must pick a Powell clone. Certainly it will be hard to find someone to fill his shoes. Just imagine a Colin Powell-like secretary of state working for a friendlier and wiser president. That would be a grand asset for the American people.
Fourth, I am sure Kerry would be able to establish a personal rapport with Southeast Asian leaders, unlike Bush. Former president Bill Clinton was exemplary when it came to building personal relations. I remember when he met former prime minister Chuan Leekpai at the White House.
They were more than just national leaders meeting for a photo-op. That was a meeting of minds and of friends. Clinton's decision to waive fines over Thailand's delayed payment for American jet fighters demonstrated how close personal relations between national leaders can end up. Bush was able to establish a rapport with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. But that was it. Has he established a good rapport with any leader in Asean? Certainly not with Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Bilateral ties between Thailand and the United States have been reduced to deal-making exercises.
Fifth, with Kerry the US could review its wrong-headed policies, especially those having to do with conflicts in the Middle East and in the Muslim world. Bush, on the other hand, would continue to use force and court dictators or potential dictators who are tough on terrorism and willing to adopt the US agenda. Friendships based on distorted vision have strengthened the hands of dictators around the world.
Finally, Kerry would surely seek changes in immigration law. I was in London recently, and it took me less than one minute - I repeat less than one minute - to pass through immigration. "How many days are you here for?" asked an officer. "Just three," I relied. "Why don't you stay longer?" he said. "Have fun," he said, bidding me farewell. That was it.
Confident nations assign immigration officers who do not threaten and insult incoming foreigners. These days, visitors entering the US, especially in Los Angeles, are likely be greeted by an immigration official whose face bears the following message: Could you not come to America? We are fine on our own. Go away.
For an ordinary foreigner, a snappy and unpretentious first encounter at an immigration booth turns into peace dividends. It is the kind of goodwill capital that any country should seek to accumulate, because it makes people feel good and want to return.
Post your comment to this story here
editorial and opinions stated are © 2004 Nation Multimedia Group
44 Moo 10 Bang Na-Trat KM 4.5,
Bang Na district, Bangkok 10260
Thailand
Tel 66-2-325-5555 ext 2457 or fax 66-2-317-2071
---
there's still time to have your voice heard.
let's get to them awaited polls america, and remove bush from the white house.
---
No comments:
Post a Comment