Why the world wants Senator Kerry to beat President Bush

The majority of people across the world have been so adversely affected by the policies of the Bush administration that they have no stomach for President Bush continuing another four years in the White House. Although it is the American voters who will decide the result of the election, it is an interesting read.

Canada's Quebec-based La Paase took this bold initiative. It required the project partners to run identical polls in mid-to-late September to gauge public views towards the upcoming election. Across most of the countries, including Australia, opinion towards the Bush administration has deteriorated. Most importantly, despite Bush's ally John Howard winning the recent election in Australia with increased seats in parliament, most people have shown thumbs down to the Bush administration.

Among the 10 countries, namely, Canada, France, Britain, Spain, Russia, Japan, Australia, Mexico, Israel and South Korea, only a majority of Israelis supported the Bush administration's "gung-ho" policy in dealing with the war on terrorism. This sharply contrasts with response in other countries.

In Canada, 64 per cent said their attitude had worsened and Canada is the US's neighbour. 70 per cent of French people, 50 of British nationals, 74 of Japanese, 67 of South Koreans, and 55 per cent of Australians opposed the Bush administration. The public dissatisfaction has been linked principally over the unprovoked attack against Iraq under the pretext of fighting the war on terrorism.

The poll also shows that almost 3 in every 4 persons believe that the US has too much influence on world affairs. The result is interesting: 86 per cent of Canadians, 73 per cent of Britons, 66 per cent of Mexicans and 87 per cent of South Koreans have answered yes.

The poll did not include Muslim-majority countries. If these countries were included, one suspects that the overwhelming majority would have given adverse response with respect to the policies of the Bush administration.

The question is why the majority of people across the globe show hostility towards the Bush administration. Some of the reasons deserve mention:

First, the Bush administration has been considered by many the most ideological administration to ever occupy the White House in its history. It has put the world upside down for every one. No one can travel safely without fear or insecurity. Suspicion and fear overwhelms their day to day life.

The policy on the war on terrorism appears to be based on doctrine of "might is right" and that the belief that military power can resolve all the problems. This right-wing myopic policy is run by a group of die herd neo-conservatives who perceive the world waiting for the "right wing revolution" as viewed by them.

Second, the Atlantic alliance, built after the Second World War with Europe by President Harry Truman, is in crisis. The major European powers do not see eye to eye with the Bush administration. These powers ( France and Germany) were humiliated by unnecessary comments by the senior officials of the Bush administration just because they did not agree with the US in launching war on Iraq without UN approval.

It is noted that in June, 2000, President Clinton underscored the importance of the transatlantic unity when he said: "European Union is a matter of the utmost importance, not just to Europeans, but to everyone on this planet ... History teaches that European Union, not to mention transatlantic unity, must come from the considered judgment of free people and must be for worthy purposes that when threatened must be defended."

What President Bush did is just the opposite. He fractured the transatlantic unity so gravely that this year when President Bush addressed the UN General Assembly on September 21, the French President left the UN building, obviously not to listen to President Bush. This is a litmus test of the souring of relations between the US and major European powers.

Third, virtually every reason President Bush gave for going to war in Iraq has been discredited. Senator Kennedy in April of this year said: "Truth is the first casualty of war. But this administration's dubious and devious behaviour is not limited to questions of war and peace. It is a part of a pattern that has been demonstrated again and again in the President's handling of policy, at home as well as abroad. Saying whatever it takes to prevail has become standard operating procedure in the Bush White House. In this administration, truth is the first casualty of policy."

Fourth, critics to the Bush administration say that the Iraqi war is a wrong war against wrong enemy. As former White House anti-terrorism chief and a White House insider for 10 years claimed in his book Against All Enemies, President Bush, by unnecessarily attacking Iraq, undermined the war on terror and strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic movement worldwide

The US went into Vietnam and Iraq confident that its vastly more sophisticated and powerful military would quickly overwhelm the military forces pitted against them. Instead, there is the prospect of renewed, increasingly and lengthy guerrilla war in Iraq. Iraqi resistance fighters, like the Vietcong and North Vietnamese, are putting US military forces in an un-winnable situation. General Casey the head of the US forces in Iraq has admitted that he has been surprised at strength of Iraqi resistance.

Fifth, the promise of a new world order of "freedom and democracy" has turned out to be illusory. Nothing has changed in the governance of countries in the Middle East. In fact the Middle East countries rejected the idea of "freedom and democracy" from the White House to be imposed upon them. Iraqi war has rather destabilised other countries in the region and some analysts say that this provided an opportunity for the authorities in the Middle East countries to curb civil liberties of their citizens in the name of war on terrorism.

Amnesty International in 2003 published a report accusing the world's wealthiest countries of arming some of the worst abusers of human rights, despite their assurances to the contrary. The US alone accounted for 28 per cent of the global arms transfer. Critics point out while the Bush administration advocate loudly freedom and democracy across the world, it supplies lethal and sophisticated weapons to many of the undemocratic regimes to suppress and oppress their own citizens to perpetuate their iron-fist rule.

Finally, the only way to reduce terrorism is to reduce global poverty and inequality. World Bank President James Wolfensohn has linked terrorism to poverty and has explicitly said that rich countries do not understand the danger posed by the dramatic increase of poor. He argues that the world spends $50 billion a year on aid, $300 billion a year on subsidies and tariff protection for farmers in rich countries, and $1,000 billion a year on military expenditure. Only 5 per cent of the global military expenditure will be enough to halve the proportion of people who live less than a dollar a day, halve the proportion of people who are hungry, and achieve universal primary education by 2015.

Furthermore, the war on terrorism is not a conventional war. It is an ideological war and that is why it is difficult to win. Fighting terrorism with war is like fighting fire with petrol. War is the fuel for terrorism, not a deterrent. Many say that to win this war, one has to win the hearts and minds of people. Understanding of root causes of terrorism and eradication of poverty are some of the most anti-terror weapons.

Conclusion
Jean-Paul Sartre once said: "When the rich wage war, it is the poor who die." He might have added thousands become refugees. Thousands of Iraqis have left the country to escape the onslaught unleashed by the Bush administration.

Senior Senator Robert Byrd of Virginia (Democrat) said in the US Senate: "Today I weep for my country. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper ... Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our world is disputed, our intentions are questioned. We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance." The poll shows that the overwhelming people across the world perceive the same and agree with the views of the oldest voice in the US Congress.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.