Bush versus Kerry

After some initial ups and downs, the machine of John Kerry moved smoothly into position and after winning nine out of 10 states on Super Tuesday, he assured his absolute leadership of the party and his only rival John Edwards conceded defeat. The entire affair was done with utmost civility and the Democratic Party, notorious for internal squabbles emerged more united and powerful than ever before. Thus John Kerry has the entire Democratic party behind him.

While accepting gratefully the support of his party faithful Kerry has signaled that he is a 'fighter'. He is a Vietnam war hero and has been a Senator for several terms. Looking at his record there does not appear to be much on which his Republican opponent will be able to pounce upon. Talking about security, which is likely to be an important topic of debate, he signaled to his opponent 'count us in'. He has accused President Bush as a 'divider' whereas he wants to take on the role of 'unifier'.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The manner in which John Kerry has been virtually nominated by his party ( the formal nomination will take place in July in Boston) demonstrates that the Democrats are itching for a fight and in John Kerry they see a winner. The campaign, which has begun promises to be an exciting one. President George Bush has the advantage of incumbency. He is reputed to have millions of dollars in his coffer to carry on an energetic campaign. In the US Presidential election the candidate needs very large funds. The TV campaign Ads cost a big packet and Bush's men are ready to roll the machine. It is well known that in America the voters vote by the pocket. There are reports that the economy, which has been faltering, seems to turn around. On the other hand the US has an all time high of deficit of USD 500 billion. The job situation is reported to be improving. The tax cut of President Bush continues to draw criticism from the Democrats as being overly rich-friendly.

Interestingly the Republicans are somewhat coy while talking about foreign policy matters. The foreign policy seems to have been shaped by the events of September 11, 2001. That blow was so massive that President Bush had to strike back. Osama Bin Laden was selected as the target and he was hiding under the wings of the Taliban regime of Afghanistan. To attack Afghanistan the help of Pakistan, the closest neighbour of Afghanistan, became indispensable. Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who had captured power in Pakistan through a military coup and had been ostracized by the international community including the US, was quickly resurrected from the dog house and he became a willing partner in hitting at the Taleban regime which had been set up by his intelligence outfit, the ISI (Inter Services Intelligence). The massive blow administered by the US forces made the Taliban regime flee from Kabul and Hamid Karzai, the US handpicked leader was installed in Kabul.

Afghanistan was small potato. President Bush turned his gaze on Iraq. He and his loyal ally Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain launched a totally unprovoked war on President Saddam Hussein of Iraq on the pretext that Saddam was hiding Weapons of Mass Destruction. The matter was debated within the Security Council who sent inspectors to verify if such weapons existed. They returned empty handed. The Security Council debate divided Atlantic Alliance since permanent member of the Security Council, France and member Germany refused to toe the American line. The US misadventure in Iraq has created an indescribable mess since US troops seem bogged down and fatalities are daily rising. President Bush seems to be in a hurry to hand over the administration to the Iraqis, without settling anything.

President Bush has been the most partisan leader in as far as the Palestine-Israeli conflict is concerned. He has given total support to his friend Ariel Sharon, the Prime Minister of Israel. Sharon has bombed, killed, destroyed at will in the West Bank and Gaza and US has been a passive spectator giving moral support to Sharon. That Sharon played an important role in the attack by the US of Iraq, is almost certain. The argument advanced has been that Israel could play the US policeman in the Middle East. George Bush may realise that by following the advice of his friend, he has badly burned his finger.

Presidential candidate John Kerry exudes strength and confidence while attacking President Bush on his record. On the home front the picture is hazy at best. Kerry has material ready for the attack. Unemployment continues to haunt the US public. The dollar has been sliding down since long and there are no signs of its recovery. It is the foreign policy field that President Bush appears to be most vulnerable. The epithet of 'divider' seems to catch on. Although traditionally foreign policy is supposed to play an insignificant role in US elections, since the events of Iraq it has become a part of the US psyche. The US public is fully aware that it is the preeminent power in the world and want to remain in that position. For half a century the US has built up coalitions and particularly the kingpin of that coalition is the Atlantic Alliance. John Kerry has accused Bush of inept handling of the foreign affairs, which has shaken the Atlantic Alliance.

From a brilliant even handed policy by former President Bill Clinton of the Palestine-Israel dispute, President Bush has surrendered totally to his friend and mentor Ariel Sharon of Israel. Sharon's latest is his wall running through Palestinian land in order to protect his people from 'suicide bombers' of Palestine! Current Israeli administration is mightily pleased with President Bush and would do everything in its power for his reelection. Since Jews are a clever people they would like to put some money in John Kerry. Indeed pressure has already started mounting by the famous Jewish lobby, who has discovered Jews in the Kerry family. It will not be long before Kerry is made to undertake a pilgrimage to Israel keeping with the tradition of US election politics. John Kerry has simply to look at the record of his predecessor Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, who did the famous Camp David Accord between Egypt and Israel. There are two strands in Israeli politics -- domination of the region by force with US backing or policy of accommodation with the Arabs. Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel represented the second strand and came tantalisingly close to a settlement with Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader. It is evident that neither Sharon nor Arafat can deliver the goods and they must be replaced should the international community and particularly the US are keen for a solution. In the minefield that is the Middle East candidate Kerry has to measure his steps very carefully.

My American friends with whom I have discussed US Presidential elections have all stated unequivocally that President Bush would be reelected. Some have suggested that it will be a close race but President Bush would win. If I were to take a poll of the world at large the vote would go overwhelmingly against President Bush. He has managed to get universal rejection. I cannot recall another US President drawing so much antipathy as President Bush.

Come November the US voter will decide whether to continue with George W. Bush or reject him as they did with his father President George Bush Sr. and install a Democrat.

Arshad-uz-Zaman is a former Ambassador.