JP\/6\/BANTAR<\/p>\n
More than a Democratic failure in the U.S.<\/p>\n
Implications of the results
\nof the U.S. midterm election<\/p>\n
Bantarto Bandoro
\nEditor, 'The Indonesian Quarterly'
\nCentre for Strategic and
\nInternational Studies
\nJakarta
\nbandoro@csis.or.id<\/p>\n
The U.S. midterm election on Nov. 7 resulted in control of
\nCongress by the Republicans, a political advantage with which
\nrelatively few administrations have been endowed. Bush is only
\nthe third president in a century to make midterm gains, after
\nFranklin Roosevelt in 1934 and Bill Clinton in 1998.<\/p>\n
The result was a colossal personal triumph for the president
\nas he pushes the UN harder toward backing his plans for a war on
\nIraq and strengthening his stand on war against global terror.<\/p>\n
In this election, the Republicans were assured of 51 seats in
\nthe new Senate, a gain of two; and the Democrats had 48. In the
\nHouse, Republicans have 227 seats, gaining four, while Democrats
\nhave 203. The results proved the ability of the Republicans to
\ncapitalize on the patriotism and support for George Bush,
\nunleashed by last year's Sept. 11 attacks on New York and
\nWashington.<\/p>\n
The midterm election result was indeed a great disappointment
\nfor the Democrats. It was a dark moment for the American liberal.
\nFrustrated Democrats lashed out at their political leadership for
\ntheir failure to retain control of Senate or make gains in the
\nHouse, as well as losing in some races they had been expected to
\nwin.<\/p>\n
The Democrats have problems that will go beyond the
\ndifficulties they might face in the 2004 election when Bush
\nstands for reelection. Not only this. Perhaps the Democrats might
\nhave to rethink their fundamental strategy to ensure that they
\ncan counter the Republicans' lead.<\/p>\n
The triumph for the Republicans means many things for Bush's
\nforeign policy. The midterm election is one whose results will
\nreverberate, not just around America, but the world, from the UN
\nto Jerusalem, Riyadh, Pyongyang, Baghdad, Southeast and East Asia
\nand Europe. It will also push the White House realpolitkers, the
\nCheney-Rice-Rumsfeld lobby, to adopt a more rigorous approach to
\nthe world's issues.<\/p>\n
What the world will see is a more swaggering and unilateralist
\nAmerica, more impatient than ever of treaties and other
\ninternational agreements that it sees as limiting its power.<\/p>\n
The victory of the Republicans has demonstrated that Bush will
\nbecome even tougher against Iraq. The resolution the U.S. tried
\nto win at the UN will establish a series of \"trip-wires\" for an
\nattack, should Baghdad fail to cooperate with the UN weapons
\ninspectors.<\/p>\n
The resolution is expected to win overwhelming approval from
\nthe strong permanent five members, though France and Russia were
\nstill calling for the removal of certain ambiguities in the
\nresolution. If the resolution is in favor of the U.S., it will be
\na very strong indication of the revival of \"Bushism\" in U.S.
\nforeign policy.<\/p>\n
The sweep of Republican successes has perhaps been a
\nreferendum on war against terror, Iraq, U.S. foreign policy and
\nnational and international security. Bush made that his drumbeat.
\nHe is determined not to let go of the uncompromising foreign
\npolicy style of the U.S..<\/p>\n
The vote serves as a war mandate. The American people wanted
\nto show solidarity with the Bush administration's war against
\nglobal terror and their full support for the White House's
\nnational security approach.<\/p>\n
Even before the Republican Party hit the jackpot in the
\nmidterm elections, war against Iraq was already likely. Now, it
\nis inevitable unless Saddam Hussein fully complies with his
\ninternational obligations.<\/p>\n
Bush's management of current world affairs is not without risk
\nto America's global position vis-a-vis the developing world. As
\nthe U.S. is leading a global war against terror, the developing
\nworld, particularly the Muslim world, will see Bush's policy as
\nirrational.<\/p>\n
Although little can be done by the Muslim world to counter the
\nimpact of the more unilateralist approach of the U.S., its
\nreaction to the possibility of American attacks on Iraq tells the
\nworld of its disagreement over the use of force in handling
\ninternational issues. The end results would be a new type of
\nworld order: The world, which seems to consist of those
\nsupporting global terror on the one hand, and those who are
\nagainst terrorists on the other.<\/p>\n
The U.S will now witness a more unilateralist, more
\nbelligerent and anti-environmentalist American presidency. Such
\ncharacteristics will certainly bring the U.S. into a more
\nrigorous approach to world problems, justifying the U.S. as the
\nonly superpower left in the world. It seems as if Bush has gained
\nhistoric, resounding endorsement.<\/p>\n
The Democrats would not oppose the president at a time of war.
\nBut these results will undoubtedly embolden Bush as he pushes the
\nworld body to back his plans to invade Iraq and the war against
\nterror. The incalculable damage that such a conflict would do to
\nworld peace, rather than the tally of governorships and
\nCongressional seats, represents the true scale and the real price
\nof the Democrats' failure.<\/p>\n
The Republicans' victory has provided a safe place for Bush in
\nthe U.S. 2004 election and has thus guaranteed a more belligerent
\nand unilateralist foreign policy.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/jp6bantar-1447899208",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}