Peter Espeut IF I had a vote in last week's U.S. presidential election, I would be in a quandary as to who to vote for. My regular readers will know that I have been a consistent opponent of President Bush's doctrine of unilateralism (his belief that he has the right of pre-emptive strike on any sovereign nation without direct provocation, and without any other country's support), his contempt for the United Nations, his maxim that if you are not with me you are against me, his illegal war in Iraq. This means that if you sufficiently disagree with the world's only superpower such that you threaten their interests, you could find yourself invaded! How could anyone with a conscience support a tyrant like this? But what was the alternative?
Before the war, Senator Kerry voted in favour of it; and after the revelations that the stated reasons (information on the
presence of weapons of mass destruction) were without foundation and baseless then and now Kerry stated that if he had known that before, he would still have voted the same way. How does that make Kerry different from Bush? Kerry has not really opposed the unilateralism of Bush. Kerry has said that Bush has made a mess of the war, and that he would have done better; but he didn't say how; sort of wishy-washy, don't you think? Not much of a choice for the anti-war camp, for those who believe in the importance of building global partnerships, for those with sensitive consciences.
ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLE
But then Kerry supposedly a good Roman Catholic supports same-sex unions as an 'alternative lifestyle', equal in moral and legal status to heterosexual marriages; and he supports aborting unborn children, killing them. How could a traditional Christian with a sensitive conscience support that sort of thing? But then, the man who sent the U.S. to war in Iraq leading to the death of thousands of innocent adult civilians, is against killing innocent unborn children; and he is against same-sex marriages. A veritable bastion of morality, isn't he? This is easily recognisable as the fundamentalist Christian agenda, which emphasises many bloodthirsty Old Testament passages.
Bush has also revoked the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which means that with no communist threat, the U.S. is signalling its intention to expand its nuclear arsenal. Who does he believe is threatening the USA? Or who does he intend to threaten? And then President Bush has also refused to take the USA into the International Court of Justice, which would subject U.S. troops to the possibility of being tried for war crimes. That, of course, is unthinkable as unthinkable as U.S. troops under the command of a general from another country.
Of course, the USA answers only to God himself. President Bush also rescinded the U.S. accession to the Kyoto Protocol and other environmental treaties. As global warming acceleratesglobal climate change threatening island nations like Jamaica, President Bush says he cannot support the Kyoto Protocol because it will hurt the U.S. economy. How is that for
selfishness! How could any
serious environmentalist or human rights activist support Bush for president?
SERIOUS MORAL QUANDARY
But then, maybe if I lived in the U.S., I might like all of this. These policies certainly defend the way of life of Americans, their right to consume more than half the world's natural resources, and their movement towards world domination. But in a moral way, of course, respecting family values; the U.S.A. is the new Chosen People of God, upon whom he is
showering his favour. Neither Bush nor Kerry was prepared to address the root cause of the tragic events of 9/11 U.S.
foreign policy in the Middle East which, following the fundamentalist Christian agenda, supports anything Israel does.
Yes, if I had a vote in last week's U.S. presidential elections, I would be in a serious moral quandary. I might have been forced to vote for Ralph Nader! All over the world comparisons are being made between the United States of America and the city-state of Rome in the days of the ancient decadent Roman Empire. In the end, they over-extended themselves and the empire crumbled; but it took a few hundred years.
Some think that the world is polarising into two camps: Christians against Muslims; but I wonder; it looks more like Europe versus the USA, each with their allies. As petroleum gets more scarce, and as oil prices continue to increase, the consumerist lifestyle of the U.S. will become harder to perpetuate. A Kerry victory might have postponed global conflict; the victory of Georgius Caesar will bring it closer. The next decades certainly won't be boring.
Peter Espeut is a sociologist and is executive director of
an environment and
development NGO.
