We carry below an interview between JUST President, Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, and the JUST Commentary on the recent re-election of George. W. Bush as the President of the United States of America. Chandra reflects on the reasons for Bush's victory and its implications for different regions of the world. Mingguan Malaysia, Malaysia's leading Sunday newspaper, published an interview between Chandra and Noor Azam Shaari on the same subject on 7 November 2004. ----editor.

JC : In a nutshell, how would you explain Bush's victory ?

CM: Fear perhaps had a great deal to do with his electoral triumph. The American public's overwhelming concern with security in the wake of 911 was cleverly exploited by the Bush campaign under Karl Rove. The voters it appears trusted a tested hand to protect their security rather than a leader( John Kerry) who seemed to be somewhat inconsistent about security issues. At the end of the day, this concern with security was more important to the voters than the mess that Bush had created in Iraq and all that it signified - the lies about the weapons of mass destruction ; the thousand plus American deaths ; the burgeoning military budget ; the Abu Ghraib torture. I do not think the colossal loss of Iraqi lives meant anything to the average voter.

There was another type of fear that was also manipulated by the Bush campaign. This was the fear of the alleged threat to the family and the marriage institution emanating from liberals. Specifically, the issue of gay marriage was seen by a lot of Americans, especially conservative Christians, as a challenge to the moral fabric of society. That 11 states strongly endorsed a ban on gay marriages was an indication of the public mood. John Kerry, Bush's opponent from the Democratic party, who was depicted by Bush as a liberal `on the far left of the bank' refused to support the ban. According to some analysts the gay marriage issue was one of the reasons why many Catholics who in the past had voted the Democratic party ( Kerry himself is a Catholic ) switched to Bush this time.

These so-called `moral issues' in the end had a bigger impact upon the electoral outcome than economic issues related to unemployment, the trade deficit and the national debt.

JC : Does this say something about the growing influence of religion upon politics ?

CM : It does. The influence of conservative Christianity-- sometimes described as the Christian Right-- upon American politics has been growing over the last three decades. During the Reagan presidency in the eighties, the Christian Right received a tremendous boost. Now George .W. Bush, himself a born again Christian, is providing patronage to the Christian Right which is why it mobilized the masses to ensure his re-election on 2nd November. It is estimated that something like 30 to 40 percent of American Christians belong to the Christian Right. Apart from their stand on gay marriage and homosexuality, the leading spokespersons of the Christian Right subscribe to some clear-cut positions on abortion, stem cell research, public school prayer and religious education.

Equally significant, a number of Christian Right groups are enthusiastic supporters of Israel and are opposed to the creation of an independent Palestinian state, alongside Israel. For them, Israeli supremacy is a vital condition for the `second coming', the return of the Messiah which in turn will herald the triumph of Christianity worldwide. The Muslim presence in the Middle East is viewed as a hurdle to this triumph. It explains why important evangelists in the Christian Right such as Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell often attack Islam and Muslims in such derogatory terms.

Given their total identification with Israel, it is not surprising that the Christian Right has forged a close relationship with Zionists, especially the Zionist Right. Indeed, Christian Zionism is a recognized force in American politics today.

JC : How significant was the Zionist factor in Bush's re-election ?

CM: Zionist influence upon American society began to express itself from the twenties itself. However, it was only after the 1967 six day war between Israel and the Arabs that Zionist influence began to spread rapidly within significant strata of American society. Today Zionist power manifests itself in American politics, the economy, the media, the entertainment industry and within academe.

The Zionist lobbies in the US gave wholehearted support to Bush in the recent election because of his endorsement of some of the most controversial policies of Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, such as the apartheid wall and the disengagement plan. Besides, the Bush Administration had used its UN Security Council veto ever so often to protect Israeli interests against international public opinion. 

Let us also not forget that the neo-cons ( new conservatives) who played a decisive role in shaping US foreign policy during Bush's first term -- personalities such as Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, William Kristol, Robert Kagan and others -- are all Zionists.

JC : Apart from the Christian Right and the Zionist Right, what were some of the other groups which helped Bush to win ?

CM: Bush, it appears, had the support of the arms lobby, the oil barons, some of the huge corporations and banks. These are powerful interests in the American system which are linked to both the Republican and Democratic parties.

JC : What is the most significant implication of Bush's victory ?

CM: His Administration will continue to pursue its goal of creating a global empire with even greater vigour than before. Indeed, Bush may even feel that he has a legitimate right to build the first truly global empire in history since the American people have given him a clear mandate to lead.

There are of course analysts who argue that the Bush Administration has no desire to build an empire. They are wrong. They should examine closely the thinking of the neo-cons and other influential elites in Washington following the end of the cold war in 1989, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the decisive US victory in the Gulf war in 1992. For many of them this constellation of events has opened up a great historical opportunity to shape the universe in a manner that enhances Washington's power and authority. This vision of what the world should be is embodied not only in Bush's National Security Strategy enunciated in September 2002 but also in various documents produced by the Project for a New American Century, a think tank associated with the neo-cons.

It should be emphasized at this point that while the Empire is Washington helmed it includes and incorporates elites from all over the world. The elites of Tel Aviv, London and Canberra are as much a part of it as are the elites of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Japan and Singapore. The British ruling class in particular with its incurable nostalgia for empire is right in the thick of this project.

Why do these elites crave for empire ? It is basically to protect, perpetuate and enhance the power of global capitalism. There are also special interests which I have alluded to in another context that are behind the quest for empire. Zionist and Israeli elites for instance are convinced that a Washington helmed empire with a global reach is the best guarantee for the survival and success of the Israeli state.

JC : If the empire project is going to be pursued with greater gusto in the future, what are the means that the Bush Administration hopes to employ to achieve its goal ?

CM : Going on the basis of his first term, Bush is likely to continue to rely heavily upon Washington's overwhelming military might to secure his empire. The Middle East will continue to be his focus because it is linked to oil, Israel and the apocalyptic vision of the Christian Right. Syria could be the first military target of his second term. Tel Aviv would want Washington to act against Damascus since it is convinced that Palestinian resistance movements such as Hamas and the Islamic Jihad are aided and abetted by the latter. Besides, Syria in military terms is viewed as a soft target. Bush may then move against Sudan using the humanitarian crisis in Darfur as the excuse. Oil is of course the magnet. At the same time, Christian evangelists have been pushing for US and Western intervention in Sudan for decades, alleging that Christians in the South are being persecuted by the Muslim majority from the North. Iran could be a third target. Since it is purportedly developing a nuclear weapons programme it has entered Israel's radar screen. And the US as Israel's protector is already warning Iran of dire consequences if it does not scrap its nuclear weapons programme -a programme which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says is non-existent ! Incidentally, Iran is also a major oil exporter. 

While Washington is directing its attention at all these countries, it will continue to provide maximum military assistance to Israel to suppress the Palestinian struggle for freedom and dignity - that one struggle in the Middle East that impacts upon each and every aspect of the interaction between the US on the one hand and the Muslim world on the other. But in spite of all the military hardware available to it, Israel has failed to destroy the Palestinian movement. If we compared Dier Yassin in 1948 with Jenin in 2002, it is obvious that the Palestinian ability to resist Israeli aggression and subjugation is much better today.

It is this --the resistance of the people of the Middle East-- which may force Bush to desist from other military adventures in the region in the near future. Today, Palestinian resistance has been augmented and fortified by the resistance of the Iraqi people as they fight the American and British occupiers and their allies. It is because Washington is embroiled in a bloody conflict in Iraq which is sapping its strength and its resources that it may not want to get trapped in yet another quagmire.

This is why while we may not agree with the methods used by some of those resisting the usurpers and occupiers, we have to acknowledge that by putting their lives on the line, Palestinians and Iraqis have helped to defend our freedom --the freedom of men and women who are not prepared to submit to imperial power and hegemonic control because they value their dignity and integrity as human beings.

JC : The Palestinians and Iraqis have had to pay a huge price.

CM : Yes, their sacrifice is beyond measure. Since the second Intifada , the Al Aqsa Intifada, that began in September 2000 more than four thousand Palestinians have been killed by the Israelis. ( The Israelis who have died at the hands of the Palestinians comprise less than a quarter of the Palestinian figure ). In Iraq, since the Anglo-American invasion of March 2003, more than a hundred thousand have been killed, most of them civilians, according to a recent Johns Hopkins University study. If we added to this, the 1.2 million people, about half of them children, who had perished between August 1990 and March 2003 mainly because of the harsh sanctions imposed upon Iraq by the UN at the behest of Britain and the US, we begin to realize how cruel and oppressive imperialism is and why it is totally bereft of humanity.

JC : How about other regions of the world, outside the Middle East ? What sort of policies would Bush pursue ?

CM: If we begin with the backyard of the US, namely Latin America, the indications are that he will continue to dominate and control the region as Washington has done in one form or another since the 19th century. His Administration's constant persecution of Castro and Cuba and the various attempts to undermine the political authority of the Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, including a CIA engineered coup in April 2002, show that Bush, like his predecessors, has very little tolerance for independent minded governments in the region committed to the upliftment of the poor and downtrodden. Let us also remember that Venezuela is also a major oil producer.

Bush can also be expected to continue to give diplomatic and military attention to Africa. In the words of the Le Monde Diplomatique (8 July 2004) the US is interested in the continent not just because of its "oil and natural gas supplies ( although these represent an important future contribution to US energy supplies)" but also because of "its metal and industrial diamond resources. It is quietly establishing military training and equipment links with a number of countries to secure future supply lines." It is worth observing that the US is increasing military investment in Africa in the name of fighting terrorism. As Bush asserted during his African tour in July 2003, "we will not allow terrorists to threaten African peoples, or to use Africa as a base to threaten the world."

Again, using 911 as the pretext, Bush has gained control over Central Asia, from Afghanistan to the Caspian Sea. It was the invasion of Afghanistan and the overthrow of the Taliban that set the stage for Washington's hegemonic grip over the region which has huge oil and gas reserves whose full potential have yet to be realized. In South Asia, Pakistan has become a staunch US ally after 911 just as India has expanded and deepened its ties not only with the US but also with Israel. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) remains on the whole a close friend of the US. If anything, in the wake of 911, the fear of terrorism has propelled one of the ASEAN states, Singapore, right into the US orbit while nearly all the other states including those that are occasionally critical of certain aspects of US foreign policy have decided to open the inner vaults of their security chambers to US intelligence. 

Compared to Southeast Asia, East Asia is high up on Bush's agenda. He is bound to increase pressure upon North Korea to submit to Washington's dictates on the nuclear question. It is doubtful however whether his Administration will take military action against North Korea for fear of provoking the latter's powerful ally, China. With China, Bush's `sweet sour' policy of the last few years will continue : maintaining harmonious ties because of the massive economic benefits it brings while at the same time pressurizing Beijing on human rights and minority rights issues in order to expose the flaws in the Chinese system. In this regard, Washington's intimate ties with Taiwan will also be utilized to check its huge neighbour. As for the other two East Asian states, Japan and South Korea, Bush will ensure that they continue to serve Washington's imperial interests in the region. It is a pity that despite their economic dynamism, their ruling elites remain utterly subservient to Washington.

This brings us to the only major region we have not commented upon. In Bush's second term -as it was in the first -- Europe's ruling elites will remain divided in their attitude and approach towards Washington. While the French and German leaderships may make some overtures to Bush since he has won a convincing victory at the polls, the issues which separate the former from the latter will continue to make relations between them as vexatious as ever. More specifically, Bush's eagerness to resort to military force in resolving inter-state conflicts, his unilateral approach to international issues and indeed the arrogance that has come to be associated with Washington's hegemonic power, will continue to annoy and irritate leaders like France's President Chirac. What is of even greater significance, the people of France, like the majority of Europeans, also find Washington's imperial stance insufferable. Poll after poll in the last two years or so have revealed that European public opinion has turned against the Bush Administration largely because of its foreign policy postures. There is no reason to believe that the situation will change for the better in the next four years especially since President Bush now feels that he has been vindicated by his people's support.

JC : This brings us logically to our next question. If unilateralism is the order of the day, will international institutions and international law be further emasculated during Bush's second term ?

CM : Neither the Zionist Right nor the Christian Right has any fondness for international institutions like the UN. In fact, well known neo-cons have lambasted the UN as a body that plays up to the Third World gallery and is actively seeking to undermine American influence. It is significant that in one of the first foreign policy decisions that the re-elected Bush had to make -- the bombardment of Fallujah in Iraq -- he chose to brush aside the advice given by the UN Secretary General not to proceed with the operation in view of the Iraqi election in January next year. Just a few days after his victory, Bush also made it clear that he had no intention of signing the Kyoto Accord even though Russia has belatedly endorsed the agreement. This may well be a cue to how he will approach international agreements and international law in the next four years.

Mercifully, the American public, according to a poll conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations a month or so before the American elections, has a different view about international institutions and international law. 59 percent would like to see the UN Security Council veto, including the US veto, abolished ; 66 percent would like to work within the UN even when it adopts policies that the US government does not condone ; 74 percent support the idea of a permanent UN peace keeping force under the command of the UN. The poll also showed that the vast majority of Americans endorse the Kyoto Accord, the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the treaty banning landmines. In other words, they appreciate global efforts to strengthen international law.

If these are the sentiments of the American people, how does one explain Bush's

triumph on 2nd November ? Perhaps the fear of terrorism and of the alleged threat to family and marriage which we have noted, overwhelmed other more positive sentiments about the international system that the public also subscribed to. This is not an uncommon occurrence in electoral politics.

That a lot of Americans want their country to help strengthen international institutions like the UN and international law is good news since that is how citizens of other states also feel about the international system. There is undoubtedly tremendous support all over the world for the revitalization and rejuvenation of the UN and for the reinforcement of international law. Even when it comes to the Palestinian and Iraqi conflicts a lot of people feel that a fair and just solution is possible only if the UN plays a pivotal role.

But the power elites in the US and their allies will not allow the UN to play that role. This is because they want to dominate and control the international system for their own interests. An effective multilateral system with the UN as its fulcrum will have no place for a hegemonic power. 

JC : Since the re-elected Bush, it is obvious, is determined to perpetuate and even expand Washington's hegemonic power, is there any hope at all for humankind ?

CM : Of course, there is hope. In an ironical sense, it is Bush that gives us hope. Come to think of it, if it hadn't been for Bush's wars, the death and destruction he has caused, his marginalisation of the UN, his unilateralism, his contempt for public opinion, his lies, his arrogant display of power, it would have been much more difficult to create public awareness about global injustices. For it is only when there is stark aggression and oppression, when wrongdoings are blatant, that people begin to react. Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq and all that has happened since, has made people everywhere more conscious of American hegemony and its adverse consequences for humanity.

Perhaps four more years of Bush will further develop this mass global consciousness. It is quite possible that as the superpower of the day embarks upon more military adventures, sidelines the UN, flouts international law and violates the basic rights of people, there will be more anger and antagonism towards Washington. This antipathy towards the brazen demonstration of hegemonic power may give rise to the growth of more organized and focused global movements for change which are capable of sustaining the momentum for mass action.

This is why Bush's victory may be a blessing in disguise after all. Bush may be fulfilling his real historical role as a catalyst for the sort of transformation that the world desperately needs. So do not mourn his re-election. It should energize us to intensify our struggle for a just world.