| |
Viewpoint
Letters to the editor
Four more years
12/2004 |
|
Comment
Four more years
In Southeast Asia, George W. Bush’s triumph in the US elections is leading to more polarisation. Moderate Muslims feel threatened as the ‘war on terror’ intensifies in Thailand and the Philippines. On the other hand, the business community had been afraid that John Kerry might have made the USA more protectionist.
[ By Shamsul A.B. ]
The re-election of George W. Bush came as a shock to many in the international community. Even the London-based Economist, a staunch supporter of the ‘coalition forces’, had endorsed John Kerry stating that the president had proved incompetent in handling Iraq. From a Muslim perspective, it seems irritating that Bush’s victory was based on the vote of evangelical Christians. Many Muslims feel that, in spite of its pro-democracy rhetoric, the White House is really following a crusading agenda. This notion has taken deeper root because of the Abu Ghraib scandal and its political fallout in Washington. Both revealed little respect for the universal principles of human rights and lend credibility to otherwise non-sensical fundamentalist rhetoric.
Disappointing as Bush’s reelection may seem, there is no doubt that he is the legitimate President of the United States. The world will have to get along with him, even if he stands for more polarisation. This is already evident in Southeast Asia where Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines are the traditional allies of the USA. Indonesia and Malaysia – together home to 250 million Malay-speaking Muslims – have been more ambivalent and, at times, critical of USA. Ever since the end of the Vietnam War, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and Brunei have been officially silent on any matter relating to the USA.
Unsurprisingly, the leaders from Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines expressed their unreserved support for Bush. Singapore is a terrorist-fearing country and would like the US presence in the region to be made more visible. The Philippines even requested an increase in US support in its war against Islamic terrorists in the southern part of the country. The Thai reaction was similar with the government asking for new US support in its effort to stop the spread of terrorism in the Muslim South. The tragedy is that the Thai military had itself contributed to provoking a blood bath in the area bordering on Malaysia and that there can be no military solution to the conflict because, primarily, socio-economic and educational issues need to be dealt with.
Malaysia took a different stand. The government congratulated Bush for being re-elected but made it very clear that it is one of the very few Islamic countries left able to mediate between ‘Islam and the West’. Malaysia possesses socio-economic credibility, influence among the other Muslim countries and the political stability needed to make it a model of a moderate Islamic country. While Indonesia’s new President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, expressed support for Bush, it remains to be seen whether the volatile and fragmented Islamist groups who helped him win the election will follow him on this. Yudhoyono became President with support from both popular groups and the Indonesian establishment. One must hope that extremists will not articulate their anti-Bush feelings with another bomb blast in Jakarta.
All summed up, there is a remarkable dichotomy between the ‘political reactions’ to Bush’s re-election and the ‘economic’ ones. All Southeast Asian economies depend on US investment. Most businessmen consider Bush’s economic policies helpful. For instance, trade between US and Vietnam increased three fold during his first term resulting in additional jobs. The ripple-effect is even larger in terms of consumer expenditure. The data for Indonesia are similar. Indeed, many Southeast Asian business groups were worried of Kerry’s policy of retaining jobs in the USA.
The vocal Muslim leaders of the fundamentalist groups, who hold a negative view of Bush, are often from the middle-class or below. Those who approve of Bush, on the other hand, are the rich corporate players. The former have enormous influence among their following but the latter have huge economic resources to buy and mobilize support. They could, at least temporarily, even pay for rallies in support of Bush. Over the longer run, however, it will be more important to let the masses participate in economic success as that should ease radical sentiments.
Prof. Dr. Shamsul A. B.
teaches Social Anthropology. He is Director of the Institute of the Malay World and Civilization (ATMA) and of the recently established Institute of Occidental Studies (IKON) of the National University of Malaysia.
shamab@ukm.my
|
