(continued from the article published in we! issue 1, February 2008)

The past week saw the impressive performance of Barack Obama who won majority of the votes in 11 consecutive primaries and caucuses. Obama is leading with 54 percent of votes over Hillary Clinton who obtained 48 percent. The two strong contenders of the Democratic party is headed to what is believed as a neck and neck race in two big states, Ohio and Texas.
With both camps needing merely a thousand votes from delegates, the election has drawn more and more interest even among outsiders. For why should it not be the case, when our lives, our exercise are intricately tied with US policies, even as it is known to alienate itself from world opinion.

Mending the Military in the Middle East

One important issue which can define the outcome of the US elections is the ongoing American occupation of Iraq, which according to economist and Nobel-prize winner Joseph Stiglitz may cost US$2 trillion or ten times than the government's estimate of US $50 billion. Both Clinton and Obama have made Iraq the centerpiece of their proposed foreign policy. Both have pledged to withdraw US troops and focus on diplomacy.

But this resolve is not exactly comforting as whatever decisions are made on the Gulf region would be based on the best interest for the US. “The framework is still to defend the US interest foreign policy.They will probably use more diplomacy” Reihana Mohideen, an Sri Lankan feminist academician asserts, pointing out the matter-of-factly articulation of Clinton of “a coercive foreign policy” when the latter referred to the negotiations with certain popular governments in Latin America.i

During her first term, Clinton voted for the US invasion of Iraq, supporting the Bush administration's claim of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Although Obama opposed this military action, he authorised the continuing funding for the American occupation of Iraq.

Obama's tone on the continuing insurgent movement in Iraq; the perennial conflict between Israel and Palestine; and the brewing tensions in Iran seems softer than Clinton's: “Our interests are best served when people and governments from Jerusalem and Amman to Damascus and Tehran understand that America will stand with our friends, work hard to build a peaceful Middle east, and refuse to code the future of the region to those who seek perpetual conflict and instability.”

But there are no signs suggesting a decrease in military spending or re-appropriating funds to basic services. The peace group War Resisters League projects a litte over half of the US budget for 2009 would be allocated for the military, or US$ 1.449 billion out of the US $ 2.650 billion. The US is said to account for 47% of the world's total military spending even as its contribution to the world total gross domestic product account to only 21 percent.

Moreover neither have expressed an aversion towards the “war on terror” which has certainly stretched beyond the mountains of Afghanistan and the deserts of Iraq. “None of them have challenged that. When they say they are defending US interest, [that means] with less christian-fundamentalist-right bible bashing rhetoric and approaches of the Bush administration. But I don't think it will be fundamentally different. It will [just] be more sophisticated, say Mohideen.

Silent Dragons and Tigers

While much have been said on the Middle East, the two Democratic contenders remain silent on US interventions elsewhere. “I don't think they are particularly worried about their interest being not secured in Asia Pacific region,” Mohideen believes. This may indeed be true given the weakened structure and impact of the ASEAN Regional Forum owing to the 1997 Asian financial crisis and the generally low esteem for the ASEAN, the organisation in comparison to other regional blocs in Latin America and Africa.ii

Prior to the Asian financial crisis, the ARF was gaining credibility as a space to discuss the security affairs even of ASEAN's neighbours: China, Japan, the two Koreas, and Taiwan. In a report of the Congressional Research Service reads: “A problem would arise if East Asian governments used the ASEAN Regional Forum and other future regional security consultative organisations in attempts to restrain the United States from acting on certain security issues.”iii The report also outlined the priority concerns of US security policy in the region: US attempts to restrain Chinese missile and arms sales; US policy toward Taiwan, especially if Taiwan-China relations should worsen; US efforts to prevent North Korea from developing nuclear weapons; and US policy towards Japan's future regional and military roles.

Five years since this report was released, these priorities seem unchanged. Aside from being the biggest market in the world along with India, China has been showing an assertiveness in space programmes. A recent report to Congress indicates that “the pace and success of China's military modernisation continue to exceed US government estimates.”iv Moreover China is being closely watched given the enormity of its market.

The withdrawal of US troops from Japan and South Korea is also not on the horizon, much less the military support for Pakistan and the “military exercises” in the Philippines. This, despite the growing criticism and complaints on the behaviour of some US personnel stationed in bases in the region.

In 2006, a Manila court found a US marine guilty of raping a 22-year old Filipina in the old American naval base. Recently a Japanese girl and a Filipina woman filed rape charges to US soldiers in Japan. “Let us see [their actions on] the Visiting Forces Agreement [between the Philippines and the US] and the incarceration of Daniel Smith, but I think their reaction would be the same,” Ana Maria Nemenzo of Freedom from debt Coalition believes.v

Russia similarly poses a threat of reigniting the cold war aura, especially with the recent episodes of the comeback of former operatives of the KGB; incarceration and exile of capitalists critical of the Kremlin; and the alarming curtailment of press freedom.

The situation may be under control in this part of the world, but an absence of armed conflict does not automatically amount to peace and security.

Money Matters
Fundamental changes are likewise unlikely to happen in the economic sphere particularly in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the international financial institutions. “They will continue to compete in open, covert and insidious ways. They [Clinton and Obama] are one in promoting capitalist globalisation and privatisation,” says Nemenzo.

Mohideen agrees, pointing out the funding for this year's election campaigns: “Money talks in the US elections and money talks when it comes to Obama and Clinton.” More than half of Clinton's funding came from big businesses and only 11 percent came from labour organisations. Meanwhile 25 percent of Obama's coffers came from corporate sponsors but he received none from labour groups. Mohideen notes that unlike John Edwards, the Democrat which backed out from the race but gained the support of labour organisations, Clinton and Obama have not criticised “corporate America.” The election is in a sense a renewal of the US politicians' commitment to US capital.

However progress can be expected in the aid budget allocation and spending. The support of Clinton and Obama for reproductive rights could translate into more funding the reproductive health programmes; appointment of more progressive individuals in management positions and more coordination with United Nations. Mohideen issues a caveat though: “But don't forget aid is just the crumbs of the budget” plus the strings attached to these crumbs in the form of economic conditionalities.

With the long haul ahead, it is still too early to count but not to imagine trajectories. Moreover there is hope in the opportunities for popular pressure coming from women's groups, LGBT rights advocates and social movements. As Mohideen asserts, “The thing to look at is how a democratic victory can revive the confidence of mass movements and public opinion in general in a progressive direction.”


References:
Ball, Desmond. “Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific: official and Unofficial Responses,” In Search for Peace in Asia Pacific. Edited by Annelies Heijmans et cl. Boulder: Lynne Reinner, 2004.
Bello, Walden. “Globalisation, Insecurity, and Overextension” In Search for Peace in Asia Pacific. Edited by Annelies Heijmans et cl (Boulder: Lynne Reinner, 2004).
“Disharmony in the Spheres, The Economist (January 19, 2008).
Transcript of Thursday's Democratic Presidential Debate (January 2008). Retrieved from CNN.Politics.com on February 27, 2008 <http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/31/dem.debate.transcript/>
Where your income tax money really goes” Retrieved from War Resisters League on February 27, 2008 <http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm>
Wilson, Jamie. “Iraq war could cost US over $2 trillion, says Nobel prize-winning economist.” Retrieved from The Guardian on February 27, 2008. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/07/usa.iraq>
Interview with Ana Maria Nemenzo, February 11, 2008, Quezon City, Philippines.
Interview with Reihana Mohideen, February 22, 2008, Quezon City, Philippines.