Kerry stands for change
The presidential hopeful wants change at home and in foreign relations. Mahmoud Murad recalls an evening spent with Senator Kerry in Luxor
Click to view caption |
Democratic presidential hopeful Senator John Kerry gestures during a campaign stopin Columbus, Ohio
(photo: AP)
|
Barring unexpected developments, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts will be the democratic nominee in the United States presidential elections. According to recent polls, Kerry's chances are even better than those of George W Bush, the incumbent republican. Ruinous lies told by key US officials and leading republicans about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction have seriously damaged Bush's credibility. A lie concerning a private affair of former President Bill Clinton undermined his party in the last elections. What will voters do with a lie that brought the US international condemnation and cost the nation dearly in money and lives?
John Kerry has won a succession of primaries across the nation. Defying the predictions of pundits, Kerry even carried most of the southern states, traditionally bastions of conservatism. It seems that 250 years after the foundation of the United States a substantial change is underway. The once reactionary south is now asking the same questions as the north: Why does the rest of the world hate us? Why should we leave in office those who brought about such hatred? The economy is in a bad way with the trade deficit reaching $521 billion. The federal budget is headed down the drain. John Kerry's rallying cry speaks to many: "Let's work together to send George W Bush back to his farm in Texas!"
Critics say John Kerry has so far focussed on attacking Bush without presenting a clear policy programme of his own. Yet, careful analysis of his speeches and statements sheds light on his ideas on domestic and foreign policy. I had the privilege of meeting Kerry and discussing his politics during an evening spent on the banks of the Nile in Luxor. Though two years ago now, our discussion remains with me, speaking of the man's intellectual makeup. Kerry is a man of long-standing conviction. He believes in radical change inside the United States, in transparency, social justice, and educational reform. He wants to improve the health and social insurance systems, which benefit no more than 40 per cent of the American people. He believes in restructuring foreign relations, so that the US would not act -- as it clearly does now -- as a bridgehead for neo-colonialism. The US, Kerry believes, should resume the role of a responsible, beneficent leader of the free world.
Back to my Nile river evening with John Kerry. The senator, having been received by President Hosni Mubarak and other officials, wanted to visit Luxor. A call came through to me while I was in Luxor with my wife and daughter. It was from then Mayor General Ahmed Fouad inviting me to dinner at 7pm at the gardens of the Winter Palace Hotel. I attended that dinner and soon Kerry and I were engaged in a long conversation. His delegation (the senator was accompanied by three assistants and an escort from the US Embassy in Cairo) was to leave by plane at 9.30pm. Fortunately for me, technical glitches led to a delay of three hours in the plane's departure. This gave us a chance to continue our discussion, set against a background of oriental images and sounds, and finally the vista of the river Nile.
At first, we discussed his visit. He expressed appreciation of President Mubarak's views concerning Egyptian policy on regional issues and relations with the US. We then talked about policy in Washington and "globalisation" following the collapse of the Soviet Union. We also discussed frankly US policies with regard to terrorism, and the prevalent perception of double standards. Kerry said then that he believed that it is in the interest of the United States to establish positive, friendly and supportive relations with the countries of the world; particularly those with a vital strategic location, such as Arab countries.
It is necessary, he reasoned, for the US to respect the ambitions and concerns of these countries and to promote peace in the Middle East on the basis of legitimate and just rights in a clear, unambiguous manner. Kerry was in favour, he told me, of establishing a Palestinian state in the framework of a lasting and just peace in the region, and that he wanted to see an international conference held to confront the phenomenon of terror and to specify concepts, roles and responsibilities, and means of international cooperation needed to fight it in all cases.
Kerry raised a very important point; namely, that despite appearances, available communication, and a long history of relations, the information available to Arabs and Americans about each other is incomplete and that official efforts alone -- although crucial -- are insufficient to bridge the gap. What is needed, he said, is for non-governmental organisations and civil society groups to step in and boost the flow of information. Kerry used the Egyptian- American Presidential Council as an example.
The council, he said, is an important agency, but it would become even more effective were it expanded or aided by another agency -- a cultural or social forum, for example. The council is mostly made up of businessmen and focusses on economic matters. This is important, he said, but other matters are no less so, such as the media, arts, women and youth. Such efforts are necessary for a healthy, positive exchange. Strong relations among countries involve more than "buying and selling", he pointed out. They cannot be built in the absence of a comprehensive cultural vision.
John Kerry spoke of peace, noting that it cannot be lasting unless it is just. He recalled his experience of the Vietnam War in the late 1960s. Following graduation from Yale in 1966, he was sent in Vietnam as a naval officer. There, he said, "I came to believe that there is no point of war unless it was for a logical and just cause. War should be fought only to defend oneself and one's country, not for expansionist aims, or to chase after a mirage."
Kerry told me that war, perhaps because of its bitterness, had been for him a transforming experience. He attended one of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearings in the early 1970s to testify about that war. This brought him closer to public work. In the 1980s, he ran for the Senate, keeping his seat since then. As for why he succeeded in doing so for so long, he said it was because he cared for the interests of the common citizens, discussing their real problems and finding solutions. He himself comes from a wealthy family. But he has always been concerned about the welfare of all social classes, especially the poor.
I opined to Kerry that the US voter is more interested in domestic than foreign issues; that this was why George Bush Sr lost the 1992 presidential elections, despite his victory in the war to liberate Kuwait. Clinton won, I said, because he focussed on domestic issues: unemployment, health and social security, education and tax reform. I told Kerry that I was in the US at the time to report on the presidential elections and visited six states, and listened to the views of politicians and ordinary people. Kerry said that this was quite true, adding that he was opposed to US intervention whenever it motivated by personal glory. He believed in achieving goals, and that this could be done through a variety of means. He added that US foreign policy as a whole is in need of change.
The US, said John Kerry, is a great country not only because of its people, expanse and resources, but also because of the principles consecrated by the founding fathers. The US, he explained, has a long history of defending liberty and the rights of nations. This is a legacy that must be continued, he said, through upholding justice and through taking action against injustice everywhere.
Our conversation continued. We spoke not only of politics, but countless other matters. I recall this conversation here because it proves to me that the man who may be the next US president has a vision and a programme.
If Kerry wins, he is likely to bring about a drastic change in US policy, regardless of the power of Washington lobbies. He has assaulted the vested interests that have taken hold of the White House. He spoke out against the war on Iraq, questioning the lies Bush, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld told; particularly their unfounded claim that Saddam Hussein "intended" to make weapons of mass destruction. One senses in him change from Kerry's simple awareness of the need to exchange knowledge among nations -- to base relations on a comprehensive vision and to achieve peace and justice without discrimination or bias. But Kerry also heralds substantive change within. The US trade deficit is growing; that with China alone has reached $152 billion. His view is holistic, not one hostage to a single demon (be that Saddam Hussein or "terror").
If Kerry is the change, he may well be blown in on the winds of defiance borne of bitter experience. One senses change from the disenchantment of many countries across the world with US hegemony under Bush, from the confrontation between the US and many countries, from the abuse of information by the US administration. US Chief Inspector David Kay resigns in protest at the attempt to misconstrue facts. The dialogue between civilisations has degenerated into open hostilities. The Bush administration is hanging on to fear and simple- mindedness; to aphorisms as meaningless as "don't change horses in the middle of the stream".
American voters, however, proved in 1992 that war is not always a guarantor of presidencies. This recent war on Iraq was one-sided and unjustified: this is openly said in many circles. There was no army to confront invading US troops. Weapons of mass destruction were nowhere to be found. As for the ongoing resistance, this is not part of the war, but a reaction to occupation.
I think that my friend John Kerry is aware of all the above. He foreshadows welcome change.
