American debates

By Salama A Salama

---

Perhaps President George W Bush did not deliberately mean for mass exterminations undertaken by the Americans in Samaraa, Falluja and Sadr City to occur on the very day of his televised debate with rival presidential candidate John Kerry. Hundreds of Iraqis fell, amongst them no small number of women and children, in an exercise smacking of the ethnic cleansing that US Secretary of State Colin Powell described as happening in Darfur.

In the debate which took place a week ago and will be followed by two more, Bush started from a defensive position. He gave no convincing explanation for his shift of American policy from one of fighting terrorism to that of waging war on Iraq and, as such, involving American troops in a bloody Middle East conflict.

When it comes to stances on Iraq, Bush and Kerry exhibit no major differences. An exception is Kerry's desire to involve European allies and regain their sympathy while at the same time not giving too great a role to the UN.

Kerry, though, was at odds with Bush's assertion that America does not harbour long-term plans for remaining in Iraq. But it remains to be seen, should Kerry win the election, whether he will still be of the same opinion that the US should not remain in Iraq for long.

Kerry also revealed the existence of 14 American military bases under construction, raising the suspicions of some that America's ultimate aim in Iraq is oil.

Kerry demonstrated more flexibility on nuclear non-proliferation and bilateral negotiations with North Korea. He also asserted that America must not isolate Iran while Europe engages in dealings with Teheran.

Still, Iraq took up the larger part of the Bush- Kerry debate because of the loss of American lives and billions of dollars expended there. By contrast, no mention whatsoever was made of the Palestine- Israeli conflict. The Arabs should not be surprised by this omission since the average American citizen, who knows nothing of the outside world, is also oblivious to bloodbaths occurring daily in Gaza and the West Bank. He might know of Darfur and the Congo because of recent incessant coverage by Western satellite channels of these two oil-rich regions. But when it comes to Israeli crimes, neither Bush nor Kerry utter a word. To do so would mean losing the election before it has even started.

With this in mind, we must judge Kerry's half- hearted allusions to re- building America's alliances and extending a helping hand to the Islamic world. What is intriguing is that some Arab and Islamic countries still harbour illusions about one candidate or other, some even providing Bush with funding and assistance.

No one can predict who will win the November elections, but when all is said and done the American presidential debates remain a unique phenomenon not found in any other system. The two parties submit to stringent rules supervised by a committee. The latter ensures that the greatest degree of neutrality and non- partisanship is adhered to by both candidates. The committee restricts the time allotted to either, just as it does their gestures and questions directed to the opponent. The debates gain increasing significance when both candidates enjoy an almost equal measure of support as is currently the case. A large percentage of voters have not thrown their lot with either candidate, potentially upsetting any predictions. In this we must see a model of democracy to be emulated.

If only we knew its worth.