The Hindu Business Line : A reality check on perceptions

A WRITER, Ron Suskind, wrote about a conversation he had with an unnamed advisor to the US President, Mr George W. Bush, in an article published in The New York Times on October, 17. The advisor was arguing that analysing reality and then coming to a solution does not work any more. He is quoted as saying, "We're an empire now and when we act, we create our own reality."

The pithy comment Mr Bush's advisor made can explain a lot of how the US behaves in its dealing with the rest of the world. It may or may not be an empire and we can leave that to the academics to debate. Its size and super power status certainly gives it the clout to create its own reality. Iraq is just the most recent example.

The Republican administration led by Mr Bush believes it did the right thing in going to war with Iraq. It doesn't matter that there were no weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't matter that Iraq had no connection with the terrorism that the US was justifiably fighting. It doesn't even seem to matter that while they were saying all this, they probably knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, or that the former Iraqi President, Mr Saddam Hussein, had no connection with Al Qaeda. They said there was, and as the results of the 2004 election results confirm, their supporters believed in that perception of reality. There was no need to look at the facts.

In the aftermath of the recently-concluded elections, the Democrats are wondering why their candidate, Mr John Kerry, lost. Mr Kerry had adopted a platform, among other things, of consulting with allies on the war in Iraq. He took a stand that the war was wrong and the US needs to work with the world community in resolving it and bringing peace to the nation.

But the US's role in the world was not what was at stake in the national elections. The pundits have proclaimed that the conservative base of the Republican Party rallied around their leader because they believed that what was at stake was `moral values.'

Mr Bush, who has carved out a new concept for the US as a world leader, shrewdly fought the elections on local issues. About 80 per cent of those who voted for Mr Bush believed that moral values was the most important issue in the country today.

The Republic Party's interpretation of `moral values' (read that as `Christian' values) was to take a firm stand against abortion, against gay marriage, and in not funding stem cell research. The Democratic Party candidate was also trying to project some values that the country should stand for, which included not lying to justify unilateral military adventures. Clearly, the Republican Party's values won.

London's Guardian newspaper, in a pre-election editorial on October 30, made out a case for supporting Mr Kerry since Mr Bush's style of leadership is not something the world can afford. The paper argued that while it had no business in interfering with US elections, the US President takes actions that intimately affect the whole world. The all-important reason for the rest of the world to watch the US elections over which it has no influence is because of the ability of the US administration to create its own reality.

It is not just the Republicans who believe in America's unilateral power in the world. The Democrats do too but don't have the conviction to sustain it on a wide scale. After all, the former Democrat President, Mr Bill Clinton, ordered the bombing of what he believed was a manufacturing site for chemical weapons in Sudan but which turned out to be a pharmaceutical factory. At that time, the US had diplomatic relations with Sudan, but a minor matter like that did not stand in the way of a superpower creating its own reality. Mr Bush has only built on that unilateral power to mean it has a power of pre-emptive strike on countries it perceives as a threat while, at the same time, denying that right to other countries for use in their own defence.

When you can create your own reality, and live in it, it can be a lot of fun. Take an example from the field of sports. A recent baseball championship, where the winners of two national leagues played each other, is called the World Series. I couldn't find overseas teams taking part in the league's games but that does not prevent the organisers from calling it a world championship.

Several other nations over whom the US has had significant influence over the years also play the game. That includes Japan, Cuba, the Philippines, Colombia, Panama and the Dominican Republic. Ambitious baseball players from some of these countries have made their fortune playing for the US teams which, I suppose, gives it a somewhat international flavour. Perhaps that justifies the title of World Series. In any event, the fans now consider Red Sox, a private team from Boston, to be world champions and that is what matters. You define your own reality.

For juniors, there is an equivalent Little League World Series. Ironically, in 1974, teams from outside the US were banned from advancing beyond the regional games because, for the previous four consecutive years, Taiwan had won the championship! It was still called the World Series.

The advantage of creating your own reality is that you set the rules. And if it is your sandbox, then others play in it at your pleasure. When you want to, you can ask them to get off. European allies who refused to believe in the US version of reality were chided as being `old' Europe since there were others around, the `new' Europe, who wanted to play in the sandbox.

The US is the world's largest economy, and a leader in fields ranging from science and technology to pop culture and entertainment. Even when not intended, its actions create the reality the rest of the world lives in. The world looks up to America and hopes to be consulted in return. The US is also a truly `international' country, more receptive to immigrants than most. Census estimates that as of 2003, over 33 million people (about 12 per cent of the population) are foreign born.

The US media frequently refers to its President as the `leader of the free world.' But it was not the free world that selected that leader.

The good men and women of America's heartland, hoping for a ban on gay marriage, have given the world a leader who believes in unilateralism and with the muscle to support that unilateralism. By thumbing its nose at the UN and going to war with Iraq on its own, the US has thrown the gauntlet and nobody has dared to pick it up.

It has taken upon itself the mantle of a global leader but refuses to lead when it does not suit its interests — take the case of the Kyoto treaty on environmentalism. Is the US a true world leader or just a world bully?

Historian Paul Kennedy (The Rise and Fall of Great Powers) has argued against `imperial overstretch.' He feels that the global interests of the US today are too numerous for it to defend them all simultaneously. Thus, nations must be careful not to stretch themselves too thin in their pursuit of imperial ambitions. A great nation like the US must choose the arenas where it can be imperial and show leadership and leave the rest to its allies who will be happy to play their part if they know their voices will be heard.

Mr Bush's actions will continue to be watched closely by the rest of the world that remains on the sidelines, unable to influence the choice of the leader but subject to the leader's whims and fancies.

(The author is professor of international business and strategic management at Suffolk University, Boston, US. His Internet address is cgopinat@suffolk.edu)

More Stories on : Politics | American Periscope

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Equity-linked annuities for pension investors

Be a sport, don't tax

Management by prioritising

Half-yearly review of Central finances — Putting fiscal rectitude in perspective

Oil-rich, corruption-riven

A reality check on perceptions

Wanted: Cool heads

Investing in scholarships

Alternative fuels