Americans Hold Our Futures in Their Hands

When people in this part of the world aren't focusing on the financial crisis, the buzz revolves around who will be the next president of the United States. "Do you prefer a John McCain or Barack Obama White House?" they ask. Naturally, we all have our personal preferences, but at a time when the world is in turmoil, mine is based less on personalities and more on policies. Whoever can lead the world out of recession and uncertainty gets my vote.

You only have to turn on the television to realize that ordinary people from Birmingham to Beijing and everywhere in between are waking up to the fact that there exists a very real emergency affecting homes, jobs, savings, investments and businesses. So I would respectfully ask my American friends to choose the man with the best plan when they enter the ballot booth on November 4.

Certainly, the candidate's basic character is a factor, but voters would do well to realize this isn't "American Idol." The person they decide upon this time literally has the power to make or break the futures of not only Americans but billions of their fellow global citizens. I would, therefore, ask Americans to vote with their heads rather than emotion.

Like most residents of this neighborhood, nothing would delight me more than to greet a new US leader without an ingrained pro-Israel bias; one who would work toward a two-state solution or, even better, a comprehensive peace on the lines of the 2002 Saudi initiative. But judging from the past, this is about as likely as Emirates Holidays offering package tours around the galaxy.

We know from bitter experience that US presidents, whatever their personal inclinations, are hidebound by the fundamentals of Washington's foreign policy, aspects of which are immutable. They all have to operate within certain parameters devised to serve America's own interests and are all constrained to some degree by Congressional sentiment, lobbyists and polls. Ironically, some emerge as good friends to the Arab world once they are out of office.

Within those confines some are worse than others. For instance, I've struggled to come up with something positive to say about George W. Bush's eight years in office. Just ask yourself this question. "Is the world today a better place than it was when Bush took over the presidential reins from President Bill Clinton?"

I've also concluded that this administration's foreign policy has been responsible for massive collateral damage and devastating unforeseen consequences. The list of failures is long. For example, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan did not fulfill its stated aims. Neither Osama bin Laden nor the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Mohammad Omar, have ever been caught. Furthermore, a growing number of commanders and politicians have concluded that the war is not winnable.

The White House would have us believe the 2003 invasion of Iraq has ultimately been a success. We are supposed to forget the pretexts under which the war was waged and instead they would like us to congratulate them on the outcome of the surge. I wish my Iraqi brothers and sisters well. But with so many dead and so many deep divisions, history will be a harsh judge. From the US perspective, the toppling of Saddam Hussein also had an unforeseen consequence - a more powerful Iran.

What about Palestine? How much progress has been achieved toward the two-state solution that Bush promised to bring about in 2003 when he announced his "road map?" None. Worse, due to Bush's fervency to forcibly spread democracy and his insistence that the Palestinians hold a monitored ballot, Hamas was handed a legitimate entree into the leadership. Then, after congratulating the Palestinian people on a free and fair election, the US and Europe promptly shunned their choice, causing a power struggle between factions and leaving the peace process without a single Palestinian address.

When it comes to Lebanon, the Bush White House does get one gold star. It did initiate a UN Security Council resolution calling for the 2005 Syrian pullout. But, if we fast forward to the Israel-Lebanon conflagration during the summer of 2006, we see that Bush abandoned his Lebanese friends in government by refusing to call for a cease-fire even as the bodies of Lebanese women and children were piling high. As an unforeseen consequence, Hizbullah has been boosted.

In all fairness, we cannot heap blame for all the ills of the world onto the lap of one man, but that said, it's an inescapable truth that under Bush's watch a surveillance society was born, civil liberties eroded, human rights conventions disregarded and torture sanctioned.

The last eight years have also witnessed a proliferation in nuclear weapons and a shift in the global balance of power. A resurgent Russia and the economic and military powerhouses that both China and India have become mean the neoconservative dream of worldwide US hegemony is now officially dead.

We can only hope that whoever is inaugurated as the 44th president of the United States will have the courage to do everything he can to put this planet we all share to right.

American people, be wise in your decision. We're all in your hands.