The presidential election of Barack Obama is a milestone in American
history, deeply significant for two reasons; firstly, he not only
represents the non-white population of the US, but also the poor and
oppressed in a way that no candidate has promised since Roosevelt.
Secondly, his campaign was driven by a mass mobilisation of
grassroots, popular support that is unprecedented in US politics. The
most crucial question that remains, however, is more dependent on the
actions of US citizenry than the policy decisions of Obama's
administration in the months and years ahead. Will the American public
be further mobilised to influence the necessary and momentous
turnaround in global priorities that must inevitably be led by the
United States?
Sixty years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was first
enshrined, the current global economic system has decisively undermined
the United Nation's goals through ever-worsening conditions for the
majority world and an unprecedented gap between rich and poor. Nowhere
is this more evident than in America, home to the highest number of
world billionaires alongside increasing levels of food insecurity -
with child hunger
rising by 50 percent in 2007 even before the economic recession.
According to the latest data from the Internal Revenue Service, the richest 1 percent
of Americans have garnered the highest share of the nation's adjusted
gross income for two decades, possibly the highest since 1929.
Reports on US inequality are now so commonplace that the term 'a second gilded age'
is considered a cliche. The American Dream of upward social mobility
has "emigrated from its birthplace in the US to northern Europe",
reported the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) on the growth of economic equality over the past 20 years;
growing inequality in US cities could lead to widespread social unrest and increased mortality, says a recent study by UN-Habitat; and over 12 percent of Americans
(36.2 million adults and children) did not have enough food to maintain
active and healthy lives in 2007, according to the US Department of
Agriculture. As financial turmoil redoubles the number of home
repossessions and factory closures, with nearly 2 million US jobs
already lost this year, such statistics urge a fundamental reassessment
of America's position on the world stage.
A crisis of historic proportions
Millions of poor Americans went to vote during the presidential
elections, many "for the first time - and many for the first time in a
long time" as the Barack Obama website declares, because they believed
in the blanket rhetoric of hope and change. The Obama campaign
emphasised his awareness of the injustice inherent in the gap between
rich and poor, alongside the need to "jumpstart the economy" and
prevent a further 1 million Americans from losing their jobs. Citing
an economic crisis of "historic proportions" during his third press conference after being elected, he stressed how urgent action must be taken to stop a further unraveling of the US economy.
Despite injecting an extra $500 billion into the banking system and
promising mass expenditure on public works and green technologies, the
fact remains that a salvaging of the US economy is no longer possible
without long-term reforms of the global financial architecture. In the
meantime, the people of America are predicted to experience a recession
more severe and protracted than any since the Great Depression of the
1930s. A million more job lay-offs are expected by next spring, and
the collapse of the auto industry alone could wipe out Obama's economic plan of "saving or creating" 2.5 million jobs in 2009/10.
In the midst of widespread social disruption and suffering, one sector
of the economy will remain unscathed - the arms manufacturing
corporations. The US spends more than 20 percent of its annual budget
on defense, with some 700 military naval and air bases in over 100
countries. Without a significant cut-back in military expenditure,
which means closing a large proportion of foreign military bases, it
will be impossible for Obama to fulfill his campaign promises of job
creation, new social housing and the funding of renewable energy
research and development. There is no clear indication that Obama is
thinking along these lines. Even if so, no president can dismantle the
military industrial complex, considering its entrenched hold over the
US Congress, without a huge groundswell of support from the American
people.
Deconstructing the War on Terror
It is significant that anti-war protestors initially sought Obama's help, inviting him to speak at a rally
in October 2002 when he proclaimed the invasion of Iraq as a "dumb" and
"rash" war based "not on reason but on passion". Now that six years
have passed, Obama's words will be firmly put to the test. Ending an
era of imperial warfare in Iraq may be a top priority for the
President-elect, but the test extends to the military operations in
Afghanistan. As many pundits have argued, Obama will have to rethink and deconstruct
the whole War on Terror, which is a challenge that his rhetoric has far
from acknowledged. He has called Afghanistan the "central front in the
War on Terror" and argued for the redeployment of US troops from Iraq
to Afghanistan, while threatening to bomb Pakistan if the country
harbours any Afghan warlords. America has already sent drones into
Waziristan (North West Pakistan) to attack Al Qaeda leaders, frequently
killing innocent families.
With no clear indication of Obama's intentions, the prevention of an
escalating global conflict in the Middle East could rest upon a massive
wave of public protest to pressure an immediate US withdrawal from the
region.
The signs concerning America's future role in the Israel/Palestine
conflict are similarly foreboding. On the day of the US elections,
while the entire world's attention was turned on Obama, a report from Jerusalem
stated that "Israeli forces were tearing up the homes of Palestinian
families to build new settlements, furthering their control of occupied
East Jerusalem and pre-empting final status negotiations." A direct
role played by the US in arming and fomenting civil war in Gaza was
revealed by Vanity Fair
magazine in March 2008, starkly contradicting the official intention of
the White House to broker a deal that would create a viable Palestinian
state and bring peace to the Holy Land.
Now that Obama has put a fiercely pro-Israel man in charge of the White
House, the chances of a US turnaround in its backing of Israel's
militarism in the Middle East are less than remote. The World Bank
recently made no secret of the fact that Israeli restrictions are
largely to blame for the wretched condition of the Palestinian economy,
with poverty rates
in the Gaza Strip soaring to almost 80 percent. Humanitarian
assistance from the US, which is desperately needed in the creation of
a sustainable development program to overhaul the economies of the West
Bank and Gaza, risks being continually subjugated to Israeli politics.
Again, hope for the Middle East is dependent on pressure from the
American public to force Barrack Obama to break away from the Bush era
strategy of a distinctly laissez-faire attitude towards Israel's
dominance over the Palestinian territories.
African hopes
Much of the optimism for 'change' placed in the new presidency comes
not only from the United States, but also from Barack Obama's ethnic
origins in the continent of Africa. In Kenya, the home country of
Obama's father, a public holiday was declared following the election
results, with African leaders from South Africa to Somalia sending
their congratulations to the US president-elect. When Obama takes
office in January, his difficulty will lie in matching the passionate
expectations. Certain sections of African society may have praised
President Bush's financial contributions in the fight against HIV/Aids,
but still half the population of sub-Saharan Africa lives in extreme
poverty, a figure that hasn't changes for over 25 years. According to
the World Bank's latest figures,
the number of poor people in the region nearly doubled over the period
of economic globalisation, from 200 million in 1981 to 380 million in
2005. The exhaustive studies of World Bank and International Monetary
Fund (IMF) policies in Africa, demonstrating in detail how structural
adjustment policies led by the US have caused increased hunger and
deprivation for millions of Africans, are all the evidence of an
enormous burden of responsibility that rests on Obama's shoulders.
A number of tough decisions must be faced by the new administration in
relation to the Bretton Woods institutions. It is obvious to state
that the management of these bodies is dominated by the US, a small
number of European countries and Japan. China, one of the most
important economic powers after America, is dwarfed in influence by
Britain and France, while most other non-EU countries (most of all
Africans) have a negligible say in the international trade system. At
the recent meeting of the G20, world leaders admitted that "the Bretton
Woods institutions must be comprehensively reformed", but the reforms
intended are to give the IMF more power and resources and the poorer
nations merely "a greater voice and representation."
The real challenge facing Obama, beyond acknowledging the ill-designed
policies and the failure of the World Bank and IMF's basic mandates, is
between two distinct options: to reshape the two institutions towards
their original conception in the 1950/60s as the true guardians of
economic development and international monetary stability; or to embark
upon the dismantling of existing Bretton Woods organisations and the
creation of a new international trade architecture. The people of
Africa have already decided that Obama is genuine in wanting to help
their cause; the world now awaits the support of the American public in
pressuring the White House to adopt new strategies abroad. The
alternative, meaning the continuation of a free trade model based upon
a relentless economic battle between unequal nations and an
intensifying conflict over natural resources, is almost unthinkable.
Robin Hood in the White House?
Many commentators have accused Obama of being a socialist or modern-day Robin Hood
in the White House, as if any form of 'taxing the rich' or wealth
redistribution is antithetical to progress and economic development.
In the discussion following Obama's infamous "I think when you spread
the wealth around, it's good for everybody" comment during a campaign
rally in Ohio, he was vehemently questioned on the potentially
'socialistic' nature of his tax plans, or even for being a clandestine
Marxist. For other critics, especially those in countries like the UK
where socialist ideals (the state pension, National Health Service)
have been tried with great success, such accusations were generally
viewed as ludicrous. Obama's current tax proposals, even if 95 percent
of working families do receive a tax cut
of $1,000 in 2009, are hardly analogous to the Communist Manifesto.
The continued economic slump and the will of the US Congress could
still reshape the design of any tax changes, and whether the proposals
are robust enough to end the decades-long 'flood-up' of wealth to the
very highest rung of the income ladder is yet to be seen.
Of more international significance is The Global Poverty Act,
a bill sponsored by Obama in late 2007 that declares it "official US
policy" to promote the reduction of global poverty, and hence recommits
the US to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid
(adding $65 billion a year to what the US already spends). A genuine
dedication from the White House to support the Millennium Development
Goal of cutting extreme poverty in half by 2015, despite even this
target remaining woefully insufficient, is the surest sign that the US
government could reawaken to its responsibility for an equitable form
of overseas aid and development.
The term that most expresses the real hope for the Obama administration
is not 'socialism', but the principle of sharing. As the world's
agenda-setter, the US holds a unique power in being able to prioritise
the elimination of hunger and poverty through a redistribution of
resources on a global scale. That the Global Poverty Act would make
levels of US foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the
United Nations is not a negative position, as various critics have
suggested, but one of its greatest hopes. A re-empowerment of the UN
framework in poverty reduction and international development is a
prerequisite to the United States accepting a less dominant and
self-interested role in foreign affairs. A fairer sharing of world
resources, which necessitates a completing reordering or priorities in
favour of the poorest countries and the marginalised sections of
society, is an essential measure of President Obama's progress both at
home and abroad.
The call for sharing
One American who has embraced the principle of sharing is Dennis
Kucinich, currently representing Ohio as a Democratic member of the US
House of Representatives. Kucinich is singularly unafraid to demand
that America lead the way in multilateral disarmament by cutting back
on defense spending, instead using the money to provide free health
care, social security and quality education for all. His campaign
proposals (based on the restoration of rural farms and communities,
international cooperation abroad, and the immediate withdrawal from the
WTO, NAFTA and the war in Iraq) may have heeded only modest support in
the 2004 and 2008 elections, but more Americans need to follow
Kucinich's example in demanding both the dismantlement of the military
industrial complex and a renewed system of international trade. The US
pioneered the creation of the current failed economic system; as the
world economy continues to deteriorate, it is up to the American public
to become politically engaged and light the way for other countries in
how to live a simpler, more sustainable lifestyle.
Mass public mobilisation in the US election campaign was a wonderful
demonstration of popular idealism and devotion to democracy, but it
should not be limited to this symbolic Martin Luther King phase. When
King said "I have a dream", he was speaking not only for the oppressed
black minority, but for every American who in the end must decide the
fate of their country. All Americans share a similar dream: to see
their children grow up in peace and freedom, to play their part in
making sure that every citizen of the US, and of the world, enjoys an
adequate standard of living as long defined in Article 25
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Through the grassroots
financing and immense support of the Obama campaign, the US has
indicated what a true form of political participation can achieve. Now
the American people must show the world, on a scale never seen before,
how public opinion can influence the creation of a new social order
from the ashes of a failed, unjust and obsolete economic system.