Islamic World

I was frequently asked about whether the election will improve America's relations with the Islamic world. This is an impossible questions to answer -- of the opaque crystal ball variety -- but I tried to dissect it and by the end had at least put a finger on why it was hard to answer (aside from the fact it was a prediction)

1) Yes, at first. People all over the world, including in America, will feel like President Bush leaving will be like opening the windows after a long winter. Here, at least, it is a function of his being unpopular but also we just get tired of President's after eight years. To the extent that "problems with the Islamic world" is a reference to not looking President Bush the issue will be solved by his leaving.

2) But, maybe the question is difficult. indonesians really do feel a part of something called "Islam" in a way that very few (some, but not many) Americans, and even fewer Europeans feel they belong to something called "the Christian world". This sounds like a small thing but it is a major gap in conversation. I don't personally, think of policy toward the "Islamic world".

I think of North African policy or policy toward the Israeli's and Palestinians -- the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know we have a policy toward Kosovo and Chechnya and Kashmir. We have a Southeast Asian policy that encompasses Muslim Malaysia, Buddhist Thailand, Communist Vietnam, Catholic Philippines, Muslim Indonesia, and the hard drinkers in Australia. Our policy is situational, or regional, or nation specific -- not directed at pan-religious affiliations.

This isn't to say we aren't aware that people view "Islam" as a sort of unity nor that we are unaware of the effects our policies have on public perceptions. It isn't even to say that some efforts are made to craft initiatives that do address the Islamic world -- it is only to say that viewing the world as great religious blocks isn't or first instinct or the driver of our foreign policy.

There are, of course, Americans who argue that we are a "Christian" nation and, I'm sure, people who view our battles as blessed by God but these people are a minority (plus viewing yourself as a member of a "christian" nation is very different from feeling a deep sense of unity with the rest of the "christian" world).

I tried to state that the best I could and then gave what many of you will no doubt feel is a weak answer and that is, whoever is elected will have a chance to do things differently. They won't be trapped under eight years of decisions and promises and the rest of the world's views won't be hardened toward them. But, having said that, the world will be the same world. All of the candidates will support the existence of Israel -- all of them will work to negotiate a peace between Palestine and Israel. Much is made of the differences between McCain and Obama/Clinton on Iraq but I am hard pressed to see if there will be a genuine difference after the election -- maybe a matter of some months or weeks on troop removal, possibly McCain is more likely to establish a permanent base (like in Germany, Japan, Iceland, etc.) but all of them will still aggressively pursue the fighting in Afghanistan and the war on terror.

There is a possibility that Obama and Clinton may change the rhetoric of terrorism and give a more narrow definition to the term. I think Bush was trapped politically when he lumped all sorts of movements into the term "terrorist".

Finally, I stated that on economic issues McCain was a little more likely to support free trade agreements (the Indonesians favor them) so in terms of foreign policy -- they would like Obama or Clinton more - marginally and on economic issues they might like McCain more (even more marginally).