Shouldn't we get a vote?
September 27, 2004


The truth is, Washington's decisions affect us more than those taken in Canberra. By Jonathan Freedland.

There's a reason every newspaper in the world will have the same story on its front page on November 3. The American presidential election will be decisive not just for the US but for the future of the world.

Anyone who doubts this need only look at the past four years. The war against Iraq, the introduction of the doctrine of pre-emption, the direct challenge to multilateral institutions - chances are, not one of these world-changing developments would have happened under a President Al Gore. It is no exaggeration to say that the actions of a few hundred voters in Florida changed the world.

So perhaps it's time to make a modest proposal. If everyone in the world will be affected by this presidential election, shouldn't everyone in the world have a vote in it?

It may sound wacky, but the idea could not be more American. After all, the country was founded on the notion that human beings must have a say in the decisions that govern their lives. The rebels' slogan of "No taxation without representation" endures two centuries later because it speaks about something larger than the narrow business of raising taxes. It says that those who pay for a government's actions must have a right to choose the government that takes them.

Today, people far from America's shores do indeed pay for the consequences of US actions. The citizens of Iraq are the obvious example, living in a land where a vile dictatorship was removed only for a military occupation and unspeakable violence to be unleashed in its place. The would-be voters of downtown Baghdad might like a say in whether their country would be better off with US forces gone. But they have no voice.

It's not just those who live under US military rule who might wish to choose the commander-in-chief.It's not just those who live under US military rule who might wish to choose the commander-in-chief. Everyone from Madrid to Bali is now drawn into the "war on terror" declared by President Bush. We might believe that war is being badly mishandled - that US actions are aggravating the threat rather than reducing it - and that we will eventually pay the price for those errors. We might fear that the Bush policy is inflaming al-Qaeda, making it more likely to strike in our towns and cities, but right now we can't do anything to change that policy. Instead we have to watch the US campaign on TV, with our fingers crossed - impotent spectators of a contest that could shake up our lives.

So we ought to hold America to its word. When George Bush spoke to the UN last Tuesday, he cited America's declaration of independence that insists on the equal worth of every human being. Well, surely equal worth means an equal say in the decisions that affect the entire human race.

That 1776 declaration is worth re-reading. Its very first sentence demands "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind": isn't that exactly what the world would like from America today? The document goes on to insist that authority is only legitimate when it enjoys "the consent of the governed". As the world's sole superpower, the US now has global authority. But where is the consent?

By this logic, it is not a declaration of independence the world would be making. On the contrary, in seeking a say in US elections, the human race would be making a declaration of dependence - acknowledging that Washington's decisions affect us more than those taken in our own capitals. In contrast with those founding Americans, the new declaration would argue that, to take charge of our destiny, we do not need to break free from the imperial power - we need to tame it.

Such a request would also represent a recognition of an uncomfortable fact. It would be an admission that the old, post-World War II multilateral arrangements have broken down. In the past, America's allies could hope to influence the behemoth via treaties, agreements, and the UN. The Bush era - not just Iraq, but Washington's disdain for Kyoto, the nuclear test ban treaty, the International Criminal Court and the rest - suggests that the US will no longer listen to those on the outside. Only those with votes get a hearing.

Will this modest proposal fly? Will it hell. Despite Bush's smooth talk in New York last Tuesday, his position remains that America does not need a "permission slip" from anybody to do anything. If Washington won't listen to the UN, it's hardly likely to submit itself to the voters of Paris and Pretoria.

Besides, every good Republican knows the world is solid Kerry territory. A survey by pollsters HI Europe this month found that, if Europeans had a vote, they would back Kerry over Bush by a 6 to 1 margin. Bush would win just 6 per cent in Germany, 5 per cent in Spain and a measly 4 per cent in France. No US Republican is going to cede turf like that to the enemy.

You would think those numbers would hurt Bush, making clear how unpopular he is in the world. But they don't.

If anything they hurt Kerry, suggesting he is the candidate of limp-wristed foreigners and therefore somehow less American. We may find that a sorry state of affairs. But there is little we can do about it. In the democratic contest that matters most to the world, the world is disenfranchised.

- Guardian

A well written article, and one that I happen to agree with.

The problem, as I see it, is many citizens in the US are somewhat less informed and less likely to take an overall world view than say, Europe or Asia. The main difference being the proximity to other countries and cultures.

Europe- drive a hundred miles and be one or two countries away. This would certainly give different perspective to 'getting along' with the neighbors. We don't have to here. We don't have to care.

This is just another reason the conservative right bothers me. The screw 'em all mentality- By Gawd we're Americuns, we can do whatever the hell we please and f## 'em all thy're just furrin furriners...

This is an asinine article, but typical of a liberal. They are always so fast to give up our liberties and privileges that so many have fought for. How about events and actions by other countries that effect us? How about all of the money we send their way and never get repaid for? You want to solve some of our domestic problems that you libs toss dollar after dollar, and yet never solve anything? Stop sending and lending money that never gets repaid! So the rest of the World should get to vote in our election? What a bad joke!

That is such a rediculous article it almost is unworthy of commentary. Lets just give our sovereignty away as well as pay Chirac's 'World Tax'! :rolleyes:

Let them apply for statehood and subject themselves to our laws if they want a vote. Otherwise, they could/should stop expecting handouts, stop doing business with us, declare war on us, or just continue their incessant whining about us damned yanks. I expect the latter to be what they opt for.

So state the righties.
Should the world have a vote. if Bush decides to send 15 ICBMs over to North Korea ?

So state the righties.
Should the world have a vote. if Bush decides to send 15 ICBMs over to North Korea ?
Are the ICBMs going to get there under their own power? ;)

So the rest of the World should get to vote in our election? What a bad joke!



heheh, I figured this would draw you out of your shell, Steam.

And yet we can pick leaders for other sovereign nations?

I need to amend my point a bit so you get what I'm saying. I agree with the article and it's concepts up to the point that we should allow the world to pick our Prez. This I disagree with. I do agree with the fact the world looks at Bush as a dangerous fraud.

Same thing with our CIA friend in Iraq. Puppet regime. Why should that be acceptable? When natives rebel at forced outside intervention why are they labeled 'Insurgents' and not 'Freedom Fighters?' I think we all know the answer to that one...

I don't know how to sugar coat it. Less than one percent of the earths population elected this putz that has done his best to further the case for attracting believers to join against the US. He was correct in saying "I want to be a Uniter, not a Divider". He has united sentiment against us, and this is worse than unfortunate, he really should be run out of town tarred and feathered.

So, we think we can wreak havoc- go it alone- be the renegade Texan cleaning up town. We would criticise world opinion of our hasty actions, then go back to these same folks and without even a mumbled acknowledgent that 'maybe' we were wrong and might need some help after all (in fact, continue with the defiant arrogant charade) in keeping the peace and rebuilding what has been destroyed. Now we find that money earmarked for reconstruction needs to be deferred until the fighting ends... but when will that be?

I really think Bush is a detriment, and more so the world view is in agreement. That's what I'm talkin' about.

Now I can see your answer to this is... "but of course, and why should we give a flying fig what the world cares?

And the circle is complete...

So you really think that if the people in Iraq are not AQ, but Iraqis who once served under Saddam, they should be revered and consider freedom fighters? Is that correct? If so, do you think they deserve respect for the torturing they perpetrated on the Iraqi people, too? How about the raping and plundering of their riches? You don't believe where fighting against 'evil' people? Is that true? Hmmm!? Kind of makes one wonder who would think like that.

So you really think that if the people in Iraq are not AQ, but Iraqis who once served under Saddam, they should be revered and consider freedom fighters? Is that correct? If so, do you think they deserve respect for the torturing they perpetrated on the Iraqi people, too? How about the raping and plundering of their riches? You don't believe where fighting against 'evil' people? Is that true? Hmmm!? Kind of makes one wonder who would think like that.

Let me make my position very clear. That you would infer I am dishonorable, immoral or unAmerican because I have the understanding that-indeed there might just be some Iraqi's that are pissed off with Our actions in Their country really inflames me more than I am able to convey here.

Every single one of those fighters that dies at our hand is a martyr in their land. Every one of those that dies has an extended family and freind network of maybe a hundred. We off ten thousand of them and we have not done a service to our cause, because now we have a million enemies.

Those Iraqis and even foreign 'insurgents' believe they are doing the right thing. Agreeing or disagreeing with their actions is immaterial. The point is >they believe<. This is obviously more than the 'right minded' brain is able to grasp---- and you have more than completely proven my initial point that many Americans fail to understand that there are more sides to a story than party line bullshit spewed by Politicians and radio entertainers. (take your damn pick of which)

Hey RW, I didn't say any of that. I didn't even infer it. You felt that way on your own if that is the feeling you got from my post. They are martyrs to all Iraqis? To the majority? To a very small minority? Many of them were part of a despicable regime of thugs. Even criminals in this country have families and friends. Should we not prosecute them because of that? I don't understand your argument at all. I think even most leftists, and John Kerry, can recognize that Saddam and his henchmen were criminals and lacked respect for the sanctity of human life. So again, why should we consider what some small group thinks of these people, when their mission is to cause harm to the healing process of their country? They are killing IRAQIS WITH THEIR CAR BOMBS! I don't think many Iraqis think they're heroes! I think the common, every day Iraqi citizen is capable of knowing that they are being killed by TERRORISTS! I think the common, everyday Iraqi would rather live in peace and freedom. They celebrated the fall of Saddam. They do not revere the people who you claim are freedom fighters. These so called freedom fighters are killing Iraqis at a far greater rate than they are killing American GIs. They are creating martyrs, because the Iraqis that THE TERRORISTS are killing are the TRUE FREEDOM FIGHTERS! Um, can your left thinking brain comprehend that?

I think the common, everyday Iraqi would rather live in peace and freedom.



We do agree ;-)

We all want to live in peace and freedom. Saddam and his thugs were a gang of thieves and murderers. Yet viewing the destruction of life and property currently taking place it brings to mind the question "Is this an improvement?" Which begs the next question "who is responsible?"

If one follows history there appears to be patterns, and conclusions may be drawn from them. The Chinese and Middle East history are much much longer than ours. Over thousands of years they have dealt repeatedly with bad management. A common theme seems to be "this too, shall pass"

We here are somewhat unique (tho not alone) in our short term thinking, be it terms of the next day, week, or year. Our system has evolved to consider a long time as being to the next election process. Grand projects in the past were measured in generations of labor. Pyramids, Great Wall, etc.

The leader of the mightiest power the world has ever seen, with destructive capability unimaginable at his fingertips goes off half cocked with a "we can't wait another minute" attitude in regards to some two bit despot that may or may not have weapons that would even reach the next town (and not much of that was found). The extreme irony is this despot was set up and aided by US. He was our buddy. We then bomb the greater part of the country trying to stamp out the mouse we fed for all those years.

This too shall pass, tho I hope sooner rather than later.

Oh, BTW Steam- Michael Moore is in Reno October 13. I got you a ticket if you can make it ;-)

No thanks you can keep the "one world order mentality", I prefer to have our own populous pick a president.

I heard. It seems his appearance is consuming the better part of the students entertainment fund and many are troubled by that. I'll have to check my calendar ;O)

Yes that part of the world has a long troubled history. That does not mean things cannot change for the better. Thinking that they cannot is a defeatist attitude. The World has changed considerably. They are changing along with it.

I keep hearing how we stroked Saddam for many years. That was a long time ago, and under very different global circumstances. He is obviously the Judas, not us. As for waiting "one more minute", why should we have after waiting 12 years. Why should we have after the events of 911, whether or not he was involved. That day proved we need to be proactive in this war on terrorism. That particular spot in the World is the epicenter of global terror, with Iran on one side and Syria on the other. They need to know we are serious about this. I am sorry, but I believe that is being responsible to the situation.

What is happening in Iraq after the fact, is tragic. However I think it is sending a message to Iraqis and other Arabs that these extremists are the root of their problems. They are suffering the most from their bombings. They are also repulsed by the beheadings. I think their tactics are working against them in the realm of public opinion.