Font size: 
An almost all-white state had chosen an African-American, a win that was followed by several others this week. Although Europe preens itself on its "liberalism," this could not happen on that continent, or indeed in Australia. Within the European Union especially, those with the same ethnic background as the people of the union are openly given preference in migration and other core rights, and it is not seen as unusual that minority candidates have thus far not made it to the top in any government, even though they account for nearly one-tenth of the population in some countries.
Most EU member states are united against the admission of Turkey, in a way they would not be to a future Bosnian or Albanian request. The difference is that Turks are not regarded as being of the same ethnic stock, whereas Bosnians and Albanians clearly are, despite many being Muslim.
This "Europe only" policy has been promoted most vigorously -- and unsurprisingly -- by Germany, although these days even the United Kingdom has fallen in line with the rest of the pack. A President Obama would show up the divide in accessibility to the top between Europe and the United States in an unprecedented way, and perhaps result in some soul-searching rather than the usual navel-gazing within the European Union.
Senator Obama has yet to follow the implicit and longstanding U.S. position that places Europe as the mother civilization of the globe, and indeed has made little secret of both his very different geographical and mindset trajectories.
Truth be told, many in Asia, Africa and South America who were born before the 1970s still nurse the phantom wounds of the colonial past of their homelands, with memories of subjugation still active just below a globalized surface. Such prejudices have been reinforced by the perceived impossibility that an individual of non-European origin could reach the highest levels of authority in Europe, North America or Australia, or even in most countries in South America, until recently.
This ethnic ceiling has helped anti-U.S. totalitarians such as the Wahabbists and the Khomeinists portray the "Land of the Free" as a country ruled by prejudice, with scant regard for people from former European colonies. Communist as well as xenophobic ideologues have harped on the perceived inequality of opportunity within the "Western democracies" in order to gain popular traction for their harangues.
This image is reinforced by the brutality and condescension shown by U.S. and NATO armed forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, where there have been an inexcusable number of civilian deaths caused by "friendly fire." Images of U.S. and NATO forces ranging across countries at will, along with the numerous interventions by French armed units in Africa, have resulted in the reemergence of the "colonial reflex," the almost subliminal rage and fear of Europeans.
The sight of white politicians -- in particular the well-respected Kennedy family -- endorsing a black candidate for the U.S. presidency shows there is much less substance to the taunts about Euro-ethnic prejudice than foes of the United States and Western society would have their peoples believe. In this respect, a President Obama would be beneficial not simply to the United States, but to Europe as well. It would show that those of European ethnicity are at least as open as societies elsewhere that have embraced different ethnicities.
In India, for example, Mother Teresa -- who was of Albanian descent -- was revered by millions across all communities. As for Sonia Gandhi, any serious opposition to her is based on factors other than her Italian origin.
If the United States can progress enough to make Barack Obama a viable presidential candidate, then so can Europe. The splinters from the days of European colonialism that remain embedded in the psyche of billions across the globe can then be extracted, leaving behind a much healthier recognition of the common issues that bind humanity together, such as the need for a rational policy on migration as well as battling the effects of climate change.
Candidate Obama's stance on U.S. troops in Iraq -- the need to ensure that citizens' rights are not trampled on in the name of fighting the curse of terror -- as well as on issues such as the Guantanamo Bay facility, are very different from those of George W. Bush and Republican frontrunner John McCain.
The U.S. military is a superb instrument of both offense as well as defense, but it is organizationally, technically and psychologically unable to achieve success in the cauldron of urban or intra-ethnic warfare. If there has been a reduction in U.S. casualties in Iraq, it is not because of prowess in the field but a change in tactics. There has been an "Iraqization" of the conflict and a pulling-back of U.S. troops from high-risk "demonstration effect" maneuvers such as periodic convoy marches through the streets.
Despite the spending of large amounts of blood and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan, in both locations enemy forces are increasing and consolidating control over wide swathes of territory, albeit in a recessed way in Iraq. The only way to staunch this loss is to empower the local governments to handle their own problems, rather than reduce both to a sideshow. Judging by his statements, Obama seems to understand the mindset of former colonies correctly -- a needed first stage in winning back their trust and backing for a globalized community that views the different strands of culture and tradition as a strength rather than an irritant.
Despite their liberal credentials, U.S. foreign policy under the Clintons was marked by an Al Gore paternalism toward societies not of European origin, as witnessed by the chemistry-ignoring responses of the Richard Holbrooks and the Strobe Talbotts. A Clinton presidency would continue policy on a course that separates the world into "the West and the rest," while an Obama presidency -- with its symbolism fused to the policy prescriptions of the candidate – would give the United States the opportunity to win over not land space, as during the colonial past, but mind space.
It is not simply Barack Obama that deserves the world's attention and admiration, but those tens of millions in the United States who are leaping across ethnic identities to back their candidate.
--
(Professor M.D. Nalapat is vice-chair of the Manipal Advanced Research Group, UNESCO Peace Chair, and professor of geopolitics at Manipal University. ©Copyright M.D. Nalapat.)
