Last year, I thought that George W. Bush’s weakness would lead to three strong Democratic candidates, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, plus a designated loser for the Republicans, likely McCain, and it seems it may be turning out that way. I, like everyone else, thought that Hillary was the most likely winner because of her money, her machine, and her husband, the world’s slickest campaigner, but Barack Obama seems to be the most charismatic presidential candidate since JFK, and is upsetting apple carts all along the route. With thousands of political pundits guessing who’s going to win, I don’t think I have much to add to the cacophony. I’m guessing it will be Obama for the Democrats and McCain for the Republicans, and that Obama will win, but that’s only a guess. This is the most fluid election since 1952, which is the last time there was a presidential election without either a sitting president or vice-president running.However, if Obama does win, then given his inexperience 2009 will be a very interesting year in a very sensitive geopolitical environment. Remember Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs? Or, more positively, Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis? Moreover, if Obama wins, it will also shift the perception of America in the world: a U.S. President who is a man of color, with a middle name of Hussein and an African father, and who spent a (short) period of time in a Muslim school in a third world country. If there’s someone with the potential to start healing the foreign policy missteps inflicted by Bush, it could be Obama.And not to raise old specters, but the prospect of vote manipulation on a grand scale in the presidential election through the use of electronic voting machines keeps resurfacing in the blogosphere. True, that puts it four-square with other tin-hat conspiracy theories, but there is some substance to this one, albeit circumstantial and not conclusive. The worst nightmare scenario would be if the exit polls show a clear winner beyond the margin of error, but the official tally yields a different result. If it were clear that fraud had turned the election, what would happen then? Scary, and an issue I hope we don’t have to worry about in November.Canada also looks to be heading to the polls this year, although with their parliamentary democracy, that’s merely likely, not certain. It will be interesting as the only two parties (of five) capable of winning, the Conservatives (who currently have a minority government) and the Liberals both seem to be competing to see who can lose the next election. I suspect that Stéphane Dion of the Libs may surprise everyone again by winning the election with a minority government. He’s easy to underestimate, and has not sell opinion polls on fire, but as Pierre Trudeau once famously said, the only poll that counts is the election. Moreover, Harper is picking up more and more baggage as he goes. He’s seen as cold, mean, narrowly partisan, capable of lying and cheating when it suits his purpose – and many natural conservatives won’t forgive him for screwing them on the tax treatment on income trusts. Since this is a direct pocketbook issue, and many people, especially seniors, lost serious money from their savings as a result, they will have long memories. Moreover, Harper has consistently come down on the wrong side of climate change. Everyone knows he doesn’t believe in it, won’t support efforts to do anything real about it, and is reluctantly going through the motions only because the polls say he must. This is Harper’s election to lose, and I believe he’s in the process of losing it.And the U.K seems to be following in Canada’s footsteps. In both countries a seemingly popular and competent finance minister pushed aside the most successful prime minister of a generation to become PM, only to fumble the office. Paul Martin lost the office of Prime Minister of Canada in three easy steps (helped by a scandal left by his predecessor), and Gordon Brown (helped by his predecessor’s highly unpopular involvement in Iraq, now ending) may repeat the pattern. He has looked inept as PM, and is making his Tory competitor, David Cameron, look better than he is. With Australia’s election upset of the long-standing John Howard government as an example of the consequences of cozying up to the Bushies, the U.K. Labour party needs to pull its socks up, get more distance from Iraq and George W. Bush, and Brown needs to learn how to mimic Blair’s smile and ability to handle criticism gracefully if he wants to hold onto power.Meanwhile, no matter what they say in public, Iran’s looney-tune leadership will continue to seek nuclear weapons. They like the idea of having nukes, and crave the respect and deference they believe that being a nuclear power brings. They also like the thought of being able to turn Israel into a radioactive parking lot (and to hell with the consequences – literally). This would also bring greater instability in a region not known for it now – but that’s the way we’re headed. And the wild card is not whether Iran can be convinced to stop (I don’t believe they can, except possibly by the Russians and Chinese acting in concert), but whether Israel gets into a confrontation with them by bombing Iran’s nuclear sites, assuming Mossad knows where they are.And Pakistan has now taken over the role of world’s least stable place, shoving aside both Iraq and Afghanistan. Both Musharraf and America are screwed by the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Musharraf is screwed because no one believes he didn’t want the assassination, and may have ordered it. This is losing him a lot of the public support he had, and the indulgence of long-suffering western governments, who have turned a reluctant blind eye to his despotism so far. America is screwed because they’re seen to be propping up a despot, and one that reciprocates only by helping them in their pursuit of Al Qaida, the Taliban, and terrorism generally in a half-hearted way. I can’t see anything constructive America can do in Pakistan right now – except to pray that somehow the situation doesn’t get even worse. And remember that Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. If a Taliban-like regime, hostile to America, emerged in Pakistan, it would further stoke tensions in the Middle East.America could lessen that tension somewhat if – and it’s a big if – Bush can pull off a deal that means something between the Palestinians and the Israelis. But, as an Israeli politician once remarked: “You North Americans! You’re so naïve – you think that every problem has a solution.” This one may not, but let’s hope it does.Nor has terrorism gone away. Al Qaida, for instance, is patient, and even if 99 of 100 terrorist acts are blocked, they only need one big headline to score a victory in what is primarily a psychological game. That’s why they’re called “terrorists” and not “soldiers.” We should remain aware of the potential for another successful terrorist attack, if not in America, then perhaps in an allied country that isn’t as vigilant, such as Canada, perhaps, or Poland.Russia seems well on a real retro kick, returning, with the seeming consent of most of its people, to the good old days of the Soviet Union. Putin is effectively still in power, no matter what title he has, and oil revenue is underwriting his aspirations. Moreover, Russia seems intent on flexing their muscles, and would like, I suspect, to retrieve their former colonies (excuse me, “fraternal allies”), although I would think in most cases that’s unlikely. Moreover, while Russia doesn’t seem to be opposing the United States merely to oppose it, as the USSR did, they don’t seem to care very much what their aspirations cost other countries. A key litmus test, as with China, will be if they assist Iran in securing nuclear weapons. Yet, Russia has a significant Achilles’ heel: their population is already in decline, and appears likely to continue to do so. This will limit their ability to become regain their status as superpower, which is clearly their ambition. Regardless, I wouldn’t want to be dependent on their supply of oil or natural gas. That’s begging for blackmail.North Korea seems to have knuckled under to the Chinese because (I would guess) of backroom arm-twisting, but I don’t trust them any more than I trust the Iranians. Moreover, I’m quite sure that Kim Jong Il, the Glorious Goombah with the messianic ego, is quite prepared to make and sign agreements, accept the pro-offered bribes, and then renege, as he has done before. I don’t think this hot spot has truly cooled down; it’s more of an illusion, and one we will hear more about during the year.Finally, let’s not forget the obvious: China’s global power aspirations. Given the Olympics in Beijing this year, added to the greater weight that China is pulling in the global economy because of the American recession, all eyes will be on them in 2008. Aside from providing a lot of the pull in the global economy, it remains to be seen how they will respond to the inevitable criticism that will go with foreign reporters poking around China during the Olympics. (Visits to Tiananmen Square or discussions on Tibet, anyone?) A greater concern is how they will behave as a global power. Will they see it as to their advantage to discourage or encourage Iran’s pursuit of nukes, given the destabilizing effects, for instance? No one knows. Likewise, if Taiwan were to move towards a declaration of independence from China, then a confrontation with the U.S. seems both certain and highly destructive. The Chinese leadership is driven by political ideology, global ambition, the need for raw materials (such as oil from Iran), and the need to create jobs for their increasingly unhappy poor. Practical global realities, as seen by westerners, comes way down their list of priorities. They will work with the West if it suits their priorities, but the “Middle Kingdom” don’t see the world the way we do, and that could lead to confrontation.
