The orchestration of the Republican National Convention showed clearly that democracy is black humour in the United States, writes Curtis Doebbler* While the Republican National Convention, held in New York City, was clearly intended to speak to the American public and particularly those who support the incumbent administration of American President George W Bush, much was said that is of relevance to people all over the world and especially Muslims and Arabs. This is the case not only because the United States is the wealthiest and most militarily powerful country in the world today, but also because America has shown its consistent willingness to project its military force around the world for the purpose of ensuring that others conform to its political ideology. More clearly than any event in recent months the Republican National Convention has illustrated the discrepancies between the views of Americans and most other individuals in the world. This disjunction of political views was clearly brought into focus by those whom the Republican Party called to address their convention. Among the speakers was former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Speaking on the first day of the week-long convention, Giuliani reminded the American public that they were at war with an ambiguous enemy he called "terrorists" or "terrorism", but which he, like several other speakers, implied had an Arab or Muslim face. And, he casually added, this enemy must be completely destroyed. Senator John McCain followed by attacking even film makers, such as Michael Moore, who dissent from the incumbent administration's policies. The next day the president's wife Laura Bush also reminisced about how she witnessed her husband's courage sitting in the comfort of a living room considering his orders to send thousands of American soldiers overseas; hundreds to their own death and even more to slaughter defenseless civilians as well as brave but inferiorly armed Afghani and Iraqi soldiers defending their homelands. Earlier the same day, California Governor and movie strongman Arnold Schwarzenegger emphasised that the president should act as he believes is right and not on the wishes of his constituents, the American people. The week continued with this same message: the president is right and if you are against him you are wrong. Vice-President Dick Cheney gave a speech that was touted as an opportunity to humanise himself after he was maligned as stiff and distant from ordinary Americans. Cheney's main message was merely to recommend Bush for re-election with arguments that he has flogged for months. When George W Bush did drop by the convention to accept his honours and run -- he stayed in New York City for only a few hours -- he gave perhaps the most uninspiring speech of all the speakers. Trying and failing to balance his wartime presidency tough guy image with the compassionate side required by his rhetoric on job creation and education, he left just about as he came in. Senator John Kerry was already launching a vicious counterattack as Bush was walking out. As might be expected, much of the mainstream American media covered the convention by parodying the hollow professions of accomplishment that each speaker presented. There was only limited critical commentary or evaluation of the Republican comments. Instead, there was the atmosphere of polite reverence that apparently was required to be shown to a king and his court. More striking, perhaps, is what was not shown by the media -- the clear hostility displayed by the New York City police against any individual who opposed the views and policies being expressed at the Republican National Convention. For example, although hundreds of times as many people as were in the Madison Square Garden Convention Center were out in the streets protesting, the protesters received a fraction of the airtime that the repetitious speakers received. Perhaps this was not unusual as several of the convention speakers emphasised that this president was not in power because he respected the will of the people, but because he acted as he wanted. When the protests were afforded airtime, it was usually to disparage their political message and to claim that protesters were disrupting life in New York City. More time was spent by Fox News covering the arrest of protesters and a single incident of violence than covering the clear message of hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters who disagreed with the Republican message that was being propagandised during prime-time hours. In the one instance of violence, the media concentrated on the fact that one protester had beaten up an undercover policeman who had been riding a motor scooter in between the protesters. No mention was made of the fact that already for several days such policemen had endangered the well-being of protesters and New York City residents alike by their dangerous and inciting actions of bumping bicycles and individuals out of the way. In one instance, as I observed the arrest of more than 100 protesters who had been riding their bikes together in full respect of the traffic laws of New York City, I was pushed out of the way and thrown to the ground by a New York City police officer who I believe was running to get his lunch from a colleague who just arrived with food for his fellow officers. In another instance, when the media reported that more than 1,000 protesters had been arrested for legally protesting, the media failed to mention that these protesters had not even begun their protest and were following the instructions of police at the time they were arrested. A senior newscaster from CBS, a major American network, even stated in a rarely shown clip that the protesters were not only acting completely peacefully but that they had conformed with all special requests made by the New York City police, only to be arrested for doing so. One had to wonder if the New York City police were trying to incite violence. Although the primary purpose of the Republican National Convention was to nominate the incumbent president for re-election, it was somewhat odd that significant steps were taken to ensure that the president himself spoke as little as possible at the convention and did not even appear in New York City until the convention's fourth day. Were the Republicans somehow embarrassed by their leader? Or was it merely that the president did not find it important to speak to the public, even at his own party's national convention? It was not only the president who did not appear frequently in public, but also his most influential and controversial policy advisers. Paul Wolfowitz, Karl Rove and Richard Perle -- the architects of the American wars against the people of Afghanistan and Iraq -- were kept well buried in the background. In any event, the Republican National Convention clearly re- emphasised several themes that have characterised the current administration. First, it indicated that the views of the American public are not as important as the views of a few privileged policy-makers. International observers can only draw the conclusion that their views count even less. Second, the majority of the individuals in the world who do not support America's hegemonic policies of pre-emptory attack against all those who apparently disagree with American policies can expect America to continue to use force around the world to enforce its political will. Third, the Republicans have made it clear that the administration and its backers view Arabs and Muslims as enemies of America. In this sense, perhaps the Republican National Convention has been a stroke of luck for the leaders of the Middle East and their constituents who might have doubted the intentions of the incumbent American administration. The benefit of the doubt is not possible now. Bush and his party are at war with Muslims and Arabs. Perhaps it is time for Muslim and Arab leaders to work to influence American policies and politics. At the very least, the leaders of Muslims and the Arab world owe it to their constituents to take steps to secure their countries against what might be a future that includes even more aggression by America against them. * The writer is an international human rights lawyer. His latest book is International Human Rights Law.
