‐ 1 ‐

‘Defeat Bush’ Campaign

as the Symbolic Coupling of the Anti‐globalization and

Peace Movements against ‘the Armoured Globalization’

Joe, Hee‐Yeon. 曺  喜 日公

Prof. Sungkonghoe Univ, Seoul

Co‐Representative of Korea Progressive Academy Council

Chair of International Solidarity, Korea Social Forum Network

Tel: 82‐2‐2610‐4232

Email: chohy@mail.skhu.ac.kr

Home Page: http://dnsm.skhu.ac.kr

1. Challenges coming from the Armoured Globalization

2. Why does the globalization bring with it militarism?

3. The impact of the armoured globalization on the global struggle

4. Defeat‐Bush Campaign as a Symbolic Strategy against the Armoured Globalization

5. The possibility that the Defeat‐Bush campaign can be a global movement strategy

6. Concrete Strategy of Defeat Bush Campaign

7. Of course, there are dilemmas and limitations in Defeat Bush campaign!

Prepared for the Workshop in World Social Forum, titled ‘Defeat Bush in 2004, Planning for a Global Network of Action’, January 17, 2004, Mumbai, India

Challenges coming from the Armoured Globalization

As of today, the world‐wide social movements are confronted with dual challenges coming from the 'armoured globalization'. One is a challenge coming from the globalization itself and the other is one coming from the militaristic character of the globalization.

As well‐known, globalization is a process in which diverse activities and relations in individual countries are increasingly inter‐integrated and, as its result, the degree of inter‐penetration and interaction of them are getting higher and the life and activities in individual countries get more and more influenced by super‐national phenomena, with super‐national global order becoming an independent reality. Considering that the capitalism has continued to be a world‐systemic phenomenon, this globalization could be defined as continuation of globalized change which has started from the modern period but there is a qualitative difference between the modern globalized phenomenon and the recent globalization.

The challenge coming from the globalization results from the fact that the present globalization proceeds as so‐called neo‐liberal one. globalization brings with it integration of nationally fragmented national economies into a globally integrated super‐national economy. In this process, one‐sided market‐logic dominates the new globally integrated economy, disintegrating the former social and political institutional measures which have been achieved by labor movement and people's movement within one nation terrain. It is because the globalization is being driven from above by capital's initiative. This globalization results in resurgence of market ideology, which implies that market is a new savior of all kinds of problems in the contemporary period. The market is regarded as a panacea, which does remedy the so‐called 'state‐failure'. With this, deregulation, privatization, downsizing of the government, individual responsibility rather than that of the state, off welfare to work, flexibilization and etc. are brought to the front in the ideological dominant discourse(Cho 2000). This neo‐liberal globalization brings with it deterioration of the life quality of people, formalization of democracy, bi‐polarization and other contradictions on the domestic and global levels.

The important thing is that the people's struggle against this destructive neo‐liberal globalization has emerged, expanded and been strengthened. This struggle has developed in diverse forms and is being in progress. The more important thing in social movements is that struggle against neo‐liberal globalization and anti‐war peace movement have been coupled in this global conjuncture. It is because the neo‐liberal globalization is going not in the peace way but in the militaristic way. Generally speaking, the market is regarded as not supposing any coercive method in its function. However, "contrary to neo‐liberal discourse, globalization does not represent the highest state of peace".

The coupling of the ‘democratic’ superstructure and ‘capitalist’ infrastructure is seen as deterministically given. However, the ‘democratic’ superstructure is achieved by people’s struggle and their sacrifices(Cho 2002). In this sense, we can talk about contradictory articulation and combination of democracy and market (Bowles and Gintis 1986). If we extend this, the general perception that the coupling of ‘democratic’ politics and ‘neo‐liberal’ market stream is given does not represent the reality. We have to say that peace and democracy in the neo‐liberal globalization context are something achieved by people’s struggle and their sacrifices by way of overcoming the militaristic aspect of the current imperialism.

Claude Serfati, "War drive: armed globalisation", http://www.3bh.org.uk/IV/main/IV%20Archive/IV344/IV344%2001.html.

If we see the historical development of capitalism, we see in many stages coupling of market expansion and militaristic characteristics. If we see the current progress of globalization, we can sure say that it promotes militarism. As Claude Serfati says, “the globalization of capital and the militarization of the planet are linked. Contrary to neo‐liberal discourse, globalization does not represent the highest stage of peace”. In this sense, we can define the current globalization as armoured globalization.

This armoured globalization can be expressed in various concepts. Serfati’s ‘armed globalization’ and John Feffer(2003)’s ‘gunboat globalization’ refers to current coupling of globalization and militarism. Feffer applied it to the Korean Peninsula in relation to U.S. policy.

2. Why does the globalization bring with it militarism?

If so, what are the reasons for the current capital‐driven globalization’s proceeding in a heightened militarism? First of all, it's because the struggle against capital‐driven globalization becomes strengthened and so the militaristic mechanism to police and control the struggle should be more expanded. As we know well, wherever the meetings or conferences related to global economic governance organizations are held, there are strong demonstrations of anti‐globalization happening without exceptions. The recent WTO meeting in Genoa in Italy came to an end with the death of one demonstrator. Stronger the struggle against globalization becomes, more strengthened the militaristic violence to safeguard the globalization and militarization of the globe become.

Although the September 11 incident could be explained in different ways, it showed that the current economic globalization can not but proceeds with strengthened police power and militaristic measures. When the resistance against dominant side becomes strengthened like in September 11 incident, the repressive militarism cannot but be brought to the front, responding to such a resistance.

Second, globalization demands police protection or militaristic safeguard of corporate interests. The September 11 incident showed that the global economy is very much vulnerable and, as its result, economic elites demand the government to protect the current globalization regime militaristically. As we see it after the September 11 incident in U. S. A., the security forces armoured itself with anti‐Terror law such as the Patriot Act and used a kind of totalitarian measures. “The Pentagon is realigning and expanding its vast international network of bases along the frontiers of the global economy, such as in central Asia. And in places like Colombia, U.S. troops and weapons are being deployed where uprisings threaten corporate investments".

Seven Staples, "Ten Ways globalization Promotes Militarism", http://www.rense.com

In these measures, 'the criminalization of social resistance' could be included, which goes along with the significant restrictions on civil liberties. This means that "all those who contest the globalization of capital are potential enemies, who merit being dealt with in a military fashion".

Claude Serafati, ibid.

Third, because globalization results in deepening of inequality in every country, the conflict over resource distribution, environmental issues and so on and, as its result, more disastrous conflict between the ethnic and religious groups becomes sharpened. Therefore, the police and military forces should be expanded to regulate this negative result of globalization. We can see good examples in Southeast Asia and recent situations of Latin American countries.

Fourth, although the internal cleavage and conflict become sharpened, the governance capacity becomes weakened under the influence of globalization, the government tries to strengthen militaristic capacity, with the result of heightened probability of armoured collision. That's one reason for the armoured globalization.

Fifth, globalization brings with it the effect of militarizing the Western industrialized economies. As free‐trade promotes the de‐industrialization and move of industrial bases to industrializing countries more and more, advanced countries try to keep economic competitiveness in their hi‐tech and advanced manufacturing industries especially for fighter planes, space systems and advanced weapons and, as its result, result in strengthening and expanding of high level of military industries and upgrading of the level of militarization of the advanced countries.

3. The impact of the armoured globalization on the global struggle

This armoured globalization and resistance against it means much to global movements. It changes the global battlefront and characteristics of resistance. First of all, the September 11 incident brought with it diverse impact on resistance against the armoured globalization. In one aspect, the September 11 incident can be viewed as sharpened resistance against the armoured globalization. The September 11 incident and harsh reaction like anti‐terror attack made the essential character of globalization transparent to all the people around the world

As we see it in the many cases, some radical group performs a militant action towards the dominant 'enemy'. To this militant attack, the dominant power reacts to it in a very brutal way and uses a very much violent measures, which brings about a mass resentment and upgrades the battle line one step forward. The September 11 attack and reactive anti‐terror attack interacted in this way. The Bush administration and the so‐called neo‐conservatives reacted brutally to the terrorist attack in a very much aggressive militarism, taking advantage of a heightened patriotic mood. In the name of anti‐terror attack, the Bush administration and its related conservative forces have done aggressive attack on every side of people's life. Responding to this aggressive militarism, the world‐wide social movements have been mobilized in a resistant way and converged over anti‐war peace rapidly, which meant that the global movements could organize highly upgraded struggle against the neo‐liberal globalization together.

The aggressive militarism of the U.S.A. made the essential character of globalization driven by globalised capital more transparent and, as its result, gave rise to the upgraded resistance against globalization. The same case can be seen in Kwangju massacre in 1980 in South Korea, in which violence and aggressive militarism of the military forces made the essential violent character of the state more transparent and thereafter the Korean social movement has changed into more militant and radicalized resistance. In this way, suddenly the globalization with smiling face changed to globalization with militaristic face after the September 11 attack and anti‐terror attack, and such a change helped a resistance against the globalization more popular.

Second, the armoured globalization collides with normative demands of the globalised world, the so‐called 'Empire'(Hardt and Negri 2000) in the Negri's sense and, as its result, give rise to heightened resistance to it. The current aggressive militaristic behavior of the Bush administration is an attempt to try to globalize the former imperialistic policy. Anti‐terror war means that the U.S.A. as the most powerful imperialistic country is trying to coerce its principle over the world and insists on behaving in a way of the 'rogue state'. In Negri's sense, the globalized world is de‐centralized one without any dominant center. However, the U.S.A. is trying to make the current world a new world, which converges and is centralized on a center that is the U.S.A. This conflicts with norms of the newly globalized world. In this sense, the Iraqi war can be called 'imperialist backlash on empire' (Negri 2002). This kind of contradiction of armoured globalization ironically heightens global solidarity among social movements for a more militant struggle.

Third, based on this analysis, we can say that the current stream of the armoured globalization gives us a greater room for anti‐globalization struggle and anti‐war peace movement to be coupled. The anti‐globalization struggle implies a kind of economic struggle against the exploitativeness and destructiveness of the neo‐liberal globalization. However, the peace movement implies a kind of political struggle against militarization of the imperialistic forces and their war‐like orientation. Although these two are closely interlinked, these two movements proceed on a basis of different energies and different organizations. The armoured globalization endorses convergence of these two movements morally and realistically.

We have to keep in mind the fact that the armoured globalization is only crisis‐ridden globalization. The armoured globalization should be interpreted in the way that it does not mean strength of trans‐national capital and the U.S.A. but its weakness.

4. Defeat‐Bush Campaign as a Symbolic Strategy against the Armoured Globalization

The struggles against the armoured globalization proceed in diverse forms. I think that the anti‐Bush struggle is a very much symbolic case against the armoured globalization, because the Bush administration is in the forefront to perform this kind of policing the capital‐driven globalization in a very much aggressive militarism.

Anti‐Bush struggles can be expressed in diverse forms including resisting Iraqi war. As one of this anti‐Bush struggles, I would recommend a Defeat‐Bush campaign(or No Vote for Bush campaign) in the presidential election 2004 in the U.S.A. The social movements in the U.S.A. can do diverse campaigns to defeat Bush in the next election and some groups are doing similar campaigns. However what I am suggesting is a global campaign against Bush, which includes a formation of united global campaign to defeat Bush in the election 2004 and topple him from the presidency, a formation of cross‐border solidarity of American   and non‐American social movements to dump Bush in the next election, and an intervention of the global civil society in the American civil society to change the American political society treating the global peace and human security. It means also an attempt to transform current diverse anti‐Bush campaigns to concrete electoral campaign for influencing real voting behavior of American voters.

In addition to these long‐term issues, I would suggest Defeat‐Bush campaign as a short‐term conjunctural issue, in which people's activism can be also expressed across the national border. This campaign means a progressive intervention in a nationally bounded election process from outside, based on a trans‐border solidarity. The modern concept, sovereignty, presupposes that only national people have a right to select their representative via vote. However, according to Negri, the world‐wide people are inter‐connected borderlessly and are exposed to inter‐communication by way of global information network and, in this process, make a new trans‐border solidarity. He finds, in this process, a new dynamics and energy of 'the multitude'. He suggested three concrete global areas of struggles such as new rights to global citizenship, social wage, and common share of information and knowledge. These issues areas are those in which people's activism should be spilled over across the national border. Imperialist intervention in weak countries’ domestic affair is different from this kind of global civil society’s intervention in imperialist country’s dometic affair. It should be facilitated in this globalizing context, in that it is an endeavor to overcome the national‐state politics from the progressive perspective. Considering the ‘de‐nationlalization of the statehood and de‐statization of the politics’ (Jessop 1999), de‐nationalized actors should intervene in de‐statized national politics. In this sense, “the internationalist discourse of the labor and social movements has been a marginalized one for a long time. The globalization of capital movement is making a new situation, which can't be tackled by 'nationally fragmented' struggle. Global vision on international solidarity should be revived again in this sense”(Cho 2000: 165). The global movements are confronted with the new task to develop diverse strategies including this Defeat‐Bush campaign, in which  people's activism can be expressed across the national border.

5. The possibility that the Defeat‐Bush campaign can be a global movement strategy

I think that the Defeat‐Bush campaign can be a global movement strategy in the following sense. Firstly, with the aggressive militaristic policy of the Bush Administration, the global peace is being threatened seriously and 'anti‐Bush' is becoming a kind of global civil society consensus. In this conjuncture, a concrete strategy is needed to change this kind of consensus to an action potential. Secondly, until now, there have been diverse efforts to criticize Bush in terms of its militaristic and over‐hegemonic policy in the name of peace. Domestically, the American social movements are doing diverse campaign to topple Bush. Some of anti‐Bush groups do think of intervening in defeating Bush in the next election but other groups do not. If, in this situation, global social movements outside America would be united around the anti‐Bush front, it will encourage the intra‐American social movements to speed up its campaign and strengthen its popular attention. Thirdly, with diverse action programs, global social movements make an alliance against re‐election of Bush and exert a real impact on the presidential election result by way of getting rid of moral legitimacy from Bush Administration. Fourthly, with targeting Bush, not America, this campaign can help conservative American voters defect from the Bush Administration and give a moral message, to American voters, that the United States will be more isolated from the global community and peace‐loving people, without mobilizing the conservatively oriented counter‐solidarity of American people. Fifthly, in the case that 'peripheral' minority nations and ethnic communities stand in the front in the campaign, it might bring with it a negative impact to American voters. However, in the case that global civil society stand in this campaign, it can put  Bush in the immoral image and minimize moral resources for Bush's reelection, while preventing the negative impact of ethnic minority community's anti‐Bush campaign. Sixthly, in South Korea, in the general election in April 2000, there was a Defeat‐Corrupt Politicians (Blacklisting Campaign). Most of Korean civil society and social movement organizations have been united and have done the blacklisting campaign, with marvelous success of defeating 75% of 86 blacklisted corrupt politicians(Cho, 2003). This has shown the potential interventionist power of reform‐oriented Korean voters. Defeat‐Corrupt Politicians campaign is a kind of targeting strategy on the one hand and a strategy to give an easy participatory action plan to ordinary people on the other hand. The Defeat‐Bush campaign could be another model like it. The Korean Campaign teaches us to take a concrete campaign such as 'No‐Vote for Bush', not 'Anti‐Bush' in general. Seventhly, the maximum achievement goal might be real defeat of Bush.  However, although he might be re‐elected, the global movement could strengthen the current anti‐globalization movement and revert the militaristic hegemonic policy line of Bush Administration by way of this worldwide campaign. Eighthly, there is a kind of convergence to Defeat‐Bush campaign within the global movements. In May 2002, there has been held a peace conference, from which Jakarta Peace Consensus came. The Consensus recommended 'World Say No to Bush'. Even George Soros donated 10 million dollars to make the Liberal Fund for defeating Bush in the next election, which means that there is a wide consensus against Bush's re‐election. Recently 43 American progressive and leftist scholars and activists including Noam Chomsky and Barry Cohen made a network titled 'Bush Can Be Stopped' and issued a letter ‘Bush Can Be Stopped: A Letter to the Left'. This means that not only pro‐democrats but also leftist groups began to be involved in defeating Bush in the next election. In addition, the 5th PDSAP (Peace, Disarmament and Symbiosis in the Asia‐Pacific) conference, which was held at Okinawa in Japan during November 15‐17 2003, adopted a final declaration, titled 'Okinawa 2003 Appeal'. It says that "in order to alter the current situations where the US president Bush adopted the neo‐liberal global policy and militarism policy as shown in nuclear preemptive attack policy, which threatens the global peace and security of human‐beings, propose an international movement to prevent reelection of president Bush in the 2004 US presidential election". The only task left is that the anti‐Bush stream inside America and outside America should meet together and help each other for achieving Bush's defeat.

The militaristic policy of the Bush administration gives rise to regional crisis. The Korean peninsula is the very site in which such policy is bringing the war crisis(Park 2003). In this sense, the people in the Korean peninsula can stand on the forefront of anti‐Bush campaign.

http://www.petitonon.com/LttrLeft/petiton.htmlReferencesBowles, Samuel. & Gintis, Herbert (1986). Democracy and Capitalism: Property, Community, and the Contradictions of Modern Social Thought, New York: Basic Books. Cho, Hee‐Yeon(2000) ‘Civic Action for Global Democratic Rule in Response to Neo‐liberal Globalization’,Inter‐Asian Cultural Studies 1(1: 163‐167  Cho, Hee‐Yeon(2002)The State Violence, Democratic Struggle and Sacrifice, Seoul: Hanggeikneuncheck.Cho, 2003, "A Study on the Blacklisting Campaign against Corrupt Politicians in South Korea‐‐Focused on the 'Nakson Movement(落選運動)’ in April 2000", Prepared for the Presentation at Conference entitled 'Civil Society in Asia, Today and Tomorrow' and Hosted by Resource Center for Asian NGOs, Pitsberg Hall, Sungkonghoe University, South Korea, December 5, 2003Feffer, John (2003) North Korea/South Korea: U.S. Policy at a Time of Crisis,New York: Seven Stories Press.Jessop, Bob (1999) ‘Narrating the future of the National Economy and the National State? Remarks on Re‐mapping Regulation and Re‐inventing Governance'. InG Steinmetz (ed.)State/Culture, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 378‐405 .Hardt,MandA.Negri (2000)Empir, Boston: Harvard University Press.Negri, Antonio (2002) ‘The Imperialist Backlash on Empire: Antonio Negri interviewed by Ida Dominijanni’, translated by Arianna Bove and Erik Empson,Interactivist Info Exchangehttp://slash.autonomedia.or).Park, Hasoon (2003) ‘Armed Globalization and the War Crisis on the Korea Peninsula’. War and Trade’ seminar, Cancun Mexico, September 11, 2003http://www.friedensnews.at/stories/storyReader$1387).Author’s biographyHee‐Yeon Cho is the Professor, Graduate School of NGO(Non‐governmental organization), Sungkonghoe University. He has involved in diverse social movement activities as Co‐Representative of Korea Progressive Academy Council,Chair of International Solidarity of Korea Social Forum Network and Deputy Chair of Centralommittee of PSPD(Peoples’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy). He has written lots of books including Social Movement and Organizations in South Korea(1993), Seoul: Hanul, Democracy and Social Movements in South Korea, Seoul: Dangdae (1998), The State, Democracy and the Political Change in South Korea, Seoul: Dangdae (1998) and so on.

6. Concrete Strategy of Defeat Bush Campaign

If so, what kind of concrete strategy of campaign is there? For defeating Bush in the next election, we should think over diverse ways, based on maximization of our imagination.

First of all, we can think of formation of global network of action for defeating Bush.We can make a world‐wide social movement network of Defeat‐Bush, including major world NGOs. There is a high possibility for this, because there is a wide consensus against Bush, especially among global civil society. We should make a global network of action, which extends trans‐border and brides inner‐U.S. and outer‐U.S. social movements. Second, diverse struggles responding to different stage of the presidential election in the U.S.A. should be organized. During the period from February to June in 2003, there proceeds an intra‐party process in which one presidential candidate is decided. The candidate of the Democratic Party and Republican Party will be decided in August 2004. Although the possibility that Bush fails in getting the candidacy is very low, we should try to expand a social‐psychological base and popular atmosphere against Bush during this period. During the period from August to November 2004, the main campaign should be performed. During this period, diverse kind of real and symbolic campaigns should be organized. Third, campaign against Bush should be performed on the global level itself. For example, global common action against Bush' defeat can be possible in a certain day. This will contribute to formation of anti‐Bush opinion in the global civil society, which will be, in turn, helpful to domestic opinion on Bush's reelection. Fourth, anti‐Bush and Defeat‐Bush campaigns through the internet are important. By the help of communication via the internet, the global social movements should appeal to the people around the world and encourage them to go forwards for anti‐Bush. Diverse kinds of signature‐obtaining campaign will be possible. For example, Nobel peace prize winners could make common signatures and critical and liberal respectful intellectuals around the world could join the anti‐Bush signatures. According to areas of movement such as environment, women, human right movements, leading activists will join this global campaign. They can issue a group declaration in series in support of Defeat Bush, including, for example, professors' or Reverend's declaration. There could be a campaign for encouraging people to email American acquaintances to register as a voter and not to vote Bush. We can send a relay‐letters in consecution to the friend inside and outside America. In addition, for example diverse ethnic groups will join making '100 reasons for Bush's defeat'. Fifth, off‐line global campaign should be performed. We can think of 1 person Demonstration in consecution in front of the White House in which world‐wide symbolic figures can join, 1 million march in Washington in a certain period and so on. Sixth, we can think of holding 'A Thematic World Social Forum' of ‘For Peace, Anti‐Bush' in a certain time in 2004.

The important thing is that diverse kinds of action and fragmented struggles against Bush should be totalized into a single conjectural campaign campaign for ‘Bush Off’ in the next election, which gives a clear message to American voters and global people.

<Table 1> Possible examples of campaign and its strategy

Building Global Network of Action (Networking and converting diverse Anti‐Bush Struggles to Election‐Interventionist Strategy)
Forming unified network within the U.S.		Forming unified global network
Common Action Plan (suggested examples.)	Off‐Line	Defeat Bush Declaration of Nobel Peace Prize winners, diverse Declarations in areas, Intellectual's Anti‐Bush Declaration, Reverends' Declaration. Appeal to Ethnic Groups in the U.S. from the Ethnically related countries(e.g. From Korea to Korean community in the U.S.), 1 person Demonstration in consecution in from of White House, finally Million March in Washington and so on
	On‐Line	Cyber Sign Up campaign, Campaign of spreading '10 reasons for No‐Bush' or 10 reasons of Bush's threat to global democracy', Campaign of sending 'I vote for Peace' Relay‐Letters, Campaign of Sending Email to American Voters, Day of Appeal to American voters on internet and so on

7. Of course, there are dilemmas and limitations in Defeat Bush campaign!

However, this Defeat Bush campaign has in it a kind of dilemmas and some critiques can be raised for Defeat Bush campaign. Some can raise a question such as "is it a reformist strategy, in that the Defeat‐Bush campaign will finally help a democratic candidate to be elected?".

The argument that this Defeat Bush campaign implies a possibility to re‐legitimize the American 'soft' imperialism like Howard Dean's administration, not aggressive one, implies its own rational point to be reflected. However, reflecting over the historical fact that every revolutionary movement in the 20th century resulted in reformative renovation of capitalism itself, including e.g. emergence of the welfare‐state in Western Europe. History has taught that the result of revolutionary movements is often not what was initially envisaged. For this reason, and for the simple fact that there is no alternative, we should act and try to reach our goal. Of course I am not arguing that Defeat Bush campaign is not a revolutionary movement.

If the global social movements should defeat Bush successfully, it would be a great triumph to global social movements, although the democratic government follows the republican government. Even if we were unsuccessful in defeating Bush, 're‐elected'(I don't want to even imagine this kind of imagination) Bush will find him put in a very much different context of global civil society. What we really have to do is to raise critical consciousness and try to radicalize it through this kind of 'reformative' campaign.

The second possible question is "does the global Defeat‐Bush campaign result in American voters' patriotic mood to help Bush to the contrary to our expectation?". Some say that 'Defeat Bush' could give rise to a negative impact to make conservative American voters to be in line with patriotic pro‐Bush mood. However, this kind of dilemma can be overcome if we should target the moral aspect of Bush's administration. We might argue that Bush is an 'enemy' to American 'republican' tradition, harmful even to American 'moral hegemony(?)', and furthermore to global democracy. In fact, this kind of possible negative impact is implied in every kinds of social movement campaign. If we make a comprehensive strategy to minimize this kind of presumably anticipated negative impact, there will be no problem.

To conclude, I would like to say 'let's do Defeat Bush campaign as coupling movements of anti‐globalization and anti‐war peace. Let's convert world‐wide anti‐Bush atmosphere and diverse anti‐Bush movements to Defeat‐Bush campaign. Let's intervene positively in the American ‘domestic affair’ from the progressive viewpoint, which threatens the human security of global people and global democracy. Defeating Bush in the presidential election in 2004 in the U.S.A. is not a dream, but real possibility.

Notes