"The world has never watched any vote, in any nation, so closely. In country after country, polls show record-high fascination with the outcome of the United States elections. In Japan, according to one poll, there's more interest in the election than there is in the United States."- Newsweek, November 10, 2008.

Barack Obama is not simply the choice of America. He is the world's president, overwhelmingly the favourite in polls in country after country. Says the Newsweek in its cover story, 'The Global Election' (November 10) "Obama went into election with a steady lead in US polls, averaging about 50 per cent to 44 per cent for McCain, but he was headed for a landslide around the world, topping polls in virtually every nation often by strong margins: 70 per cent in Germany, 75 per cent in China, and so on. Somewhere along the road to the White House, Obama became the world's candidate."

And while the Americans largely voted for him because of the disastrous state of the economy, the world embraced him for his rejection of the Bush Doctrine in foreign policy, and for the change that he represents in his terms of engagement with the world. As Newsweek quotes Guardian writer Jonathan Freedland as saying, "Two wars and a global financial crisis - those events, at least to some extent, had their origins in decisions taken in Washington."

The world's panting after Obama is partly - and largely - explained by its disgust with the Bush administration and its arrogant, unilateralist approach to international issues, as well as Obama's embodiment of change. The essence of the Bush Doctrine is a hubris and contempt for multilateralism and liberal internationalism, which the international community finds revolting. Traditional allies in Europe, says Newsweek just before the recent election, were "thrilled by the prospect that whatever happens this week it will mean the end of George W. Bush".

What's the essence of the Bush Doctrine, and why does it represent a significant break with US foreign policy - or does it?

It is important that this issue be analysed, as the recent US election cannot be seen through parochial eyes - as we tend to approach serious issues in this country; in this case, asking provincial questions about whether an Obama presidency will mean more aid for Jamaica, greater expansion of investments or how the lifting of the Cuban embargo will affect us. These are legitimate considerations, but Obama's meaning to the world and the welcome departure of George Bush from the world scene has far more significance than these issues.

And, Obama will make a far greater impact on the world than he will make on America, where many people naively believe he is an economic messiah with the panacea for the financial meltdown. Obama has no magic wand for the serious problems which face the US and the global economy, which are far deeper than any political decision can fix. The world can breathe a collective sigh of relief that Bush and his sidekick John McCain won't be in the White House, and the detestable Bush Doctrine is a major reason for this delight.

At the heart of the Bush Doctrine is the matter of pre-emption or preventive war - or what is called 'anticipatory self-defence'. This is inherently hostile to the whole notion of international law. The Bush Doctrine, first enunciated at West Point, but set out in the 2002 National Security Strategy (NSS), assets the right of the US to act militarily anywhere in the world, without any United Nations authorisation or any endorsement from any ally, no matter how powerful. The NSS document explicitly says that "We will not hesitate to act alone if necessary."

The US, in that important strategic document, said it reserved the right to deter any threat "before it reaches our borders". As Bush used to put it, "We have to fight them over there (anywhere) before they reach here."

The right to act militarily

Says Yale Sterling Professor of Political Science Ian Shapiro in his book Containment: Rebuilding a Strategy against Global Terror: "Before the advent of the Bush Doctrine, no administration had ever asserted the right to act militarily anywhere in the world."

The Monroe Doctrine asserted US Dominance in the Western Hemisphere and the Spheres of Influence doctrine was central to the Cold War when the US accepted that the Soviet Union would have dominance over its sphere in Eastern Europe, while its advance would be checked or contained (hence the doctrine of containment or deterrence), but the doctrine of what has been called forward deterrence (pre-emption) was never accepted as a principle of US foreign policy.

There are those who disagree, of course, like the first-rate neo-conservative intellectual Robert Kagan, a true heavyweight. In his chapter 'The End of Dreams, Return of History' in the recently published book To Lead the World: American Strategy After the Bush Doctrine, Kagan says, "The idea of pre-emptive or preventive action is hardly a novel concept in American foreign policy." Kagan points to the US overthrow of governments from Iran to the Dominican Republic.

No UN support

The US had no UN support in its war against the Sandinistas as well for its support of guerrillas in Angola and Afghanistan. The first Bush administration invaded Panama without UN approval. Don't forget, too, that the Democratic Clinton administration bombed Iraq over the objection of the permanent members of the UN Security Council and famously went to war in Kosovo without UN authorisation.

These instances can be cited but they still don't amount to a coherent doctrine for which philosophical justification has been sought, as we have in the Bush Doctrine. Besides, many would be shocked to know that we have actually evidence of explicit denunciation of the doctrine of pre-emption by a US president.

In a stunning statement, President Truman described pre-emptive wars as "weapons of dictators, not of free democratic countries like the United States". And, in a National Security Council memorandum of 1950 that set out the basic terms of US national security policy during the Cold War, we read: "It goes without saying that the idea of preventive war - in the sense of a military attack not provoked by an attack upon us or our allies - is generally unacceptable." That was the perspective before the Bush Doctrine.

Of course, the Bush apologists say that one can't deal with asymmetrical wars with terrorists the same way one dealt with enemies during the Cold War. The whole foreign policy context has shifted, the neo-conservatives say, and one can't deal with stateless terrorist threats the way one dealt with defined states during the Cold War. So the doctrine of containment and deterrence is irrelevant and outdated, they maintain.

As Vice-President Dick Cheney has put it, "It's a lot tougher to deter enemies who have no country to defend and containment is not possible when dictators obtain weapons of mass destruction and are prepared to share them with terrorists who intend to inflict catastrophic casualties on the United States."

Of course, no link has ever been established between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks on the United States or with Al Qaeda, and Bush has been forced to admit this. This has also been confirmed by the prestigious 9/11 Commission.

A brilliant scholarly essay which surgically and systematically examines all the arguments for the justification of the Iraq war, exploding every of them, is Richard Muller's 'Justifications of the Iraq Way War Examined' in the spring 2008 issue of the journal, Ethics and International Affairs.

The Bush Doctrine was unique in not only asserting the right to intervene pre-emptively but to do so unconstrained by traditional alliances.

Permanent war

Says Shapiro in his book Containment: "A final distinctive feature of the Bush Doctrine is that it envisages a condition of permanent war. In the nature of the war against 'terror', as distinct from a particular regime, enemy or even doctrine that there is never going to be a final victory."

And as he continues, "There will always be those who see the spread of Pax Americana contemplated in the Bush Doctrine as threatening and humiliating." Europe feels it is pressured to take sides as Bush has stated clearly that there is "no neutral position" - you were either with him or against him. He exhibited no interest in nuanced thinking and could not see beyond his myopic black-and-white lens.

The Bush Doctrine is not just a threat to the developing world but also to Europe, Japan and industrialised Asia in general. The Bush administration had a largely one-dimensional focus on terror at the expense of other critical global issues. The war on terror served as a distraction from some critical global issues which should have been tackled. How a small group of intellectuals captured the Bush administration is a fascinating story which is told well in Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke's book America Alone: The Neo-conservatives and the Global Order (Halper and Clarke are from Cambridge and Oxford).

Indefensible

There are, of course, those scholars who seek to justify the Bush Doctrine, such as professor Robert Kaufman in his book In Defense of the Bush Doctrine. But the Bush Doctrine is indefensible.

Barack Obama is no George McGovern and he is not going to cut the American military. In fact, he is calling for more troops in Afghanistan. He is not the softie, as McCain has sought to paint him, to frighten away voters.

But he is a far cry from George Bush, and his presidency will mean that greater respect will be shown for international law, a rules-based international system and liberal internationalism.

This is an objective good for the world and will in itself justify the enormous trust the world has reposed in President-elect Barack Obama.

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist who may be reached at ianboyne1@yahoo.com or columns@gleanerjm.com