The Tribune

In the midst of the hullabaloo and hysteria in the days following the US presidential election, the focus has been firmly on the drama rapidly unfolding and the mainstream media has given less attention to reactions elsewhere in the world. So, with Joe Biden having been unofficially declared the winner on Saturday, perhaps this is a moment to look at how other countries are viewing this knife-edge election that is being seen by many as botched because of the length of time it is taking to finish the counting – and how a Biden presidency might affect them.

As everyone must be aware by now, President Trump is contesting the outcome of the election. The Republicans are alleging voting and counting fraud and irregularities. They also have serious doubts about mail-in absentee ballots and monitoring of the vote and counting process. The President has questioned the ‘integrity of our election process’ and, in addition to demanding at least two recounts, has launched lawsuits in battleground states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia where the gap between the two parties has been wafer-thin.

So far, the Republicans have not produced any convincing evidence and there have been few reports of election fraud. But there are, of course, precedents for a contested election; notably, the Bush/Gore election in 2000 when the Democrats disputed the narrow Republican victory in Florida and the situation was not resolved by the Supreme Court until mid-December. It is also worth recalling that in the 1960 Kennedy versus Nixon election, which was almost too close to call, there were allegations of heavy stuffing of ballot boxes in Chicago.

In all the circumstances, some people are saying the Democrats’ victory celebrations at a large rally on Saturday evening may have been premature because the US electoral system provides for recounts and legal challenges subject to certain conditions and statutory deadlines. So the process will be allowed to take its course even if ultimately it amounts to nothing for lack of evidence. Such challenges are likely to create the potential for weeks of chaos and could bring the nation to the edge of a constitutional crisis since, at the extreme, Biden’s victory could even be overturned – though the betting at this stage is that's unlikely to happen.

Many people find it hard to believe the US electoral system is systemically corrupt or even flawed. This year, there was heavier pressure than usual on all concerned because of an unprecedentedly high number of votes cast and the fact that coronavirus restrictions resulted in a huge increase of mail-in absentee ballots. It must be the case that the latter are more susceptible to fraud and error than voting in person. So they, in particular, might be worth investigating.

But, even though the mechanics of the electoral systems vary from state to state and some may not have functioned properly, overall I believe it is fair to say that the authorities across the country are more likely than not to want an honest, transparent and accurate election outcome. All that said, however, the example of the situation in Pennsylvania could need some sort of investigation when Trump’s lead of some 500,000 on election night was a few days later turned into a narrow loss after subsequent counting of absentee ballots - even allowing for the fact Democrats, more than Republicans, tend to vote that way.

As regards foreign reaction, world leaders have flocked to congratulate Biden. But countries like China, Iran, Russia and Venezuela seem to have been enjoying the sight of the election confusion gripping the US.

They have been mocking the delays in vote processing and the alleged voter fraud, with China suggesting it is a ‘bit like a developing country’ or, as Colombia said, ‘Who’s the banana republic now?’ – an expression created by the Americans themselves.

Some have urged the US to focus on its own problems and ensure its internal democratic procedures work properly rather than lecturing the rest of the world about democracy. But it is the rule of law that ultimately counts so that, although the mechanics of its voting procedures this time around may have turned out to be somewhat rickety, in the US resolution of a legal challenge will determine the final outcome.

As for other countries, the main reaction appears to be a sense of relief and hope that, while President Trump was seen to undermine multilateral institutions and relationships, a Biden presidency will be less isolationist abroad and more likely to rebuild America’s alliances and tackle global issues in co-operation with its traditional friends.

Examples are re-joining the World Health Organisation and the Paris Accord on climate change, resuscitating the Iran nuclear deal, being more positive with NATO partners and working with an ally like India in constraining China’s super power ambitions. Biden is also likely to be tougher on Russia while his win will be particularly welcomed in Germany. As regards Britain, such is the breadth and depth of existing co-operation that any material change is unlikely - though Biden is known not to favour Brexit and some are already warning his strong Irish roots might tempt him to interfere in it, given his recent remarks about the importance of not placing the Northern Ireland peace process in jeopardy.

Overall, it is interesting that commentators in the US are saying that, despite winning the presidency, the election was disappointing for Democrats because the so-called blue wave predicted by the pollsters, who have now lost all credibility, did not materialize - and the country remains divided, with Trump gaining 71 million votes and Biden only winning by the closest of margins in some states (albeit more than three million ahead in the popular vote overall). Furthermore, the Republicans look set to retain a Senate majority while the Democrats saw their majority shrink in the House of Representatives.

In the coming weeks, the rest of the world will look on with a mixture of dread that things might become worse if Trump does not eventually concede and healthy anticipation that the political and economic powerhouse of the world will adhere to the rule of law in putting its own house in order.

The Saddest Silence

Since Britain is in a coronavirus national lockdown, it should have come as no surprise that the nation’s official Remembrance Sunday, with its services, parades and other ceremonies, would be affected this year. This always falls on the second Sunday in November. Armistice Day, also known as Remembrance Day, is observed on November 11 which marked the end of the First World War – at the 11th hour on the morning of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918.

The Prime Minister announced in forthright fashion that ‘in this time of adversity, no virus can stop us from honouring the memory of those who sacrificed their lives for our freedom’ - and others echoed such words by emphasising the importance of keeping memories of the fallen in the forefront of their thoughts as a poignant reminder of the bravery and sacrifice of all who served. But the long established tradition of a service and parade, going back to the 1920 unveiling of The Cenotaph memorial in Whitehall in the heart of London, was severely scaled down, and Mr Johnson faced accusations about being the first Prime Minister in history to cancel Remembrance Sunday.

That was not strictly accurate because the annual service at The Cenotaph went ahead on Sunday and there was the customary two-minute silence at 11 am. This marked 100 years since this national memorial was unveiled, and for the 68 years of her reign The Queen has led Remembrance tributes there to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Accompanied by senior Royals, she attended on Sunday though, as in recent years, watched the proceedings from a nearby balcony.

Wreaths were laid by Prince Charles, Prince William, the Prime Minister and others, including – as far as I could see – certain Commonwealth High Commissioners, and a limited number of invited guests were required to observe social distancing. But the veterans and the public were not allowed to attend. Normally, some 10,000 veterans are present and many participate in a marchpast down Whitehall.

Earlier in the week, The Queen attended what was described as a ‘deeply personal’ small service in Westminster Abbey where she laid a wreath at the tomb of The Unknown Warrior.

Meanwhile, the coronavirus rules put a halt to Remembrance Sunday church services and official ceremonies throughout the country with the exception of a limited guest list for a service at Westminster Abbey. It seems that official government guidance to local councils was that they should encourage people to stay at home rather than participate in any ceremonies. But, despite the restrictions, large groups of people up and down the land held their own memorials in varying forms in order to pay their respects to the dead.

What caused bitter controversy, however, was the government’s decision to ban services in churches on the grounds of limiting people’s interaction with others. This has been termed a disgrace because many believe that social distancing arrangements could have been made inside churches and, in particular, in cathedrals where there is a vast amount of space. Critics lambasted the government for ruling that veterans could stand outside in the cold and rain - and perhaps catch pneumonia - but could not go into a safe and socially distanced cathedral. This decision was widely condemned, with many saying it should not be made illegal to perform an act of public worship and that those concerned should be permitted to make their own risk assessment.

Reportedly, public feeling is running so high over this ‘ridiculous ruling’ that it is now being said that the Prime Minster will rue it – and that he himself will be remembered all right, but for the wrong reasons! But others say that what really matters is recognition of the abiding truth that ‘remembrance is held in the heart’.

So, what did we do in the war?

A friend of mine has just given me a copy of a new book by Bahamian-born Eric Wiberg entitled ‘Bahamas in World War II’. He is a master mariner, journalist and acclaimed author with a number of books and other publications to his name. Published in 2020, this work of nearly 900 pages is a military history chronicling events and action in The Bahamas - and in the region affecting it - during the period from 1939 to 1945.

Despite having had time so far to delve into it only briefly, I can see that Eric Wiberg’s massive tome is hugely impressive as a comprehensive answer to the assertion often made that ‘nothing much happened in The Bahamas during World War II’. He has explained that, far from being a backwater during the war, it is not widely known that The Bahamas was in fact at the centre of the supply chain for equipment and other goods from US and Canadian factories to Europe and the Middle East.

Nassau, he says, was the hub of an extensive global aeronautical network. It was the then Air Transport Command’s headquarters for over 2,000 aircraft flying across the Atlantic in waves in support of the Allied war effort – and, at the time, the Royal Air Force comprised some 25 percent of the local population.

This book must have involved an immense amount of research, which the well-known military historian Air Commodore Graham Pitchfork described in his Foreword to it as astonishing, both in its degree and extent. This includes the daily chronicling of events throughout the period and the lengthy Appendices containing amazingly detailed information, ranging from lists of British and American servicemen and merchant mariners killed in the area of The Bahamas - as well as lists of German Navy sailors who perished in U-Boats - to facts about the Atlantic convoys and the Allied ships and personnel involved, both Royal Navy and merchant marine. In addition, a large number of contemporaneous photographs, maps and charts are included.

So, this book will be an important reference work both for historians and those with a general interest in the subject. As the author says in his Introduction, the ‘focus of this study is to faithfully record what actually happened, when, by whom caused, and upon whom the effect was felt. The goal is simply to bring a period of a small colony’s history to light’. I believe those who read this book and use if for reference will be readily convinced that Eric Wiberg has achieved that in admirable fashion.

I hope to return to this subject in a future column.