Does world opinion matter?
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 12-02-2003 - 4:39pm |
Bush's PR Problem
By Fareed Zakaria
Tuesday, December 2, 2003; Page A27
President Bush's Thanksgiving trip to Iraq was a generous and bold-hearted gesture of support to American troops. What made it such a success, however, was that it managed to severely limit an otherwise unavoidable aspect of travel: contact with foreigners. When Bush has had to go beyond U.S. Army bases in recent weeks, the tours have not gone so well.
Traveling through East Asia last week, I noted how poorly most observers rated Bush's recent trip there. Even more striking, however, was the comparison repeatedly made between Bush's visit and that of Chinese President Hu Jintao -- with a thumping majority believing Hu had done better.
In Thailand at the meeting for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, "there was no question that Hu was the better appreciated one," a Thai official said to me. "He outshone Bush in most of the attendees' eyes." The trips ended with the two making back-to-back visits to Australia. Bush was greeted with demonstrations, his address to Parliament interrupted by hecklers. Hu, on the other hand, got a 20-minute standing ovation from Parliament. "It is Hu's visit rather than George W. Bush's that will provide a lingering sense of satisfaction and security about Australia's place in the region," wrote the Australian, a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch and not given to knee-jerk anti-Americanism.
What is going on here? How does the chief representative of the world's oldest constitutional democracy lose a popularity contest to the leader of a Leninist party?
Let's start with the atmospherics. Everywhere Bush travels, his security is handled with the usual American overkill: huge numbers of guards and aides, walled-off compounds, tightly scripted movements from one bubble to another. Hu, by contrast, had a modest security detail, traveled freely and mingled with other leaders and even the general public. (Tony Blair sometimes manages to travel abroad with a total of six people.)
Bush's trip to London two weeks ago is now being heralded as a great success. But here is how one of the president's most ardent supporters, his former speechwriter David Frum, saw it while in London himself. "Bush was sealed away from London for the entire visit. There was no drive down the Mall, no address to Parliament, no public events at all," Frum wrote in his Weblog on National Review Online. "The trip's planners reduced the risk of confrontations -- but only by broadcasting to the British public their tacit acknowledgement that the visit was unpopular and unwelcome. By eliminating from the president's schedule events with any touch of spontaneity or public contact, the trip planners made the president look as if he could not or would not engage with ordinary British people." In Great Britain, Frum concluded, "the United States has a problem, a big one -- and it was made worse, not better, by this recent visit."
But the deeper problem is not one of style but of substance. Bush's trips to Southeast Asia and Australia focused single-mindedly on the war on terror. Karim Raslan, a Malaysian writer, explained the local reaction: "Bush came to an economic group and talked obsessively about terror. He sees all of us through that one prism. Yes, we worry about terror, but frankly that's not the sum of our lives. We have many other problems. We're retooling our economies, we're wondering how to deal with the rise of China, we're trying to address health, social and environmental problems. Hu talked about all this; he talked about our agenda, not just his agenda."
There is a lack of empathy emanating from Washington. After the Bali bombings, which were Australia's Sept. 11, the administration did not bother to send a high-level envoy to a steadfast ally for condolences. Australians had to make do with a videotape of George Bush. Even last week, Bush could surely have arranged to meet in Baghdad with a few troops from allied countries who are also fighting and dying in Iraq.
What is most dismaying about this state of affairs is that for the past 50 years the United States has skillfully merged its own agenda with the agendas of others, creating a sense of shared interests and values. When Presidents Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy waged the Cold War, they also presented the world with a constructive agenda dealing with trade, poverty and health. They fought communism with one hand and offered hope with the other. We have fallen far from that model if the head of the Chinese Communist Party is seen as presenting the world with a more progressive agenda than the president of the world's leading democracy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27057-2003Dec1.html
The second covers the rift between the US and the EU over Iran.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27063-2003Dec1.html
This article sheds an a less victorious light on the Samarra Massacre
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=68502c5eae5b193f0d75af16d5b0ce6b

Pages
Pay attention. I never said he did. I responded to hayashig's post about what a bummer this War on Terror was, and tongue in cheek concerred that things had been much better the way the previous administration handled things. That's not changing the subject; it's making a point--one that you don't wish to acknowledge.
Have you not heard that while the war on terror has been going on, taxes have been lowered, the largest new social program since the new deal has been created, the economy has rebounded, a new energy bill is in the works, got the faith based initiative up & running, has been overseeing a restructuring & redeployment of the military that was necessary before 9-11, launched the new AIDS initiative, launched the clear skies initiative, no child left behind, all the while dealing with the biggest crisis since Perle Harbor.
Granted these policies may not be to your liking, but that's not the issue; the administration has accomplished great deal while fighting two wars and restructuring the Federal government.
I don't agree with your assertion that the administration has been fear mongering. I think they have been honest and straight forward with the crisis we face. The War on Terror has made this country safer in both the short and long term and has reassured many people that the government knows this is a serious threat and is capable of dealing with it which is quite a different message from the ones most of the Dem presidential candidates have been broadcasting.
We ALL want what is best for our country. The difference is about what that means. The fact that the Dems are seriously considering writing off the south in the presidential election speaks volumes about where a good deal of the country stands.
Renee
This is an unprecedented situation. It's been generations since any candidate has been able to win the presidency without the South and in the last two decades, the region has increased in population and influence to make it even more important now.
Every national poll shows Bush winning against every other candidate easily in the popular vote. For an electoral college win, the Dem strategists acknowledge they would just about have to pull off a miracle.
Red & Blue Map by state
http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/electfront.htm
Red & Blue Map by county
http://www.fixingelections.com/map.html
For an explantion of Red & Blue America
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/12/brooks.htm
Edited 12/3/2003 4:20:27 PM ET by wrhen
Renee
The article on the red state/blue state division was interesting, but also nearly 3 years old, written in the wake of 9/11. (I thought it very interesting that the "blues" are more intelligent, well read and educated than the "reds" according to many items, studies, etc. cited in the article. Makes sense to me, but not something I think you would be proud of and certianly not backing up a lot of your assertions around here.) But anyway, A LOT has happened since 2001. I'll have to look into this a bit to see if I can find something as in depth that is more recent.
Anyway, thanks for the interesting reading.
RM
<>
I've also read a lot about the concerns many people have over this "restructuring" of the federal government.
Oh no! Does this mean instead that there is no hope that the USA will come out of this with their principals and reputation intact?
Yet another zing at Clinton--get over it!
I am only too aware of terrorism--it is a world-wide fact. We must fight terrorism intelligent, as many countries are doing daily. Our invasion of Iraq has encouraged not deterred terrorism. Fighting terrorism does not mean a reign of fear, in fact, the opposite is true. How wonderful that a handful of terrorists can cower the worlds most powerful nation.
Pay attention, I never mentioned Clinton, and I certainly didn't say what "a bummer this War on Terror was." If there was a tongue in cheek comment it was made by Richard Cohen:
"But this time our allies are even more reluctant to follow the lead of the United States. The last time around, that led to war in Iraq over -- you will remember -- a weapons of mass destruction program that has yet to be found."
As for the other article, the "c" being compared with Bush was was China not Clinton.
"Traveling through East Asia last week, I noted how poorly most observers rated Bush's recent trip there. Even more striking, however, was the comparison repeatedly made between Bush's visit and that of Chinese President Hu Jintao -- with a thumping majority believing Hu had done better."
My question to you is, "do you care what other countries think?
Pages