Does world opinion matter?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Does world opinion matter?
44
Tue, 12-02-2003 - 4:39pm
This is just one of three items I read today that deals with world opinion.

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 12-05-2003 - 10:49am

"Samarra Massacre Will Haunt U.S. in Iraq."


Interesting article. Thanks.


I don't believe that the US military received adequate, if any,

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 12-05-2003 - 11:00am

Powell calls on Nato to send troops to Iraq.

Secretary of state says alliance is united on need to play bigger role .



The US has asked Nato to take a formal role in Iraq for the first time, probably next summer, the target date for handover to Iraqi sovereignty.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1100481,00.html


Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, made the proposal at yesterday's meeting of alliance foreign ministers in Brussels, a regular gathering that was dominated by furious disputes in the run-up to the war.

He said no one - including France and Germany, the leaders of the opposition to the US-British strategy for bringing down Saddam Hussein - had objected to the plan.

Nato is unlikely to go in without explicit UN authority and a sovereign government in Baghdad. Next summer's Istanbul summit could be the moment to decide.

"We urge the alliance to examine how it might do more to support peace and stability in Iraq, which every leader has acknowledged is critical to all of us," Mr Powell told his colleagues.

"What strikes me today is that, as we discussed the possibility of Nato taking an enhanced role in Iraq, not a single member spoke against it or talked about reasons not to do it."

However, Dominique de Villepin, the French foreign minister, left the talks early, and Joschka Fischer, his German counterpart, repeated that Germany would not send its troops.

Lord Robertson, Nato's secretary general, insisted that the alliance's emphasis was still firmly on Afghanistan, where it runs the 5,700-strong Isaf security force in Kabul and is planning to expand into rural regions.

But he made clear that Iraq was firmly on the agenda. Such a sentiment was unthinkable a few months ago, when Nato suffered what the US ambassador called "a near death experience" during the biggest crisis in its 54-year history.

Transatlantic tensions were still evident yesterday in exchanges over the vexed question of European defence. Tony Blair is trying to implement a deal for a "planning cell", or headquarters, agreed with Paris and Berlin.

The prime minister was due to speak to President George Bush to try to calm US opposition before this weekend's EU summit, which is expected to finalise its constitution.

"The United States cannot accept independent EU structures that duplicate Nato capabilities," Mr Powell said. But he used the same emollient tone adopted by the more hawkish Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, earlier this week.

"Discussions will continue, and I'm sure we'll find a satisfactory solution in the not- too-distant future."

Analysts see a trade-off between Nato's readiness to help in Iraq and US understanding of the need for autonomous EU defence, however limited.

Tackling Iraq, however sensitive an issue, would also answer the alliance's almost neurotic need for "relevance".

Eighteen of its 26 current and incoming members have contingents there - from Italy's 2,500 to Estonia's 55 troops. Nato helps with planning, logistics and communications for the Polish-run sector in the centre of the country, but has no formal role.

Pressure for Nato involvement is coming from Poland, Spain and Italy, which have all suffered casualties.

"Iraq is not for now," said one diplomat. "The Americans are planting the seed and will wait for it to germinate. They are thinking about the future, and are being very careful not to lead the way. They are leaving that to the Poles and Spanish.

"Afghanistan is the here and now. That's where our credibility is on the line. In Iraq, it's a question of who takes over from the troops who are there now. And it becomes easier politically next summer too."

Nato involvement will require an Iraqi government and a UN commissioner to replace the US-led coalition provisional authority, which is running the civilian side of the occupation.

Mr Powell paid warm tribute to Lord Robertson, who leaves Nato after four years at the end of the month. He praised the former UK defence secretary's Scottish sense of humour, exemplified by his comment that chairing an alliance meeting was like "transporting frogs in a wheelbarrow".

· The total cost to Britain of the war on terrorism so far was put at £5.5bn by the chancellor, Gordon Brown. In a Commons debate on the Queen's Speech, he said the figure included operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. His announcement came ahead of next Wednesday's pre-budget report.

cl-Libraone

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Fri, 12-05-2003 - 11:38am
<>

Me too; this may be despite the US rather than because of it. I was ignorant about the inflluence of culture until I went to grad school in HI. Since then, I spend a lot of time trying to understand cultures. As the world becomes more globalized; America needs to pay attention to "Others".

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Fri, 12-05-2003 - 11:44am
I was reading articles stating NATO was requesting more support for Afghanistan. It will be interesting if the US helps with the equipment needed. IMHO, the UN or NATO are needed in Iraq; the question has always been how much authority. They don't want to be a lap dog for Bush. Maybe control isn't as important as it use to be.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Fri, 12-05-2003 - 1:44pm
--

You're right. This terror stuff is such a downer; I wish we could just forget all about it like Clinton did for 8 years.

--

Gee, which party accused Clinton of wagging the dog and trying to divert attention away from the Monica scandal when he attacked terrorist camps and wanted to do more.

Clinton was no more responsible for 9/11 than Bush was, to say ANY AMERICAN was is blind paritisan stupidity.

I don't recall ONE BUSH Administration official talking terrorism before 9/11. I don't recall any REPUBLICAN while Clinton was in office, talking tough on terrorism.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Fri, 12-05-2003 - 1:47pm
--

Fighting terrorism may not be at the top of your priority list right now, but for many Americans it is. The election next year will give tell us exactly how many.

--

As things are going now, you're right. Because the fight on terrorism is still yet to be done. While Bush pursues his agenda (Of which we don't yet know because any reason he stated last year has proven false) in Iraq, Iran and North Korea loom large and the current administration is totally INDECISIVE about them.

Where's Osama Bin Laden again?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Fri, 12-05-2003 - 1:50pm
--

the economy has rebounded

--

It has not.

If you're refering to ONE QUARTER of increased spending out of many, that doesn't qualify as a recovery. Not one person in the Heritage Foundation would even make that claim.

In 7 years of Bush rule, there hasn't been ONE NET JOB created.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Fri, 12-05-2003 - 1:53pm
--

I think things light working, paying your bills and education are also top priority for the American people. Mr Bush doesn't give half the time to domestic issues as he does on his war.

--

Or for people that work for their money. If you don't work for your money, things are very very good. For those that do, that $300 - $600 is long gone, the increase in health care and insurance gobbled that up.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Fri, 12-05-2003 - 1:58pm
Don't forget, that's any UNNAMED Democrat.

In 2004, Rove and Bush will spend their money slinging mud at Dean/Clark. Dean will be spending their money telling you what's wrong with America and how it can be best fixed.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Fri, 12-05-2003 - 2:01pm
Such crapola.

First they say they'll go it alone, then they have the arrogance to say Iraq is the CIVILIZED worlds responsibility and now this.

This is why the use of force should have been put to a formal vote in the UN. People say Iraq was in violation of 1441, but it was never voted on.

If it is indeed the WORLDS responsibility, then give way and let the civilized world fix Iraq.