Military

January 21, 2005

BUSH INAUGURATION:  SECOND TERM VISION VS. FIRST TERM LEGACY

 

KEY FINDINGS

 

**  President Bush's "first-term judgments" and actions will "burden" second term initiatives.

 

**  Some writers question the use of force to spread democracy.

 

**  Europeans hope Bush II "re-opens contacts" on the global agenda.

 

MAJOR THEMES

 

'A bold vision based on firm democratic ideals'-- Worldwide media focused on the president's commitment to spreading democracy abroad.  Argentina's leading Clarin contended Bush "wants to consolidate a democratic regime in Iraq that can serve as a precedent and example...[for] exporting democracy to the largest possible number of countries."  Despite the administration's "missionary zeal" to accomplish this goal, a German editorialist saw the first term legacy of "the Iraq war and Bush's unilateral tone" as putting alliance "repair work" ahead of global democratization on the second term agenda.  A Cypriot writer expressed concern over "signals that Washington intends to continue in its robust foreign policy."  Summing up the president's objectives, France's right-of-center Le Figaro proclaimed, "Bush II will be a continuation of Bush I, with an effort made in the direction of public relations."

 

'Democratizing the world with weapons is not so easy'-- Global observers concluded President Bush is "back for four more years, more powerful than ever."  As one Irish commentator noted, "The U.S. has strength beyond challenge."  Writers generally took issue with the way in which America exerted this strength in his first term, portraying a foreign policy characterized by "diplomacy and intimidation."  This use of force caused some writers to view the inauguration's emphasis upon democracy skeptically.  A South Korean daily declared, "It is necessary to spread democracy across the globe, but forcing democracy by military force entails too much sacrifice, as evidenced in Iraq."  London-based Arab nationalist Al-Quds Al-Arabi intoned, "As long as  U.S. policies continue as they are...all the American talk about democracy and liberties will remain ink on paper."

 

Europeans hope for 'revived' trans-Atlantic dialogue-- Euro commentators expressed nigh unanimous hope President Bush will "consult more" and invigorate U.S. diplomacy in his second term.  They remained anxious about perceived U.S. unilateralism "despite the announcement by Condoleezza Rice that the hour of diplomacy has arrived."  They examined her confirmation testimony for signs of change.  Britain's conservative Daily Mail observed,  "The world needs a strong, confident America, led by a President who is prepared to listen." Belgium's Catherine Dehay described a President Bush who "wants to patch things up with Europe and improve America's image."  Stockholm's conservative Svenska Dagbladet, while noting global skepticism towards U.S. foreign policy, reminded readers that, "whatever is tested and is working there [in the U.S.] is copied elsewhere."

 

 

Prepared by Media Reaction Branch (202) 203-7888, rmrmail@state.gov

 

EDITOR:  Rupert D. Vaughan

 

EDITOR'S NOTE:   Media Reaction reporting conveys the spectrum of foreign press sentiment. Posts select commentary to provide a representative picture of local editorial opinion.  Some commentary is taken directly form the Internet.   This report summarizes and interprets foreign editorial opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Government.  This analysis was based on 118 reports from 40 countries over January 17-21, 2005. Editorial excerpts are listed from the most recent date.

 

EUROPE

 

BRITAIN:  "Hope...Bush's More Nuanced Words Could Be Heard Above Gunfire In Iraq"

 

The center-left Independent editorialized (1/21):  "Four years ago, even four months ago, few would have given George W. Bush much chance of standing on the dais before the Capitol yesterday to be sworn in as a second-term president.  The price for Mr. Bush of his victory is that he may have to face the consequence of his first-term judgments while he is still in office.  The ill-conceived Iraq war and the expanding budget deficit resulting from his own profligacy will be his over-riding priorities."

 

"Bush Must Sort Out Iraq If He Is To Keep His Promises"

 

The conservative Daily Telegraph declared (1/21):  "With a much strengthened mandate for his second term, Mr. Bush has vaulting ambitions for liberty.  Bringing representative government to Afghanistan and Iraq is proving hard enough.  Yet beyond that are the six 'outposts of tyranny'--Cuba, Burma, North Korea, Iran, Belarus and Zimbabwe--as defined by Condoleezza Rice, the new Secretary of State.  And thereafter--China?  The President's intentions are admirable, but he has got to get Iraq right if they are to have a hope of being realised.  That is the unfinished business of his first term, and will doubtless preoccupy him throughout the second."

 

"Promises And Reality"

 

The left-of-center Guardian remarked (1/21):  "This was an inaugural that was aimed at the whole world rather than just the American people.  Domestic concerns were quickly passed over; they will be the substance of the forthcoming state of the union address to Congress.  The two texts will eventually stand together as Mr. Bush's true prospectus."

 

"Freedom First:  Bush Offers A Combination Of Continuity And Change"

 

The conservative Times argued (1/21):  "This will not be a revolutionary movement.  Nor will the differences between some European governments and the Oval Office disappear.  The U.S. will continue to regard the threat posed by radical Islamists, the dangers of the proliferation of WMD and the behaviour of rogue states such as North Korea with more urgency than France and Germany.  These countries should ask themselves whether their assessment of these perils is so much more modest because of evidence, or the inconvenience that acknowledging their intensity would entail.  They might also ponder what it is about the promotion of freedom that they regard as so alien and objectionable."

 

"Can Bush Rise To The Challenge?"

 

The conservative tabloid Daily Mail wondered (1/21):  "Whatever his mistakes, he leads a great nation, full of generosity and idealism.  Its power is essential to our security.  Its economy underpins our prosperity.  And its capacity for good--as when it sent much of its navy to the rescue within hours of the tsunami disaster--is immense.  The world needs a strong, confident America, led by a President who is prepared to listen.  And Britain needs an ally that commands admiration and respect.  We wish Mr. Bush well as he faces the huge challenges of the next four years."

 

"George Bush's Talk Of Spreading Freedom And Democracy Is A Sugar-coated Lie"

 

Johann Hari commented in the center-left Independent (1/21):  "If Bush was serious about 'exporting democracy and freedom', the best place to start would be with the authoritarian regimes he currently funds, supports and deals weaponry to....  Nothing would make me happier than if the most powerful state in the world was committed to spreading democracy and toppling vicious governments.  It is not; in many places, it is doing precisely the opposite.  As George Bush begins his second term with another false cry, it is time to wake up."

 

"More Bull And Bush"

 

The center-left tabloid Daily Mirror opined (1/21):  "In his inaugural address Mr. Bush mouthed platitudes about freedom and justice.  Easy words for a president sheltering in safety behind an army of security guards.  The real army is in Iraq, being slaughtered by fanatics united in their hatred of America."

 

"George Bush: Second Time Around" -

 

The left-of-center Guardian commented (1/20):  "If 'regime change' in Iraq has been a model of what could happen elsewhere, it may be better to live with the tyrants we know (just as the U.S. does, for example, with Saudi Arabia)--and to rely on the transforming power of trade, international law, human rights and free communications to foster freedom and democracy (as Washington did so successfully in Ukraine).  This is not to insist that force can never be used.  But it is hard to see Europe, China, Russia, India or Japan accepting that this is likely to be the case with North Korea or, more immediately, with Iran."

 

"Condi Changes Tone"

 

The independent Financial Times stated (1/20):  [Condoleeza Rice's] remarks on the Middle East conflict--identified as a pressing priority--continue to reflect Washington's habit of making demands of the Palestinians but not the Israelis.  Her grasp of the reality on the ground in Iraq seems little surer than that of her boss.  It is far from clear she or he has a strategy to combat the highly decentralised, non-state phenomenon of jihadi terrorism.  Indeed, the credibility of her government's commitment to freedom is not borne out by its continuing support for allied despots in Central Asia and the Middle East."

 

"Second Term: Same President But A Largely New Administration"

 

The conservative Times editorialized (1/18):  "Overall...the Cabinet will not be diminished by the caliber of the people trundling in and out of the Oval Office over the next four years....  It is implied that [Bush] has traded diversity of faces for uniformity in political sentiments and instincts.  This is a very odd line of criticism.  It ignores the reality that second-term presidencies are different beasts from first-term governments....  The president is...in a no-win position.  If he has highly assertive Cabinet members competing, to take an example, over foreign policy, he is accused of permitting anarchy.  If a set of team players is selected, the charge of cronyism is inevitable....  The conduct of policy will inevitably depend in large part on events, whether the situation in Iraq or the condition of the global economy.  It would be surprising if even America's harshest critics were not prompted to reassess their perception of the Bush administration four years hence."

 

"Back For Four More Years, More Powerful Than Ever"

 

Assistant editor Tim Hames maintained in the conservative Times (1/18):  "Most second-term presidencies are pale imitations of the first four years in power.  They have, historically, been undercut by three factors:  agenda exhaustion, personnel depletion and congressional erosion....  None of these constraints applies to this president....  This presidency will thus be different....  Rather than engage in the implausible pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize, he might aspire to be remembered as the man who won the War on Terror.  It is unlikely that he will invade any more rogue states, but that is mostly because such ventures will either be deemed unnecessary or unfeasible.  How much Mr. Bush will do in his remaining time is...unpredictable.  He may, once again, break the rules of American politics and prove that it is possible to maintain momentum.  The wild card here is scandal....  If he can avoid such ethical quicksand, this president's final few years in office could be surprisingly successful.  Mr. Bush's personal authority, at least until 2007, may be really exceptional.  Only Franklin D. Roosevelt has been equivalently placed in the past 100 years.  This might oblige his many vocal critics, who have habitually mocked him, to deliver their own five-word speech this Thursday.  It should read:  'He is not an idiot.'"

 

FRANCE:   "Semantics"

 

François Bécet wrote in regional l'Alsace (1/21):  "For the moment, only the vocabulary has changed.  The axis of evil has given way to 'outposts of tyranny'...but the way to solve problems and the objectives have not changed."

 

"Helping Bush"

 

Jean-Claude Kiefer stated in regional Dernieres Nouvelles d'Alsace (1/21):  "We need to help the U.S.  Although it is the world's number one military power, the U.S. is politically weak.  It systematically has to flex its muscles to get what it wants, with the risk of always having to act forcefully to remain credible.  This is risky for the entire world.  How can we help Bush?  By tirelessly trying to be heard."

 

"Diplomacy"

 

Phyilippe Waucampt opined in regional Le Républicain Lorrain (1/21):  "The U.S. seems to have understood the limits of diplomacy by whip and scorn, seeing that it has caused the rejection of America and reinforced terrorism.  The PR-humanitarian operation mounted after the tsunami shows that the Republican administration wants to be liked, but there are limits in the neo-Puritan view of a world in black and white where those who are not with America are against her."

 

"A Time For Diplomacy"

 

Pierre Rousselin wrote in right-of-center Le Figaro (1/20): "Since in Washington it is 'time for diplomacy,' on this side of the Atlantic we must fully seize this opportunity.  It would indeed be a waste of time to expect any additional signal from the U.S. other than the one made by Condoleezza Rice....  Why not take part in this desire for change?  This is what France has been trying to do lately: 'revitalizing the transatlantic relationship' has become a priority for the Elysee....  Everyone is showing its good intentions.  But let's not be too naïve: President Bush is not going to change.  In his view, his reelection is proof that his choices were the right choices, although they are unpopular abroad.  Bush II will be a continuation of Bush I, with an effort made in the direction of public relations....  If he has changed his tone, it is because he is trying to find an exit to his misadventures in Iraq.  Our officials understand it would be unseemly to remind him of this....  And so they support the elections in Iraq, although they doubt they will change anything.  But this gesture has not gone unnoticed in Washington....  Nevertheless, some topics of dissension will remain, such as the Kyoto protocol, the International Criminal Court or, more generally, multilateralism....  But because some misunderstandings stem from a choice of words, and since the time for diplomacy has come, why not go with the flow and find new words to say the same thing.  We, like the U.S., need to be better understood."

 

"Iraq's Consequences"

 

Patrick Sabatier observed in left-of-center Liberation (1/20): "President Bush has no guarantees that he will be able to impose his very conservative economic and social program.  Ideological inflexibility, the arrogance of power and incompetence in the execution could have the same effects in domestic programs as in Iraq....  Bush has accumulated a number of mistakes in the war against terrorism....  He could spend his second term trying to find a way out of Iraq's moving sands to avoid a defeat carrying daunting consequences for the entire democratic world." 

 

"Bush, Second Chance"

 

Bruno Frappat asserted in Catholic La Croix (1/20): "Second term, second chance....  After 9/11,  there was the war in Afghanistan and the 'preemptive' war in Iraq, but also the negligence of forgetting about the Middle East.  And of course there was that unfortunate word: 'crusade.' Instead of trying to be a builder of peace, like his predecessor, President Bush became 'a President of war'...ignoring the boomerang effect of the massive lie on WMD.  Bush is on for another four years and the world with him.  Has he changed?...  What is certain is that he is beginning to see that democratizing the world with weapons is not so easy....  But he has also made a significant gesture towards muultilaterlism with the tsunami and the UN.  Even in the Middle East there are signs that the clouds are lifting....  And so, like four years ago, and because we have no choice, let's wait and hope."

 

"The 'Bush Doctrine' Tested During Second Term"

 

Jacques Hubert-Rodier argued in right-of-center Les Echos (1/18):  "Iraq, Iran, Israel-Palestine, three 'Is' that will dominate President Bush's second term....  A second term that is beginning under very different auspices from the first, especially in terms of international relations....  Four years later, America finds itself much more committed to the affairs of the world.  President Bush's second term will be colored by foreign policy and its social and budgetary consequences for the U.S....  These three issues will determine to a large extent the status of transatlantic relations, which suffered from the war in Iraq.  The U.S. president has a great opportunity to achieve a reconciliation with many of his European allies and to demonstrate that America is not at war with Islam....  President Bush is coming to Europe, and probably later President Chirac will travel to Washington:  signs of a new era?  At any rate these are signs of a more benevolent America trying to convince the world that its goals are just.  A difficult task."

 

GERMANY:  "High Mass Of The Republic"

 

Michael Stürmer penned in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (1/21):  "Because he received a majority of votes, Bush sees himself confirmed in his war on terror and the invasion in Iraq.  But at the same time, the presence of thousands of security forces shows that the invisible war on terror has by no means been won.  The concerns not only of Americans but also of the rest of the world were reflected in the parades.  The deficits are out of control....  Iran is striving for nuclear weapons, the Iraq war has only been half won--and this also means it has been half lost.  The proliferation of WMD can at best be slowed down, but cannot be stopped.  But who, with the exception of America, is really turning this into its own problem?  The old allies are lost in doubts.  George W. Bush's speech was a sermon that was full of confidence in the spirit of freedom.  The Europeans in their skepticism and their secret envy of the superpower should save themselves any malice.  Some of this spirit would be good for the political apparata in the Old World and help them renew themselves."

 

"Missionary Zeal"

 

Right-of-center Münchener Merkur of Munich stated (1/21):  "Like no other U.S. president, George W. Bush refers to the very American fascinating phenomenon of freedom and idealism.  His missionary zeal, which is based on religious sources, is directed to a global model, which he wants to assert with fire and sword in case of doubt....  He is backed by a strong election victory, which is alarming his critics in Europe like speculation that the next war is already in preparation.  From a bird's eye view to the superpower, fear for an unimpeded warmongering dominates.  Those who give in to such emotions have not understood America or do not want to, for a sobering look to the facts is revealing already now that the president will have to deal more with the consequences of his first term than with the projects of his second.  George W. Bush is about to ask too much of the United States in almost any respect."

 

"Heavy Burden"

 

Andreas Rinke observed in business-oriented Handelsblatt of Duesseldorf (1/21):  "Never before had a U.S. president entered his second term with such a heavy burden.  The Iraq war and Bush's unilateral tone have reduced his popularity but has also resulted in the U.S. reputation all over the world being at a record low.  The gap with the traditionally close allies like Germany was especially painful.  That is why Bush's second term begins with repair work...and the fact that Bush's first trip abroad leads him to the EU and then to Germany is an additional signal that old trenches are to be filled up.  But this will hardly end in a love affair, for the change in Washington is not so much based on an change of mind but on the current weakness of the superpower....  In addition, there can be no return to the formerly unbreakable partnership.  It is true that Americans and Europeans must cooperate if they want to be successful.  But there is no need to follow the leading claim of the superpower in all respects.  With respect to the Iraq war, Germany's elite racked its brains over whether Germany can afford to oppose the U.S.; after President Bush's first term the answer is 'yes.'  That is why both sides must earn this new friendship.  The first test case will be, from a German point of view, UN reform.  If the U.S. votes or agitates against a permanent German UNSC seat, the new harmony will quickly be over."

 

"Wrong Signal"

 

Center-right Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung noted (1/21):  "The contents of his inaugural speech leaves an ambiguous impression.  This pathetic pledge for freedom and democracy would sound much more credible if Bush had oriented himself much more to these values in the Iraq conflict."

 

"Welcome To The Neo-Con Club"

 

Business-oriented Financial Times Deutschland of Hamburg stated (1/21):  "Yesterday, George W. Bush set up the framework for a very practicable foreign policy.  Four years after taking over office, Bush has arrived in the camp of the neo-cons, the conservative think tank that want to focus in its policies on the spread of democracy and western values.  The 'defection' of the former pragmatist and tough realpolitiker into the camp of visionaries does not mean that the United States will send out forces tomorrow to topple all dictators in the world...but the basic coordinates of U.S. foreign policy are now clear, and they will determine politics.  They mean that the United States will, in the long run, not confine itself to holding in check the 'outposts of tyranny,' as future secretary of state Condoleezza Rice said.  It will follow a policy aiming at the ouster of the regimes in these outposts and at the democratization of the Middle and Near East.  But it will be done in a pragmatic way, with compromises that are based on short-term policies, but will not lose sight of the real target." 

             

"Only Words"

 

Arnd Festerling judged in left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau (1/21):  "In his first term, George W. Bush proclaimed the war on terror--there is no doubt that this is a good idea--and, at the same time, he massively restricted civil rights in the U.S. and in addition demolished relations with too many allies.  He promised peace and democracy to Iraq--who can be opposed to this?--and turned Saddam's bloody dictatorship into an anarchic place of terror, and paid for it with the death of thousands of people, including U.S citizens.  He promised prosperity and welfare to his own country and lowered taxes for the benefit of the wealthy three times, catapulted the state deficit into incredible heights...and, at the same time reduced the social welfare system even more.  Now it is to be idealism, freedom and the reform of the social welfare system. The most powerful man in the world found great words for his second term.  But he will again be measures against his deeds."

 

"A New Attempt"

 

Hubert Wetzel judged in business daily Financial Times Deutschland of Hamburg (1/19):  "For strained transatlantic relations, the beginning of his new term and President Bush's trip to Europe offers a new chance.  If Europe and America seize this chance, this can be the beginning for the revival of an alliance from which both sides enormously profited over the past decades.  But if both sides miss this chance, this will have serious consequences....  Europe should not expect a change of course....  The signals of reconciliation Washington has sent out for quite some time indicate a new style in dealing with Europe rather than a totally new policy....  In order to take advantage of the conciliatory tones, Europe should act in a cohesive way; there is a reason why hard-liners in Washington prefer a divided over a unified Europe.  A unified Europe has power....  More reasonable than European complaints about America's stupidity would be proposals that would hurt Europe but would also emphasize an interest in cooperation.  One example would be Iran:  instead of complaining, the Europeans should confront the United States with a demand and a concession:  Washington must seriously take part in talks with Tehran, and, in return, Europe would support forced measures in case the diplomatic efforts fail....  Europeans should not feel misguided by their contempt for Bush.  Many transatlantic problems have nothing to do with the person of the U.S. president; they began long before Bush and will continue once he has retired....  During his trip to Europe, Bush will not apologize and not admit any mistakes, but he knows that...he is in a fix in Iraq.  It is now up to the Europeans to give Bush at least political backing--even reluctantly.  To reject the U.S. president is not useful for Europe, Iraq or transatlantic relations."

 

"Ideological Offensive"

 

Washington correspondent Michael Backfisch wrote in business daily Handelsblatt of Duesseldorf (1/18):  "When the president begins his second term on Thursday, he will sell his fight against terror as a success story.  It is true that Bush has bridled his effusive rhetoric in view of ongoing violence in the Gulf, but already now he is celebrating the Iraqi elections as a historic victory of freedom over tyranny.  Saddam Hussein's ouster was the beginning of an ideological campaign.  In the future, the president is now likely to try to get former allies back into the boat, but Bush's goal remains the same:  the United States wants to reshape the entire Middle East into a zone free from dictators.  The president is now setting up an equation according to which democracy is tantamount to safety from terror.  The fact that reality partly contests this does not stop his missionary zeal."

 

ITALY: "The Challenge of Bush II"

 

Washington correspondent Vittorio Zucconi on the front page of left-leaning, influential La Repubblica opined (1/20):  "The inauguration...is the Te Deum of a democracy that celebrates itself and its capability to survive--a ritual that has never been more intense than in this first ceremony following 9/11, which for a moment seemed to call into question the existence and the very nature of the United States.. Particularly this year, it is a political Thanksgiving of a nation that perseveres and prospers.  At moments like these, it rediscovers and renews its identity, which is not  negatively centered on ethnic, religious or xenophobic feelings, but is more focused on constitutional aspects....  It is always important for those who watch the ritual of this 'elective monarchy' to place the inauguration in historical context.  And it is even more important to do so when a controversial figure like George W. Bush rises (temporarily) to the American throne.  According to a PEW survey, Bush incarnates everything that Western Europe, the Islamic world, a large part of Asia (except for India) and Latin America hate about the United States....  Never before has the international prestige of this country and of its president been so low, and the unpopularity of America so high."

 

"America Inaugurates Its Future"

 

Alberto Pasolini Zanelli on the front page of pro-government, leading center-right daily Il Giornale  commented (1/20):  "[Bush] has convinced himself that the future belongs to freedom, and therefore to an America called to this by the Almighty.  He also realizes that a rival-free hegemony is not destined to last forever, but is a 'window of opportunity' that America must seize.  He is less optimistic than many of his 'neo-conservative' advisors who bask in the sun of an endless imperial destiny.  Bush is not as ideological.  His sense of history, in part instinctive, tends to be more tragic, exacerbating his perception of his enormous duties and of the need to accomplish them while there is time: meaning while he is at the White House.  As Europeans, we must hail Washington's signals of greater willingness to engage in dialogue with old allies. But we must not delude ourselves...that we can impose our 'rhythms' on America.  All the more as long as George W.--a man who feels he must do things quickly--remains in the White House."

 

"Condi Bids Adieu To Neo-Conservatives"

 

Gianni Riotta wrote in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (1/19):  "Secretary -designate  Rice's testimony was disliked by her friends who practice the philosophy of neo-conservatism....  Rice offered cooperation and dialogue to the allies, primarily to Schroeder's Germany that wants to separate itself from the anti-U.S. understanding with French President Chirac....  On the eve of President Bush's trip to Europe...Rice offered the country and world public opinion a moderate, diplomatic and softer image.  Is this the much awaited signal of Bush II, that indispensable shift needed to re-open contacts on the global agenda?...  Despite everything, hopes for the second Bush administration reside under the control of Baghdad, of Iraq, and in the positive outcome for the spread of democracy in the country....  Rice has the right tone, now deeds must follow."

 

RUSSIA:  "Inauguration Speech.  Take Two"

 

Melor Sturua wrote in reformist Izvestia (1/21):  "Bush faced a challenge in his second inauguration speech: how to address the nation and the world because both are divided.  The latest presidential election showed that the U.S. is sort of breaking apart into red (Republican) and blue (Democratic) states. On the other hand, the Bush-led empire policy, disrespect for many international bodies and conventions, the declaration of the doctrine of preventive strikes, and the imposition of democracy by force caused many countries to turn away from America.  This is why the second inauguration speech of President Bush will be studied 'under the microscope' in other world capitals."

 

"The Price Of The Issue"

 

Natalia Gevorkyan argued in reformist business-oriented Kommersant (1/21):  "Bush will go down in the history of America as a power president, to use the Russian terminology.  And this cannot but bring him closer to the Russian leadership....  If Bush had declared a peace program for the next four years, Putin would have had serious reasons to worry: indeed, the American press writes all kind of rubbish about our president, but what could be worse than George Bush and Condoleezza Rice starting to deal in earnest with the problems of democracy in Russia, forgetting their task of saving the diverse world around them?  Only the fighting Bush is a real friend.  That's the only Bush we need, the Bush who needs support in his global undertakings or, as a minimum, non-resistance from major world powers, such as Russia.  In order to get this support he will try to understand his friend Putin and find explanations to the most inscrutable actions and decisions.  He won't even get hurt by speculation about a multipolar world that our leadership is so fond of making."

 

"George Bush Made All-Embracing Speech"

 

Dmitry Sidorov and Boris Volkhonsky asserted in reformist business-oriented Kommersant (1/21):  "Hearings to confirm Condoleezza Rice as a new secretary of state were quite noteworthy. Most of her statements showed that the US foreign policy would be based on pretty much the same principles as during President Bush's first term. Mme. Rice could not even dispel concerns about a possible use of force against Iran. However, some of her remarks indicate that Washington is looking for new foreign policy goals.  For example, it is quite symbolic that the old term 'axis of evil' (Iraq, Iran, North Korea), which was introduced by President Bush at the beginning of his first term, has been replaced with 'outposts of tyranny', which Condoleezza Rice used in her speech at the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Mme. Rice expanded the list (while deleting Iraq that should become an example of democratic changes in the Middle East) to include such countries as Cuba, Zimbabwe, Belarus, and Myanmar.  Some leaders of totalitarian states (for example, in former Soviet Central Asia) hurried to give a sigh of relief after they hadn't found their countries in the list of chief villains. However, they forget that in the past the term 'axis of evil' was easily applied afterwards to such countries as Libya, Syria, and Cuba. So, it seems that the leaders of such countries as Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan shouldn't really relax, especially since the president confirmed in his 16-minute inauguration speech the determination of the new administration to put an end to tyranny in the world."

 

"The Department Of State Has A 'Female Face'"

 

Vissarion Sisnyov stated in centrist Trud (1/21):  "Because she is close to the president--'she has his ear', as observers write--critics from the Democratic camp claimed that there were basically two secretaries of state in the country. It was true to some extent: the actual head of the Department of State 'broke into heresy' from time to time, forgetting that he was only a guide for the president's policy. Apparently, this explains why Bush did not ask him to stay for another term even though Powel made it clear that he would have agreed.  For two days the senators were 'frying' Rice, so to speak....  First of all, they tried to make her admit that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake and that the administration has no clear-cut plan of action. But Rice stood her ground: the removal of Saddam Hussein was good for the region and America. She didn't say, however, when, at least approximately, America could withdraw its troops from Iraq.  Since she expressed not her own opinion but the position of the president and his team, the great tasks she described as the key ones are noteworthy. There are three of them:  strengthening the community of democracies to create an international system based on common values and law; pooling forces against common security threats and eliminating hopelessness that feeds terror; and spreading democracy and freedom around the world. Speaking of Russia Rice said the path of democracy in this country was 'uneven' and its success was not yet assured. Just one figure: six 'outposts of tyranny'. Commentators regard it as a replacement for Bush's 'axis of evil' that no longer includes Iraq. Now the list consists of Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Burma and Belarus."

 

AUSTRIA:    "The Freedom He Means"

 

Stefan Galoppi commented in mass-circulation Kurier (1/21):  "For the four years ahead, Bush has announced a more conciliatory attitude....  According to his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the time for diplomacy is now. However, this does not necessarily mean much:  Bush merely wants to improve the public relations side of his policy. As for content, he will stick to his rigidly conservative line. This goes for the nomination of new Supreme Court judges as well as the planned privatization of the pension system and foreign policy. The fight against tyranny throughout the world has now officially been announced. The military threat gestures against Teheran fatally remind of the run-up to the Iraq war. That there is nevertheless hope for the next four years passing without a new military front is not attributable to a reassessment of the situation on the part of the White House but to the fact that even a superpower reaches its limits. The U.S army in Iraq is stretched even beyond its limits. An end of the military engagement that costs 4.5 billion each month is nowhere in sight. This is an expensive reality that Bush will have to acknowledge and act on. It could prevent him from taking too many liberties - as he did during his first term."

 

"Little Maneuvering Room For Bush"

 

Peter Filzmaier concluded in mass-circulation provincial Kleine Zeitung (1/21):  "Bush has promised to reduce the deficit to half of its present level. Apart from this, the announcements he made during the election campaign regarding the individual political issues were more vague than those made by almost any presidential candidate before him. Those who do not have anything to distribute will try to avoid giving out election promises with concrete numbers attached that can later result in political claims....  The President is desperately trying to turn a vice into a virtue:  The privatization of the Social Security system signals a readiness for reform and does not cost the federal government anything....  However, at some point the game will be up and his lack of money and ideas will become apparent....  New foreign policy adventures are unlikely at the moment. Bush rather seeks to improve his communication basis with Europe, not because he has mutated from Saul to Paul, but because he lacks the money to play the role of world policeman, notwithstanding the flagging war enthusiasm in his own country. Diplomacy is cheaper. However, U.S Presidents in their second term, free of all worries about reelection, generally try to establish their place in history. For Bush, this is going to be difficult:  at 52%, his acceptance rate is lower than that of any President at the time of his inauguration. What Bush could come up with to be remembered in history, gives grounds for concern."

 

"Living With Bush"

 

Ernst Trost opined in mass-circulation tabloid Neue Kronenzeitung (1/21):  "Not only the Americans suffer from the long-term effects of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The traditional monarchical ceremony around the inauguration of a U.S President is overshadowed by the daily murders in Iraq. The insurgents detonate their human bombs as if to salute. While Bush sees his election victory as a confirmation of his war policy, he, no more than his team, knows how to get out of the Iraqi disaster. The Europeans must now strive to once again achieve normal relations with the U.S. If Bush continues to see only America's interests without consideration for his friends, the situation will remain as it is. Which means that living with Bush will bring much hardship."

 

BELGIUM:    "Bush's New World" 

 

U.S. correspondent Nathalie Mattheiem declared in left-of-center Le Soir (1/20): "A vast majority of the world had voted in favor of John Kerry. Le Soir had as well. But the Americans decided otherwise."Before the inauguration ceremony at the Capitol today, the world is facing the reality of a second four-year mandate of this President who has often been presented as a cow-boy who is set out to conquer the world using force and dollars, whereas he himself considers that he is the leader of the free world and the promoter of democracy."George Bush considers his reelection an approval given by his national opinion but, on the international scene, he is beginning his second term with a new conscience. Although during the electoral campaign it was out of the question to express any doubts about the situation in Iraq, it seems that the damage that the war in Iraq inflicted to traditional alliances has been taken into account. An indication thereof were Condoleezza Rice's conciliatory statements and George Bush's visit to the 'Old Europe' as early as February."The changes that took place within the Bush Administration do not allow one to speculate on any change of orientation of its policies. On the contrary, the new nominees in that Administration are people who are very close to the President and whose main quality is to faithfully represent the President's views."On the eve of the beginning of Bush's second term, the world has at least one certainty, i.e. that it will continue to know exactly what the President thinks and wants to accomplish, even if that is scary."

 

"For Better or Worse?" 

 

U.S. affairs Philippe Paquet editorialized in independent La Libre Belgique (1/20): "At the moment when George W. Bush is taking oath today, America is giving two very different images of itself. On the one hand an army - of liberation for some and of occupation for others - is trying to shape a new Iraq that, in Washington's dreams, will lead to another Middle East. On the other hand, an aircraft carrier, thirty ships, and as many helicopters are bringing relief aid to tsunami victims."In the eyes of the President, the aforementioned examples are two expressions of the same 'compassionate' policy...." with the departure of Colin Powell, the promotion of Ms. Rice, and the fact that Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz are staying - without forgetting Dick Cheney - U.S. 'diplomacy' is henceforth in the hands of a group where there will be no dissonant voice. "George Bush wanted such a consensus in order to conduct a more efficient policy. However, one can fear that, being in the hands of hawks, this policy remains an extremely hard-line one."

 

"Bush II Will Be More Diplomat" 

 

Catherine Dehay opined in Catholic Vers L'Avenir (1/20): "The fact that, immediately after his reelection, George Bush announced his visit to Europe in February was the first strong indication that the U.S. Administration wanted an improvement of Transatlantic relations. The hand that it lent out to the Old Continent is the result of the need to obtain some political - if not military - support to get out of the Iraqi quagmire as soon as possible."While keeping his cow-boy composure, Bush is very smart when it comes to adjusting the fire without going back on what he has said. Neither U.S. casualties nor the absence of weapons of mass destruction or widespread violence have altered his conviction that the war was right. But Iraq requires him to be more realistic on the international scene, at the moment when some Republicans are beginning to grind their teeth because of the human and financial cost of the war in Iraq. "That is why President Bush wants to patch things up with Europe and improve America's image, especially in the Muslim world. And that is why he has everything to gain by multiplying signs of opening, which in no way mean that there will be a fundamental change in the way the Republican Administration sees the world, where those that are not its friend are necessarily its enemy."

 

 "Bush's Second Term"

 

Foreign editor Paul De Bruyn opined in conservative Christian-Democrat Gazet van Antwerpen (1/19):  "Now that President Bush is at the beginning of his second term...will he continue on the same path and will the world be divided even more, or will he enter history as the 'unifier'?  The least one can say about his first term is that is was controversial.  A large part of the world has turned against America.  There are two reasons for that:  his use of power, and his vision on the world and America's role in that world.  Bush has no problems with using his enormous military power.  That powers serves...remaking of the world according to American values and ideas....  Because American values are 'universal'...Washington has a mission.  Linked to that is the reaction to the 9/11 attacks.  That shock and trauma have toughened the American conservative circles' ideas about defense and strategy.  America must be protected against all threats--also future dangers.  Enemies must be eliminated....  Friends must not become competitors.  That is the essence of the 'pre-emptive strategy'....  America must not be contained by outside forces.  The UN, in particular, must not curtail America.  America does not need allies.  Permanent coalitions are not needed because such coalitions impose unwanted obligations and weaken America.  That vision has culminated in the war in Iraq whose consequences have a serious impact on the international relationships.  That war has cost the United States a lot of support and goodwill....  Bush is starting his second term with a much changed team.  The consequences are unpredictable.  Nine of the fifteen Secretaries have been replaced--including Secretary of State Colin Powell.  Many fear that, with his departure, the last bit of moderation has gone as well.  His successor Condoleezza Rice has always leaned towards the side of the hawks.  Donald Rumsfeld has managed to maintain himself in the Pentagon and the neo-conservatives stay in office.  That has made commentators conclude that Bush II will be a tougher version of Bush I."

 

CYPRUS:  "What Can We Hope From A 2nd Bush Presidency?"

 

The independent English-language Cyprus Mail noted (1/21):  "George W. Bush was formally inaugurated fro his second term as President of the U.S....  Much of the world will watch his foreign policy unfold with grave concern, expecting little good from an administration that has established heavily interventionist, aggressively unilateralist credentials in its first term.  A degree of realism may temper some of the worst fears.  The new-conservative agenda of delivering democracy through the barrel of a gun has been somewhat deflated by the difficulties experienced by American occupation forces in Iraq.  For all the recent talk of moving against Iran, the 'who's next' rhetoric that immediately followed the downfall of Saddam Hussein would seem to have moved onto the back burner....  There is reason to hope that the Bush administration may be chastened by its experience in the Iraqi quagmire.  But while that may preclude another large-scale military operation, it is hardly likely to bring America back into the fold of multilateral international cooperation.  The rhetoric remains tough, and all the signals that Washington intends to continue in its robust foreign policy, whatever anyone else in the world may think....  Although President Bush is on his way to Europe soon, American engagement with its allies will be driven only by necessity, not by any desire for multilateral decision-making.  Europe's response to a second Bush administration must therefore be driven by pragmatism.  Many may not like the prospect, but that is the choice of the American people, and Europe can no more ignore America than America can ignore Europe."

 

CZECH REPUBLIC:  "Bush Has More Ambitious Plans than His Predecessors"

 

Lubomir Heger remarked in mainstream MF Dnes (1/21):  "If President Bush were in the habit of looking into history he would have to get nervous.  The second terms of U.S. presidents oftentimes turned into their nightmares....  They have only two years to realize their plans, since in the second two years the public is only interested in their successor.  The presidents usually adjust their agenda accordingly.  Not so President Bush who plans to push through the greatest social reform since F.D. Roosevelt--spread democracy in the Middle East and mend relationships with Europe.  This can be done only by someone very courageous with a tendency to gamble.  This approach can in some cases be successful....  The disadvantage, however, is that Bush usually doesn't bother to counsel or persuade others of his intentions.  Why should he do so when he is always right?   There will hardly be any change in this approach so all we can hope for is that he is actually right as often as possible."

 

"Depreciation Of Freedom"

 

Ivan Hoffman broadcast on popular Czech Radio (on the most widely listened channel RadioZurnal) (1/21):  "There is no word that would be able to withstand being devalued if used twenty-seven times in one speech, as was the case of President Bush's inauguration speech.  Freedom was defended, expanded, sustained, achieved, wanted and promised....  It seemed as if there could never be freedom enough.  Listening to this speech leads one to wonder whether President Bush understands the true meaning of this key word himself....  Referring to freedom twenty-seven times is good for nothing if it is not clear what you mean by it.  Moreover, there have been cases when arbitrariness, aggression, unscrupulousness, or indifference have been labeled as freedom....  The idiosyncratic style [of President Bush] in which he promises to spread and defend peace throughout the world in the name of freedom does not herald anything good for the world, be it for peace or freedom.  After the inauguration speech, there remains nothing else for us to do than to freely remark as loudly as we can that, no offense intended, but he does not have a patent on freedom."

 

"Good Luck! He Will Need It"

 

Catherine Mommaerts said in financial L'Echo (1/21):  "The least one can say is that George W. Bush's second term is beginning under more unfavorable auspices than four years ago. His country is at war in Iraq--a conflict out of which Washington apparently does not know how to come, which does not prevent it from looking at Iran--and, more globally, it is at war against a terrorism that has probably been aggravated by the Bush Administration's policies. And it is not the American relief operations in South Asia that will wipe out all the mistakes of the past--especially since it was yet another opportunity for Washington to show that it still prefers to go it alone, no matter what Condoleezza Rice said.  On top of these huge diplomatic and military challenges, the new Bush Administration is also facing social and economic challenges that are as politically difficult....  In other words, Bush will need more than a group of persons who are very close to him within his Administration. A lot of chance will, indeed, not be superfluous if he wants to be successful in at least a part of the contract that he set for himself for his second term."

 

"Reality"

 

Foreign editor Paul De Bruyn opined in conservative Christian-Democrat Gazet van Antwerpen (1/21):  "In addition to all the rhetoric there is also reality.  Bush cannot escape from that either.  The war in Iraq shows that America's military power is not unlimited.  He has put a heavy burden on the armed forces that costs handfuls of money--while the deficit amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars.  Another war could kill Bush's domestic plans.  He wants to carry out far-reaching reforms in the pension system, but that will cost a lot of money.  That means that he will have to make cuts.  Even the Pentagon--whose wishes are usually honored - will have to make cuts.  On top of that, Bush cannot ignore his own people.  His popularity vacillates around 50 percent--the lowest figure of a re-elected President since Richard Nixon.  That shows how deeply divided the country is.  It should motivate him to be cautious.  Bush is confronted with a fundamental choice.  Four years ago, he promised that he would be a 'unifier.'  He has four more years to carry out that promise."

 

"Helping George W. Bush Is Quite A Challenge For His Allies"

 

Foreign editor Jurek Kuczkiewicz asserted in left-of-center Le Soir (1/21):  "It is obvious that the Western world and Europe in particular, even if it hard to admit, has no choice but to not only get along with Bush II but also to help him.  For, no matter what their mistakes may have been--and some were huge, in particular in Iraq - the U.S. President and his Administration will in no way be able to repair them by themselves nor, more globally, to make the world better, i.e. safer in military, economic, social, and environmental terms.  It will not be sufficient for us to hope that, after having won a first mandate on compassion before waging war, George Bush will make peace after having won a second term on war. We will have to help him. It is not only a challenge for George W. Bush, it is also a huge challenge for us, who are the Americans' historical and natural allies."

 

"Bush's Inauguration Speech"

 

Martin Zverina opined in center-right Lidove noviny (1/21):  "The inauguration speech of President Bush was addressed not only to Americans but also to the rest of the world, even to those countries he aims to fight against....  It might be significant that Bush didn't use the word "terrorism" once and it is not quite clear whether his references to the propagation of freedom doesn't really mean aggression....  The inauguration speech showed that President Bush in his second term in office would be more experienced and knowledgeable, but hardly more compromising.  Let us only hope that with regard to Euro-American relations he would be a president more restrained and generous.  It will also be a second term for Europe, which has not always been an ideal partner for the U.S."

 

GREECE:  "The Second Term"

 

The lead editorial in leftist pro-opposition Eleftherotypia said (1/21):  "George Bush spoke as a planet ruler, a supporter of freedom, and a warrior against tyranny....  He returned to Cold War terminology to declare Washington's intention to prevail in the world using any means, even war....  Bush said the U.S. seeks support to strengthen democratic institutions to 'put an end to tyranny in the world.'  This pursuit could be seen as sincere had there not been Iraq and a multitude of blunt U.S. interventions in countries not wishing to yield to the superpower's hegemony....  It is obvious that the warlord's second term will begin with a new strike 'against tyranny' unless world public opinion reacts to stop the irrationality of war."

 

"President Bush's Manifest"

 

Elite opposition To Vima said (1/21):  "George Walker Bush was sworn in for his second term promising 'to expand freedom to the darkest corners of the world.'  In his second term's manifest the planet ruler promised  (according to others 'he threatened...') to export 'democracy everywhere.'  He spoke about the final triumph of freedom,' and committed to 'place the U.S. in the service of the oppressed of the world' warning the 'leaders of illegal regimes.'  'Our country has made commitments that are difficult to carry out, but it would be dishonest to abandon them,' stressed the president who led the U.S. to two aggressive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in his first term."

 

HUNGARY:    "Expectations In The Spirit Of Certain Disappointment?"

 

Gabor Zord opined in right-of-center Magyar Nemzet (1/21):  "While many--especially in Europe--naively hoped that after the period of unilateralist confrontation Bush would act conciliatorily and put the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz 'forward line' on a short leash, the reality of the government changes has shattered these illusions....  It hardly makes a difference if the unchanged policy is, perhaps, coupled with a more conciliatory rhetoric, of which there is every chance. For a longer time now, both the other side of the Atlantic and Europe have been promising to glue together the family china that broke on account of the Iraqi war. In all likelihood, many such utterances will be made during Bush's European tour in Europe, but the concrete developments almost rule out any chance of getting closer."

 

"W"

 

Oszkar Fuzes pointed out in top-circulation, center-left Nepszabadsag (1/21):  "W is going to be President for another four years, and what he screws up he will screw up for us, too. If only for selfish reasons, it is worth it for us to root for him.  Especially as Europeans. Bush is not our man--we hear--but we hear less often that we are not helpful to him either. Most often we let him down when we object to him acting alone, moreover, without us. He does not understand us--goes our criticism of him--but we do not even attempt to understand him, not even since September 11. Nor [do we try to understand] them. Whether we like it or not, the Americans elected Bush their President for the second time, because there is something about him that they like. We must face it: America is no longer the auxiliary, the continuation, nor the self-sacrificing helper, or the crisis-managing judge of Europe. But rather its partner, that is if Europe is ready and capable of being a partner. That works doubly: if W is given a chance from us, we will give one to ourselves as well."

 

IRELAND:    "Bush's Agenda"

 

The center-left Irish Times concluded (1/21):  "George Bush used the occasion to send a message to the rest of the world that America identifies its interest, its very safety, with their freedom, and pledged his administration to an activist global policy that will support all those struggling against tyranny....  The speech, in which he used the words 'freedom' 27 times and 'liberty' 15, did not refer specifically to Iraq once, or to terrorism, but hinted that he would not be pulling US troops out soon....  He promised to create an 'ownership society', a Republican project to ma