Military

 

As the first six months of the Bush presidency drew to a close, analysts in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and Canada proffered numerous assessments of the administration's key foreign policy decisions--frequently referring to a list of international agreements recently rejected or challenged by the U.S., including the Kyoto Protocol, the ABM Treaty, the CTBT, the Small Arms Control Pact and the Biological Weapons Protocol.  A vast majority did not like what they saw.  The overarching criticisms focused on alleged U.S. tendencies to:  opt for "unilateralist" solutions, reject the very premise of multilateral cooperation, and elevate the pursuit of "narrow" national interests over "responsible global collaboration."  Notably, most of these litanies could be found in leftist to centrist media outlets.  The U.S. was not, however, without its defenders.  A minority, they were largely scattered throughout the more conservative press.  These pro-Bush observers praised his team for being "realistic" about the flaws of various international agreements,  embracing principled positions, and trying to engage other countries in substance-driven dialogues.  Salient themes follow:

 

IS THE U.S. 'THE LONE RANGER?'..:  Critics had no doubt in their minds that U.S. foreign policy--as evidenced by recent actions--was "unilateralist."  They held that the U.S. is primarily motivated by an obsessive, arrogant and self-absorbed desire to retain its preeminence in the world, seeking at every turn to secure total freedom to "act at will."  Some analysts--many found in the French press, of all ideological stripes--detected an alleged American plot to weaken the U.S.' international competitors, something, they said, to be expected from the "logic of empire."  Several in the press ascribed U.S. policies to ignorance and a certain intellectual shallowness of the new U.S. team.  There were fewer analyses of why U.S. rejection of various international treaties was wrong as a matter of policy.  Rather, implicit in the prevailing argument was that the mere existence of various agreements bolsters global stability and the U.S.' rejection of them was likely to erode shared political values.  In the view of many, the alleged consequences of the "hostile" U.S. conduct included:  the weakening of U.S.  prestige and credibility; the alienation of U.S. allies and the abetment of its enemies; growing anti-American sentiment and increased unity among European countries.  

 

...OR ACTING TO EXPOSE BAD DEALS?:   A staunch minority took a different view.  Expounding in conservative dailies from Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and a smattering of smaller European countries, these analysts saw the U.S. as being motivated by realism, acting on principal, and pursuing sound policies.  They asserted that many of the treaties rejected by the Bush team had major flaws, featuring anti-capitalist, pro-big government biases.  Other themes included observations that the U.S., as the world's sole superpower, had a unique and legitimate set of international needs, and last, but not least, that actions (or inaction) by Europeans belie their globalist rhetoric.

 

EDITOR:  Diana McCaffrey

 

EDITOR'S NOTE:  This survey is based on 77 reports from 30 countries, July 24-August 3.  Editorial excerpts are grouped by region; editorials from each country are listed from the most recent date. 

 

EUROPE

 

BRITAIN:  "Germ Warfare"

 

An editorial in the independent Financial Times held (8/1):  "As the greatest target, the United States is the country most concerned about the threat of an attack with biological weapons.  It professes absolute commitment to the 1972 treaty banning germ warfare.  So how can Washington justify killing off the protocol which provides the only realistic means of enforcing the ban?...   It is true that the draft protocol contains several loopholes in the inspection regime.  But citing such weaknesses as a reason not to participate is unacceptable.  These were concessions granted to American negotiators.  The U.S. government is concerned that international inspections could jeopardize the commercial confidentiality of American biotech firms.  But the regime would be far less onerous than those required by the Chemical Weapons Convention, of which the United States is a strong supporter.  And it is possible to carry out a meaningful appraisal without violating intellectual property rights.  In any case, inspections would be at the discretion of the U.S. authorities.  Washington's alternatives to the inspection regime are wholly inadequate.  Voluntary codes of conduct for scientists and export controls are useful, but not sufficient.  Making it easier to extradite rogue scientists will hardly discourage states bent on equipping themselves with biological weapons.  The Bush administration is clearly reluctant to be bound by multilateral agreements.  And it views with distaste the idea of being equal with 'rogue' states before international law.  But a weak enforcement regime is better than none at all.  The United States can plausibly construct an anti-ballistic missile shield.  Sealing the country in a plastic bubble is not an option."

 

"Is George Just Dumb Enough To Be Great?"

 

The conservative Times had this comment by William Rees-Mogg (7/30):  "There is a long tradition of intellectual snobbery directed against  American presidents....  If any president could have surpassed Ronald Reagan in his contest for intellectual contempt, it would be George W. Bush.....  He has been more ridiculed for his intellectual limitations than any of his predecessors.  Admittedly he averaged C grades at Yale.  In achieving the gold in the intellectual snobbery Olympics, he has had three things going for him; he is mildly dyslexic, he comes from Texas, and he is a Republican.  It is not that the Republicans are the stupid party, rather the contrary.  There are more Republican think-tanks than one can count, with more clever people doing the thinking.  It is, however, true that the Republicans are the party which American academics and the American media like to look down upon as stupid.  In this, the comparable British culture snobs join in with enthusiasm.  The Ivy League, the New York-based television news services, and the leading East Coast newspapers have their clones and cronies in Oxford, Cambridge, the BBC and The Guardian.  Bush has now been in office for six months; he is still a new president, but he has already served one eighth of his first term.  In  those early months the image of a presidency is molded, even if the concrete has not yet set.  How is he doing, in terms of public opinion?  Better than Bill Clinton, is the answer.  Last week I went to Palm Beach, Florida, one of the counties in which the election of 2000 was actually decided....  Palm Beach itself is a billionaires' paradise, but the voters are mostly well-to-do retired people....  Many of these retired people have held significant public offices; there are plenty of senior retired admirals, ambassadors, staff members of the White House and so on.  Palm Beach does not give one any picture of American public opinion in general, but it does give a good picture of experienced opinion, with the detachment, and sometimes the sharpness, that comes from retirement. 

 

"Yesterday's men and women often see much of today's game.  They speak of certain problems for the new administration; these are not the problem of style which worry the more fashionable critics.  They find Mr. Bush's tendency to communicate by decision rather than by spin a refreshing contrast to the Bill Clinton years."

 

"Stop The World, I Want To Get Off" 

 

The independent weekly Economist observed under the subhead "Has George Bush ever met a treaty that he liked?" (7/28):  "To lose one international treaty may be regarded as a misfortune.  To lose five [the article cites the ICC, Kyoto, ABM, UN small arms conference, and the BWC] in seven months...well let's just say there's a pattern here....  It is hard to avoid the suspicion that it is the very idea of multilateral cooperation that Mr. Bush objects to." 

 

"Difference Of Style"

 

Judy Dempsey and Richard Wolffe wrote in the independent Financial Times (7/27).  "After six months in the White House, Mr. Bush's garden looks less than rosy.  For the Europeans, this week's decision to reject the draft agreement on biological weapons confirmed a trend already apparent during the Clinton administration.  'Unilateralism,'  says a senior European Union official....  The accelerated tempo of Mr. Bush's unilateralism provides the Europeans with a strong incentive to overcome their internal divisions and unite to woo Washington back to multilateralism.  Without this, the creeping unilateralism of the Clinton years might have continued indefinitely.  The question is whether the Europeans are united enough to pursue that goal....  There are several issues on which Europeans could challenge Washington....  But the Bush administration rejects any accusation  of unilateralism....  The Bush administration has coined a phrase for its foreign policy.  'What you're going to get from this administration is a la carte multilateralism,' Richard Haas said on Wednesday....  The Europeans have been slow to persuade Washington about the merits of a more traditional form of ultilateralism.  To do  this, the EU needs a coherent common foreign and security policy that projects a single voice.  Slowly, it is getting such a policy in place....  The problem is that it has been largely left up to visits by British and German leaders to explain EU concerns to the Bush administration.  This is despite the annual EU-U.S. summits, which are generally unfocused....  The White House brushes aside the disagreements with Europe, pointing out that several European governments have largely endorsed its foreign policy positions--including Italy, Spain and the UK....  Public opinion in the United States appears to support the White House analysis....   But the rift with Europe has opened the president to criticism from his Democratic opponents in Congress....  Mr. Bush's diplomatic problems may prove more to do with style than substance--a point he underlined even before the presidential election last year."

 

"Bush's Arrogant Negotiating Style Is All Give And No Take"

 

An editorial for the centrist Independent opined (7/26):  "The rejection by the United States yesterday of a stronger agreement on the banning of germ warfare is perhaps the clearest indication yet of the extraordinary and dangerous self-absorption which sometimes appears to lie at the very heart of American policy.  George Bush's cavalier defiance of world opinion is sometimes little short of breathtaking....  In short, Bush and his colleagues just don't seem to get it.  Diplomatic negotiations are about give and take.  Mr. Bush's America seems in danger of convincing itself that it can force everybody to make concessions, while itself remaining impervious to change.  It is unclear whether this is pure hypocrisy or mere stupidity--and unclear which possibility is worse.  Certainly, the treaty would in any case have run into difficulties in Congress, but that is no reason for Bush now, at such a sensitive moment in transatlantic relations, to treat all America's partners in dialogue as though their views simply counted for nothing.  This bluntness is not charming, but offensive....  Mr. Bush needs to understand that, if America finds itself in a minority of one, it might be at least worth considering--just considering, that is all we ask--that America may itself be in the wrong.  Mr. Bush likes others to listen.  But he must learn that he needs to listen, too."

 

"Proliferator-In-Chief"

 

An editorial in the liberal Guardian read (7/26):  "America's lone, wanton wrecking of long-running negotiations to enforce the 1972 treaty banning biological or germ weapons is an insult to the pact's 142 other signatories, a body-blow for the treaty itself and a major setback for international efforts to agree practical curbs on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  By this action, the United States suggests that its national security interests, narrowly defined, and the commercial interests of its dominant biotechnology sector should take precedence over responsible global collaboration to meet a common threat.  By rejecting the proposed inspection regime, it further, dangerously, suggests to others that the United States is not really worried about germ-warfare controls and wants to develop its own, advanced biological weapons.  The U.S. move confirms a pattern of reckless, unilateralist behavior on arms control, as on environmental and other issues.  Since taking office, Bush has spoken in grandiose terms of the need for 'new thinking' and for a 'new strategic framework.'  But to date, this supposed post-Cold War global security 'vision' has largely amounted to trashing existing agreements without any clear idea of what to put in their place.  Instead of helping, commander-in-chief Bush is fast becoming the new proliferator-in-chief." 

 

"Second Impressions"

 

The conservative Times editorialized (7/25):  "The Bush administration plainly has a different philosophy and agenda from that of President Clinton.  The new team does not believe that American intervention can persuade old foes to embrace one another, nor does it show enthusiasm for pretending that political cracks can always be papered over....  As this tour, unlike the first one, shows, European leaders have far more to gain by active cooperation with the United States than by gestures and grandstanding."

 

"A Test Of Principle That Could Make Or Break Bush"

 

The conservative Daily Telegraph had this article by Toby Harnden in its Internet on-line edition (7/23):  "Just who is President George W. Bush?  That is a question confronting Pope John Paul this morning as he meets the 55-year-old Texan....  The pope will have heard about Mr. Bush's homely humor, his winning personal manner and the strongly religious basis of his philosophy of 'compassionate conservatism.'  He will know, too, that he bluntly rejects much conventional liberal wisdom, and that, like president Ronald Reagan, he will always be sneered at as stupid.  Mr. Bush, however, has yet to reveal his inner core.  Curiously, in seeking his own answer to the riddle, the pope might even help some in the White House find out what the president is made of.  The president's papal visit comes after weeks of public agonizing about whether to permit federal government funding for research on stem cells taken from embryos created during fertilisation treatments....  Facing conflicting advice from his staff and behind-the-scenes lobbying from pharmaceutical companies, Mr. Bush has delayed announcing a decision....  If Bill Clinton were in the same fix as Mr. Bush, he would no doubt agonize in much the same way before invoking Mr. Reagan's medical plight in the speech announcing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.  But Mr. Bush might also remember that Mr. Reagan often won respect--and sometimes votes--from people who disagreed with him because he was seen to act on deeply held principle.  Unlike Mr. Bush Sr., he was not easily bent by the prevailing political wind.  No doubt the pope will appeal to Mr. Bush to focus on what he believes in before making his decision. The announcement of that decision and the manner in which it is made will show whether Mr. Bush is sticking to principles like Ronald Reagan or trimming like another George Bush."

 

FRANCE  "George W. Bush's European Maneuvers"

 

In left-of-center Le Monde, Patrice de Beer opined (8/1):  "It would be a serious mistake to form an opinion based on a simplistic analysis of the new American president's personality.   Whatever his ideas may be, whatever his limitations, they are not only his, but those of a group of people, outright conservatives who brought about his candidacy.  Their outlook is shared by those who voted for Bush in a country, which behind its high-tech, superpower fatade, remains largely introspective and conservative.  Mr. Bush's politics are a little more unilateral every day....  He has a difficult time hiding his determination to impose his views and his desire to disengage himself from the contractual obligations that have governed the world and protected it from nuclear danger since the Cold War.  This reticence to accept international agreements appears to be a constant in the new diplomacy....  Today the EU is no longer simply a common market, Washington cannot expect its allies to accept all of its decisions without blinking and the French can no longer be seen as the only spoilsports in terms of cooperation.  Faced with recalcitrant allies, Mr. Bush has had to give in a little by reaffirming the United States' place in NATO, by confirming the presence of U.S. troops in the Balkans and giving his support to the creation of European defense.  But, he has also devoted his efforts to short-circuiting the Franco-German core by a roundabout tour of Europe.  During his first trip he gained the sympathy of the Spanish prime minister...and of the new members of the Atlantic Alliance....  Silvio Berlusconi is now an ideological ally...(and) Tony Blair wishes to maintain the 'special relationship' that the United States has with Great Britain.  To what point will Mr. Bush find the means to achieve his ambitions?"

 

"Washington Rejects Biological Arms Treaty"

 

Left-of-center Liberation carried an article by Pierre Hazan (7/26):  "The only multilateral discussion that existed on weapons of mass destruction has been trashed!  U.S. Ambassador Donald Mahley declared yesterday in Geneva that the protocol aimed at halting the proliferation of biological arms...is unacceptable to the United States.  The Europeans appeared to be completely knocked out after this declaration.  They had been expecting a refusal by the United States, but not such a categorical one.  A European diplomat, visibly dismayed, declared that once again Washington has held fast to its unilateral position; starting with the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, the ABM Treaty and the ICC to the movement against small arms which was rendered meaningless by the United States."

 

"The Bush Administration Pretends Not To Be Concerned About Being Isolated"

 

Patrice de Beer held in left-of-center Le Monde (7/25):  "After presenting the G-8 as a success in the fight against global warming of the planet, Washington pretended that the agreement in Bonn on the Kyoto Protocol did not concern the United States.  Yet many things have changed since George W. Bush declared in March that this text was fundamentally flawed.  Up against the rest of the world and isolated by its own fault, the Republican administration now presents itself as the champion of the environment, of course, according to its own criteria....  The administration has correctly perceived the dangers of this isolation, whence the establishment of an inter-departmental committee.  But their proposals are long in coming and the Bush team remains divided."

 

"Genoa--The European's Challenge"

 

Right-of-center Le Figaro carried this editorial by Jean de Belot (7/23):  "Jacques Chirac is right to oppose George Bush on the environment.  He is also right to flaunt it.  Because the situation is serious, it is also symptomatic.  Everyone knows that the conflict is not only between the rich and the poor, the powerful and the dominated.  History is never that simple.  By intervening financially here, and militarily there, by going to the East and as far as Moscow, after having met with the Fifteen, by promoting economic guarantees to all and a nuclear umbrella, Washington is using globalization to its own ends.  With his never-failing self-confidence and studied offhandedness George W. Bush is, like his predecessors, in the logic of empire."

 

GERMANY:  "American Challenges"

 

Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger wrote in a front-page editorial in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (8/1):  "If political incorrectness exists in international diplomacy, then the United States seems to do everything to act as incorrect as possible.  The perceived unilateralism of the self-appointed 'leading world power' often looks like self-imposed isolation, which is considered reprehensible since so much now falls under the heading 'global challenge.'  In fact, the Bush administration has given ample evidence to back the assumption that its claims to internationalism mean little, at least when it gets in the way of U.S. national interests....  But President Bush is only continuing a policy that began under his predecessors and burdened the U.S. relationship with the world and many international organizations.  But what are the reasons for this policy?...  Many reasons can be named: factual reasons, political interest, provincialism, as well as the structure of the international system.  In any case, current U.S. behavior is typical of global powers....  But while Europe has made comprehensive multilateralism in policy and the priority of international organizations a raison d'etat, U.S. actions are being guided by pragmatic opportunism....  In the long run, however, the United States is not doing itself a favor by always playing the obstructionist who, in its efforts to avoid creating the appearances of isolationism, is forever on the lookout for obstructionist allies.  The world's real problems, however, will not be resolved if Washington, for domestic reasons, says it is not responsible, or if it blocks efforts to find solutions.  And a country that is otherwise only too glad to call itself the 'leading global power,' is almost obliged to take the initiative and show leadership.  If unilateralism becomes the distinguishing characteristic of the current years, a price will have to be paid in the form of lost influence.  The United States, involuntarily but inevitably, will then become the driving force behind the emergence of a countervailing power.  This countervailing power will be Europe....  Washington's go-it-alone approach is an incentive for Europeans to overcome their internal disagreements and present a united front....  Then the United States would be a partner, part rival and also the 'federator ' of Europe.  President George W. Bush will have to adjust to this development."

 

"Miserable Model For Rest Of World"

 

Centrist Darmstaedter Echo opined (7/27):  "All past agreements primarily served to contain and monitor the former Soviet empire and were only considered of secondary significance as a self-commitment.  This background makes it understandable that the leading global power has gotten used to complying with or breaking treaties and solemn declarations according to its own discretion.  A miserable model for the rest of the world.  But there is more to it, namely, the intention to replace the entire multilateral security system with a new variation of the pax americana--a peace order under U.S. leadership.  At issue is not only the further development and the improvement of the existing network and rules of international security policy, but at issue is an entirely new approach.  Unfortunately, a clear concept which would make political sense with elements of cooperation and prevention is not at all visible.  And this makes the whole matter dangerous."

 

"A Pattern Of Rejection"

 

Center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich judged in an editorial (7/26):  "Kyoto, ABM, CTBT, and now the addendum to the Biological Weapons Convention:  The United States is displaying remarkable persistence in its rejection of international treaties.  It is possible that the brusque rejection of the inspection protocol may not have a strong impact.  Nevertheless, the spirit behind the U.S. reluctance to enter treaties is unhealthy and indicates a profoundly underdeveloped understanding of international alliances and agreements.  The United States is sending the wrong signal:  Instead of trying to refine the process of verification and attempting to rule out opportunities for industrial espionage, the United States is destroying the hard labor of six years.  In this manner, the idea of control and predictability is being destroyed in the entire arms business--to the detriment of the United States, which sees itself, with some justification, as the main target of these arms."

 

"America's Mr. No"

 

Theo Sommer noted in a front-page editorial in center-left weekly Die Zeit of Hamburg (7/26):  "Bush does not give an inch; he does not give up; he does not share.  He offers consultations to everyone, partners as well as rivals; he promises to maintain a dialogue.  That is why one cannot speak of U.S. unilateralism, according to Bush.  However, Bush's talks are aimed at convincing the other side--conversion is the goal, not compromise.  George W. Bush as the nabob of negativism--that raises two questions.  How exactly does the president intend to lead in a world spun out of control?  It is obvious that the United States cannot accomplish much as a solitary superpower.  The United States needs the support of other countries.  How does the president want to get along with an increasingly active EU?  The trade conflicts between the United States and the EU are manageable as long as the rivalry in matters of trade does not develop into political alienation.  But what will happen if the foundation of shared political values begins to erode?"

 

"You Shirkers Over There"

 

Robert von Rimscha maintained in centrist Tagesspiegel of Berlin (7/26):  "A strange distribution of labor is coming into existence:  The United States engages in military and strategic global policy, while the Europeans put together multilateral treaties.  The EU builds networks for peace and joins them, while the United States repairs cracks and then goes home.  Is this state of affairs healthy?  A common accusation being exchanged across the Atlantic is that the other side is shirking responsibilities--Washington with respect to climate, Berlin with respect to East Asia or Iraq.  The complaints are pointing to a shared temptation: to focus too much on one's own concerns."

 

ITALY:  "Another Bush 'No' To The World"

 

Renzo Cianfanelli filed from Washington in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (7/26): "The United States continues to go against the general trend.  The Republican administration...after opting out of the [ABM] Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol...has now rejected as 'unfeasible' proposals that were discussed by an international commission in Geneva aimed at implementing the old treaty on the ban of biological weapons....  By maintaining its position, the United States...has, de facto, gutted that plan....  Paradoxically...the United States shows itself to be isolated with respect to the rest of the world, including Russia, Iran and China...which have not raised any difficulties (in Geneva).  Without the United States...the agreement on the ban of biological weapons risks crumbling like a sandcastle."

 

"Biological Weapons--Another Bush 'No'"

 

Arturo Zampaglione observed from New York in left-leaning La Repubblica (7/26):  "With dry, peremptory, almost arrogant remarks, the umpteenth U.S. 'no' to multilateral diplomacy arrived from Ambassador Donald Mahley who...confirmed the U.S. denial of the protocol aimed at implementing the treaty on biological weapons....  The U.S. position on biological weapons is strengthening the accusations against the White House of George W. Bush that he is pursuing a new 'diplomatic unilateralism,' as already shown by the Kyoto Treaty...and the ABM Treaty....  Ambassador Mahley denied that Washington gave in to the pressures that were exerted by some pharmaceutical industries.  Ambassador Mahley explained that, according to some American experts, the Geneva protocol would not be able to stop the production of biological weapons produced by the rogue states.  On the contrary, it would oblige the United States to reveal the existence of antidotes and means for 'bio-protection.'"

 

"Pennies And Old Grudges"

 

Federico Rampini commented in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica (7/23):  "Slowly, in a subtle and imperceptible fashion, the Bush ideology of 'less government' is taking root, both in domestic as well as international affairs.  From energy to the environment, from currencies to economic development, this U.S. president and the establishment that took him to the White House want to resume Ronald Reagan's conservative revolution from the point where it was interrupted, spreading the idea throughout the world that the less government, the better....  The Bush line is prevailing, not only because it can count on new allies such as Berlusconi and Japanese [PM] Koizumi, but due also to the dramatic lack of European leadership....  EC President Prodi is right when he says that it would be dangerous to abolish G-8 Summits.  That, in fact, would mean giving additional decision power to the only superpower left.  Even worse, in this case, to George Bush's America, which is already so tempted by a unilateral management of the major world problems.  Without summits, without international organizations, the U.S. administration would feel even less obliged, not only to respect, but even to listen to the opinions of others."

 

RUSSIA:  "U.S. Sets New Tone In Foreign Affairs"

 

Andrey Kokoshin pointed out in reformist weekly Moskovskiye Novosti (8/1):  "Pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol, attempting to review agreements on bacteriological weapons, speaking of a new role for the United Nations, all show clearly that the United States has set a new tone in international affairs.  Whether we like it or not, we have to admit the obvious fact that the United States feels like the only superpower in the world.  The Bush administration thinks it can decide the world's fate all by itself, based on its own ideas of good and evil, not on a system of constricting international agreements....  Instead of again branding the Americans' yearning for hegemony, we should reflect on possible points of contact between Russia and the United States....  What is common to Condoleezza Rice, a member of the Bush team, and (North Korea's) Kim Jong Il, whom the U.S. president doesn't seem to like very much, is that their visits to Russia are a chance for us to take part in settling issues that disturb the Americans....  Lifting discriminatory barriers and joining the WTO are really pressing issues.  The Americans are ready to discuss them, which is more important than rockets.  Why not take our U.S. partners at their word?  Wait a minute, you say the ABM Treaty is out of date.  So must be the anti-Russia trade rules dating back to the Cold War years.  Why not dump them as well?  That those issues were discussed at a very high level is, to my mind, the main result of the Condoleezza Rice visit and a basis for further negotiations on ABM."

 

"Whence The New Threat?"

 

Vasiliy Safronchuk cautioned in nationalist opposition Sovetskaya Rossiya (7/31): "It would be extremely myopic to accept the argument about new threats in the 21st century, with 'rogue states' named the chief source of danger.  Of those countries, some--North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Cuba and possibly China--are our friends.  For Russia, to buy what is being said about them is to take on all of the Third World and identify with the 'Gold Billion' nations.  Following that line, we would have to accept the United States' globalization scheme, that is, the United States' hegemony.  Washington wants us to do that for two reasons: one, bringing Russia down to the status of a third-rate power, a satellite, and two, making Russia's conversion to capitalism irreversible."

 

"U.S. Wants To Be Free To Act At Will"

 

Vitaliy Gan charged in official parliamentary Parlamentskaya Gazeta (7/26): "Washington, it seems, is out to overhaul the whole package of agreements on arms control to feel totally free to act at will."

 

"U.S. Isolated"

 

Vladimir Petrov filed from Berlin in official Parlamentskaya Gazeta (7/25):  "Isolated for the first time, the Americans are unhappy, with the other countries, led by friend-cum-rival EU, having rejected their arguments to opt for an opposite decision [on the Kyoto Protocol].  The EU has had to do an enormous amount of work, finally proving that it can act on its own as a center of force and will."

 

AUSTRIA:  "Unilateral Success"  

 

Foreign affairs writer Markus Bernath wrote in a commentary in liberal Der Standard (7/27):  "There is an ever growing list of unilateral decisions from the U.S. refusal of biological weapon controls and small arms controls, to the withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol....  Rice's statement of a 'new era of cooperation' is merely political calculation to assure Europe that Russia is involved in the MD talks, and to disperse criticism by the Democratic Senate majority."

 

BELGIUM:  "Fighting Cocks"

 

Axel Buyse in wrote in independent Catholic De Standaard (7/30):  "The Americans' blunt rejection of a verification system for the biological weapons treaty was a new slap in Europe's face.  It came after the Americans' rejection of Kyoto, their persistence regarding the anti-missile shield and Washington's rejection of a permanent International Criminal Court....  In practice, however, there is no strong reaction against Washington's course.  It is possible that Europe's representatives strongly criticized the Americans' arrogance behind closed doors during the G-8 summit in Genoa--but that was not visible from the outside.  Europe's political leaders may criticize the Americans in public, but, in practice, Europe remains linked to the United States like Siamese twins.  But, the truth is that a number of 'vital functions' are beyond our control--and only Europe itself is responsible for that.  Take, for instance, our defense.  We undoubtedly will be forced in the near future to intervene militarily to avoid events in Macedonia that make those special kinds of European intellectuals again shed crocodile tears.... Officially, Europe is preparing itself to take care of that kind of problem as of next year.  In reality, we remain many miles away from that.  Without (the help of) those same detested Americans, Europe is paralyzed in that kind of situation....  The absence of serious efforts to accept our own share of the defense burden and the difficulties that we have in conducting a forceful joint foreign policy undermine our lamentation about the Americans.  The only thing that Europe can do under such circumstances is to wait a couple of years until the Bush government has softened its ideological course and the Americans take again their 'normal' leading position vis-a-vis Europe."

 

CZECH REPUBLIC:  "Job Vacancy:  New Leader Needed"

 

Pavel Masa judged in centrist Lidove noviny (7/23):  "George W. Bush is trying most vehemently to persuade the world that it needs strong leadership.  However, his macho embrace of the role of the world sheriff has limits.  He communicates his ambitions by patting in a friendly way the shoulder of anyone who happens to be in close proximity.  But when a concrete program is to be discussed, Bush rejects it as cheap politicking.  After all, the rule should be, what's good for the United States is good for the world.  Although this rule has a certain logic, a peacemaker oiled with dollars and guns will not save the globalized world....  [Although the Europeans complain about the United States,] their complaints are as effective as their resistance to Microsoft's monopolist practices.  Everybody hates the company, but no one could live without its software products."

 

DENMARK:  "Hyperpower U.S.A."

 

Left-wing Information judged (7/27):  "No, no, no.  This is the only thing that President Bush seems to be able to say when he asked to take up some responsibility in the global arena.       Only a few days after the United States was left isolated in Bonn, the United States rejected a UN protocol to prevent the proliferation of biological weapons.  He claims that the agreement was not in U.S. national interests.  Intense lobbying from the American medical and biotech industries stopped him [from supporting the new protocol].  It is a well-known fact that the financial interests of big business are something that Bush has a lot of respect for....  Bush's withdrawal from the international arena has put a heavy burden of responsibility on Europe.  Let's hope that European leaders are able to live up to these new demands."

 

ESTONIA:  "Ecologic Culture"

 

Environment scientist Marek Strandberg wrote in leading, center-right Postimees (7/27):  "The same state that is delaying the enforcement of environmental protection measures and is criticizing international climate agreements, spends millions of dollars on researching alternative energy solutions and environment-friendly technologies.  The United States environmental policy is far more flexible and has better content than those of many successful European nations....  I say this not to praise the United States, but to show that things are not always as they seem."

 

GREECE:  "The Emperor's Pollution"

 

The lead editorial in popular, anti-American, pro-government Eleftherotypia held (7/24):  "Representatives of 178 nations reached a compromise agreement on environmental protection and the future of the planet....  The Americans...clipped the wings of an agreement reached by the majority.  The accord is thus in danger of becoming a dead letter.  The Americans are, yet again, flaunting their arrogance and their contempt for international values, one of which is the environment....  Their unwillingness to approve the Kyoto Protocol is an old story....  Everything they do is the best, everything they say is the wisest...they alone have the right to apply...measures that are in their best interest, and the right to reject those that do not accommodate them, leaving everyone else to obey and follow, and perhaps worship....  The Kyoto agreement will not prevent Washington from polluting the atmosphere as much as it pleases....  The U.S. position shows the rest of the world that the Americans couldn't care less about its opinions.  But the rest of the world is opening its eyes."

 

THE NETHERLANDS:  "Father And Son"

 

Influential, liberal De Volkskrant claimed in its editorial (7/28):  "Europe follows Bush's actions with mounting astonishment.  The United States is increasingly following a unilateral course....  The question is what are Bush's motives?...  It would appear that fear of limiting one's own action is great.  But if Bush does not overcome that, then there is a major problem.  The United States cannot be absent in the establishment of a new international architecture of treaties and cooperative agreements....  The world cannot do without the United States and the United States cannot do without the world.  It is to be hoped that Bush realizes this in time."

 

"Bush And The World"

 

Influential NRC Handelsblad had this editorial (7/27):  "Is the United States leaving the world, or is it trying to mold the world to its designs?  The list of treaties from which the United States is dissociating itself--be it by the president refusing to sign, or the Senate refusing to ratify--is growing longer on an almost daily basis....  It is tempting to talk of American isolationism, a loaded term that characterized the U.S. position in the interwar years.  But this term cannot be applied to the current situation....  Bush's desire for consultation would appear genuine.  That, at least is what his interlocutors say.  The president is trying to  persuade the world of the correctness of his analyses and conclusions.  The United States has not yet left the world.  But the list of rejections is growing, and a cumulative effect is developing."

 

NORWAY:  "Pollyanna Doesn't Live In The White House"

 

Washington correspondent Morten Fyhn wrote in conservative, newspaper-of-record Aftenposten (8/2):  "The classic children's book 'Pollyanna,' which today's children have surely never heard of, was recently rather unexpectedly brought up during a hearing in the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee.  The man who was 'heard' was John Bolton.  He is the assistant secretary of state charged with responsibility for weapons control and international security issues.  'There is no Pollyanna in the Bush administration.  We are a quite sober and realistic group,' said Bolton.  This somewhat show-off formulation came in connection with an attempt from his side to explain to the partially skeptical senators why the Bush administration says no to one international treaty after another.  Now we know the answer.  It's because Pollyanna doesn't live in the White House....  But one can wonder what Pollyanna would have thought about John Bolton.  What would she have said when recently in the UN he brusquely put the U.S. foot down on a well-intentioned attempt to keep child soldiers in countries such as Sierra Leone from getting hold of small arms?  Bolton's reasoning was, to put it carefully, laughable.  He believed that the UN was on its way to involving itself in the American people's Constitutionally-protected right to own weapons..  Bill Clinton would not have sent people of John Bolton's caliber to the UN.  But this does not mean that Clinton was more of a Pollyanna than Bush..  When the United States does not see itself served by having its ability to act constrained, the United States says so.  Under Clinton this occurred most often with a smile and an apology.  Under Bush it just happens.  Quickly and effectively.  This somewhat brusquer attitude of course means that the United States is becoming a little isolated.  But that is not the same as saying that [it] is on its way to becoming isolationist.  George W. Bush and not least people such as Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Powell are just as internationally-oriented as Clinton and his administration were." 

 

"The Americans' Strange Standpoints"

 

Conservative, newspaper-of-record Aftenposten held (7/30):  "Following the presidential change half a year ago, the United States has shifted its standpoint in several important international negotiations.  This goes for the Kyoto Protocol....  This goes for the attempt to move forward on an international treaty on the export of small arms.  This goes for the decision to develop a missile shield, and most recently this goes for the protocol on...biological weapons....  In all the issues mentioned above, the Clinton administration had its misgivings and objections....  But a trademark of Bush and his changes in course is that his Washington has proclaimed them without packaging, without preparation and without political finesse.  Those who want more genuineness and openness in politics will undoubtedly welcome this course of action at a time when everything is dressed up and packaged by media advisors.  But even most amateurs know that if what is said is important, the way in which it is said also means quite a lot....  The Americans have fully clarified that they take and defend their standpoints out of a desire to protect their own national interests.  To an extent they can be praised for straightforward talk.  But seen tactically, this does not deserve high marks."

 

"Superpower Goes Solo"

 

Social democratic Dagsavisen's lead editorial held (7/27):  "Once again, the United States has overturned prolonged international work to create a safer and better world.  Now it concerns the attempt to hinder manufacture and use of biological weapons.  The deliberate spread of deadly diseases is one of the worst threats the world faces today.  But while the United States gladly will control others, the Bush administration rejects everything that can limit the United States' own freedom to act....  The United States rejects the supplementary protocol because it allegedly injures the United States' security and business interests.  When the climate protocol was rejected, it was the oil and energy sector that dictated to the Bush administration.  This time it has made itself prostrate before the United States' large pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry, which fears the loss of business secrets if international inspectors are allowed in.  But the price is that countries such as Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Iran will not open their laboratories for inspection.  The result will be less security for everyone.  Through changing presidents, U.S. foreign policy has nevertheless been characterized by predictability and continuity.  This has been a decisive contribution to global stability.  With George W. Bush in the White House we see a dramatic shift.  The United States is breaking off a prolonged effort to make a ban on biological weapons effective, has thrown out the climate agreement, will break the ban on missile defense and is preparing to break the ban on militarization of outer space.  And George W. Bush is just getting started."

 

"Hypocrisy On Whales"

 

Newspaper-of-record, conservative Aftenposten held (7/27):  "During this year's meeting of the International Whaling Commission, Norway and Japan as usual are condemned by a majority of the other countries.  For us Norwegians, who otherwise have often pointed a moral finger against others, this can be a learning experience to take with us.  At the whaling commission's meetings, it is against us that the finger is pointed.  But this is also the only positive thing that can be said about the measure.  Seen objectively, the criticism is in fact completely unjustified.  It is to a small degree based on science, but has an even greater element of political tactics and hypocrisy.  Norway today wants to be the first country to protect threatened whale species.  Our whaling is limited to a careful taking of minke whales, a species that absolutely is not threatened.  Norway's position is built upon scientific facts about resources and environment.  The governments that criticize us are using the attacks against Norway as a useful cosmetic tool for their own environmental profile at home.  A whaling ban costs them absolutely nothing, but contributes to diverting attention from their own environmental negligence.  It is comical when for example the United States, which rejects the international climate treaty from Kyoto, condemns Norway as an environmental sinner based on a handful of minke catches.  The whale is an environmental alibi with great advertising value for Greenpeace because it, in many countries' public opinion, almost has the status of a kind of cuddly animal, similar to the panda bear.  Norway is even criticized because we will sell whale blubber to Japan.  It would have been worse if we simply threw away or destroyed the blubber.  That would have been a misuse of resources."  

 

POLAND:  "Without Americans"

 

Tomasz Surdel wrote in liberal Gazeta Wyborcza (7/26):  "The anticipated U.S. decision to withdraw from negotiations on the verification provisions to the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention has utterly ruined the work [on the UN draft protocol].  It came at a time when almost all of the countries working on the protocol agreed that the draft was finally acceptable--all except the United States, China, Pakistan, India, Iran and Russia.  Only the Americans, however, dared to formally withdraw from the negotiations as they recognized that compliance with the convention 'will not be possible to verify.'"  

 

PORTUGAL:  "U.S. Threatens To Boycott UN Conference Against Racism"

 

Joana Amado wrote in influential, moderate-left Público (7/29):  "It is already known that this initial [preparatory meeting beginning tomorrow] will be marked by a boycott threat made by the United States, which does not want the conference to be an anti-Israel forum and a pretext for demanding indemnization for the era of slavery....  An American boycott would put at risk the success of the Durban conference.... The Americans were already absent from two UN conferences on racism, in 1978 and 1983, because of the link established between Zionism and racism....  A new boycott on Washington's part would certainly relaunch criticisms of American 'unilateralism' that have characterized the George W. Bush administration.  And they would certainly also irritate post-apartheid South Africa, for whom this conference holds great political and symbolic value."

 

"What's Right For The U.S."

 

Political analyst Vasco Rato held in an opinion piece in weekly O Independent (7/27):  "Clearly, George Bush lost the media battle when he made his announcement, with a certain amount of arrogance and indifference to public opinion, that his government was withdrawing from the Kyoto process.  Yet it was the Senate, which approves international treaties, which had rejected the protocol in a non-binding resolution, by a vote of 95 to 0.  The Senate, and not Bush, had killed Kyoto....  There were, and are, good reasons to reject a protocol that is largely a public relations exercise.  But the way Bush announced his decision carried another political message of great importance: from here on in, the United States is going to do as it sees fit.  That is the new reality."

 

"Bush Really Is Dangerous"

 

Vicente Jorge Silva opined in financial Diario Economico (7/27):  "Elected as a 'compassionate conservative,' George W. Bush lost no time in demonstrating that this centrist promise didn't amount to anything but empty rhetoric, and in allying himself with the most reactionary wing of the Republican Party and the interests of the old military-industrial establishment....  During his recent European visit, Bush seemed to want to correct this impression and soften his most aggressive and isolationist positions.  Nevertheless, the truth is that nothing has changed....  After the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol and his insistence on a new missile defense system, now we see the renunciation of the convention on biological weapons.  Neither the threats hanging over the world climate and global warming, nor the risk of a new arms race, nor of an uncontrolled proliferation of biological weapons make the Bush administration think twice."

 

SPAIN:  "Lone Ranger"

 

Left-of-center El Pais criticized (7/26):  "The U.S. superpower has decided to go riding on its own, with no multilateral ties.  The latest evidence was provided yesterday, as the United States turned down the protocol to verify the application of a treaty that bans biological weapons....  What used to be an incipient tendency with Clinton has now intensified with the Republican, Bush.  This is a worrisome situation because, while some states are linked together by a new order of international law, the United States is unrestrained to intervene as it wishes, or to preserve at all costs its industrial interests.  This position widens the breach with its European Allies.  Even in a world where the United States has the lead in many fields--militarily, to start with--a stable order cannot be built on such an imbalance."

 

"The Empire Against All"

 

Independent La Razon noted (7/23):  "The United States enjoyed impunity today and nobody can force it to lower the pressure of its boilers, reduce its margin of benefits when it is trying to steer away from the ghost of an economic recession.  But this could be, nevertheless, an excessively risky policy, even for the empire of the 21st century.  The environment is a value already profoundly established in the conscience of citizens, above all in Europe, who know that climate change is a question of mere survival.  What is today a juicy, contaminated mouthful for Bush could end up as indigestion, as the EU will one day find itself obliged to react with tariffs and restrictions on American products.  In any other form, it will not be possible to compete in uniformity, in a globalized economy, choosing a contaminating industry over clean factories."

 

SWEDEN:  "The U.S. Also Needs Firm Rules Of The Game"

 

Liberal Dagens Nyheter ran an op-ed by foreign editor Per Ahlin (8/2):  "American assurances of consultations and talks are not even taken seriously in some European capitals.  One says that the U.S. president surely is listening although there is no willingness to make compromises....  The risks with this new U.S. foreign policy are great.  International treaties are creating solid and necessary frameworks.   Arms reductions without treaties might seem harmless, but the opposite is more unpleasant.  If disarmament could take place outside treaties, so can arms buildups.  The possibility for arms control would disappear; laboriously built structures might be tore down.  To the world community there are also other concerns.  The United States is needed in the international arena.  The world needs a strong, active, and engaged United States that will stand up for democracy and will safeguard human rights.  A United States that will not remain at home when it will be needed abroad, a United States that will set a positive tone in international relations.  President Bush's actions are also risky for the United States itself.  Even the only superpower in the world must build alliances and trust--the Kosovo War clearly proved this. Washington cannot act unilaterally against nuclear proliferation and terrorism.  National interests are best promoted by cooperation.  Short-term gains might easily remain just short-term ones."

 

SWITZERLAND:  "Survival Of The Fittest"

 

Influential, German-language Der Bund's foreign editor Daniel Goldstein held (7/30):  "Missile defense, small arms, anti-personnel mines, biological weapons, climate protection, trading rights, family planning or money laundering--in all of these areas Washington under President Bush Junior is shying away from international commitments....  More and more often, Washington prefers to keep to itself instead of suggesting compromises to ensure international order--this despite the fact that most of the treaties in question have been revised to accomodate the United States....  Why is the United States opposed to so many treaties?  Generally, the United States seems to recoil from a density of regulations.  In economics, the United States advocates unrestrained competition--except when it comes to U.S. industries whose domestic political importance is such that they require protectionist measures.  Otherwise, the United States is in favor of free trade, and in political and military questions, it analogously supports the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest....  Military and commercial freedom of action, yes, ecological and social regulation, no--this is the short formula to which Washington's world order can be reduced."

 

TURKEY:  "Mr. No"

 

Ali Aslan wrote in religious/intellectual Zaman (7/30):  "Last May, the UN, for the first time in its history, did not take any U.S. member onto the Human Rights Commission.  This was an obvious isolation of the United States.  And it was followed by 180 countries' agreement on the Kyoto Protocol; the United States was the exception again.  The American administration is opposed to a series of important issues by ignoring world-wide consensus on issues such as the elimination of land mines, a ban on nuclear and biological weapon tests or a ban on small arms traffic....  Washington's excuse is always 'national interests.'  It seems the United States is becoming a 'Mr. No' to the whole world."

 

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC

 

CHINA:  "Go-It-Alone Attitude By U.S. Invites Ire, Criticism"

 

Jin Zeqing wrote in the official, English-language China Daily (7/28):  "The United States is, once again, isolating itself from the international community.  On Wednesday, it rejected a carefully crafted agreement on enforcing a ban on the use of biological weapons.  The United States was against the agreement, as it would have to open its installations to international inspectors.  Washington's rejection again shows how self-absorbed this country is in international affairs.  Why should the United States be treated differently from other countries?  Washington's rejection undermines painstaking efforts by the international community to stem the proliferation of biological weapons.  Washington's rejection shows the country has walked even farther away from multilateral agreements.  Diplomatic negotiations are about give and take.  All must lose something in order to gain, even the United States.  Washington's dogged 'America first' attitude and refusal even to broach discussion on the key planks of its foreign and security policies will antagonize other countries."

 

"G-8 And The Globe"

 

Wang Tian commented in the official Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao, 7/25):  "The G-8 summit has left nothing but an empty statement and a mess in Genoa....  If the eight countries are pursuing international unilateralism in dealing with the developing countries, there is a similar problem inside the G-8, too--U.S. unilateralism.  Disregarding its allies' opposition, the United States has obstinately pushed ahead with the development of the NMD system and rejected the Kyoto Protocol.  The United States actions of caring about nothing but its own interests and trying to shirk international responsibility are truly disappointing.  If the United States insists on sticking to its own course in coping with international affairs, how can the G-8, which has even failed to reach a consensus, promote the progress of the world?"

 

JAPAN:  "Unilateral Bush Diplomacy Draws Criticism"

 

Moderate Tokyo Shimbun's Washington correspondent Kanai commented (8/2):  "The Bush administration is going ahead with MD development and has decided to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol without paying attention to international concerns.  President Bush's diplomacy was described as 'unilateral' at the recent Genoa G-8 Summit.  There has been no change in the Bush administration's diplomatic and national security policies.  Such 'hawks' as Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld are playing key roles in pushing 'resolute' and 'uncompromising' policies to live up to public calls for the restoration of a 'strong America.'  The administration's policies have also drawn criticism at home.  Democratic congressional leaders described the Bush administration as isolationist.  There has been a steady decline in public ratings for the Republican administration.  A poll, released on Tuesday, showed a 51 percent non-support rating for the administration."   

 

AUSTRALIA:  "Chance To Heed And Advise Our U.S. Ally"

 

An editorial in the national conservative Australian read (7/30):  "Our loyalty as an ally of the United States goes without question.  Australia is one of the few countries in the world to have backed George W. Bush's opposition to international moves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the ramification of the Kyoto Protocol, and the deployment of a missile defense shield....  The [AUSMIN] meeting offers an opportunity to sound out the Americans on their new strategic thinking, which is expected to place more reliance on new defense technology, and put more emphasis on the Asia Pacific region.  Such a shift in focus is reassuring."

 

"George Bush, The Global Bully"

 

The business-oriented Australian Financial  Review's Washington correspondent Peter Hartcher stated (7/28):  "In one realm of policy after another, Bush's America is emerging as a rampant unilateralist.  In just six months his administration has dismissed its commitments to existing international agreements on climate change, on arms  limitation, on disarmament, and on international finance. The latest example--the decision.to reject a draft protocol on halting the spread of biological warfare capabilities around the world--exasperated even the most quiescent of U.S. allies, Australia."

 

"From Kyoto To Bonn"

 

An editorial in the leading liberal Sydney Morning Herald read (7/26):  "The United States, which produces about 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, pulled out of the Bonn talks, citing commercial interests and attracting scathing criticism within and without the meeting....  Yet, the Prime Minister Howard immediately announced that Australia was still not prepared to ratify the deal.  However, in a surprising development yesterday, Japan, traditionally a U.S. ally and the world's second-biggest economy, said that it would ratify the deal within a few months....   Environmentalists have argued that Mr. Howard's stance sends out negative signals domestically and internationally and leaves Australia aligned with Washington at a time when the United States is becoming increasingly isolated on world issues such as missile defense, gun control and germ warfare."

 

NEW ZEALAND:  "How To Ease A Guilty Conscience"

 

The nationally-circulated, conservative weekly National Business Review observed (7/27):  "European countries, who destroyed whole cultures and peoples in two world wars last century, have a peculiar set of values when it comes to carbon dioxide emissions.  Their willingness to embrace the Kyoto Protocol, a liberals' charter aimed at halting global warming, is not matched by action to stop ethnic wars on their doorstep or shut down state-run, rust-bucket industries that pollute rivers and despoil the air and the forests.  Rather than face up to real problems like these, European leaders and bureaucrats have embraced feel-good diplomacy courtesy of the environmental movement.  Fortunately the world has one leader with sufficient guts to tell the environmentalists and their proxies in Europe to take a running jump.  U.S. President George W. Bush's blunt rejection of Kyoto is not symbolic of latter-day American isolationism or Uncle Sam belligerence; instead it reflects a new reality that has returned to U.S. politics. The reality is that protocols like Kyoto, far from forcing the world's polluters to behave better, allow countries to shed national responsibility for their actions.  Embracing the global-warming argument, much of it scientific twaddle, is an exercise in political survival rather than environmental prudence.  The global-warming bandwagon is an ideal excuse to attack capitalism and the citadel of capitalism, the United States."

 

SOUTH ASIA

 

PAKISTAN:  "The Transatlantic Alliance Faces A Watershed"

 

An op-ed by Brig. (Retd) M. Abdul Hafiz in the Peshawar-based Statesman read( 8/2):  "America's European Allies have been complaining about the Bush administration's blatant 'unilateralism' and its arrogant determination to go alone in the world whether in pushing ahead with its missile defense or dropping the Kyoto Protocol on global warming without consulting them....  Europe is gradually becoming adverse to an American bully.  On the other hand, it wants a partnership with the United States, which is still the world's unchallengeable power.  The Atlantic Alliance had caused an anguished hand-wringing on the part of Europeans since its inception.  What is new currently is that over the past decade Europe has been coming together in unity.  However, it is still believed that everyone will benefit from a partnership and that the difficulty will be the management of the transition among the policy-makers on both sides accustomed to half a century of predilections."

 

"Bush Bulldozes On"

 

Iffat Malik wrote this op-ed piece in the centrist, national News (8/1):  "Bush's awful performance on the international stage should not come as a surprise.  The signs were there for all to see.  'Governor, can you name the prime Minister of India?  No.'  For a man aspiring to become, in effect, the next world leader, that was ominous ignorance.  That ignorance is made more deadly by Bush's arrogance and selfishness.  Again and again his policies and statements show he has little concern for what happens beyond the borders of the United States: his 'world' vision stops there.  In practice, if not rhetoric, Bush's America is isolationist.  Isolationism in the 21st century is untenable, and therefore the United States will suffer along with everyone else from the fallout of Bush's international bulldozing.  The question is, how big will that fall out be?  If the first few months of his administration are anything to go by, expect the worst."

 

"New U.S. List Of Rogue Countries"

 

Second-largest, Urdu-language Nawa-e-Waqt editorialized (8/1):  "U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz has said in an interview that National Missile Defense (NMD) is aimed at defending the United States from the rogue states of the world like North Korea, Iran and Iraq....  The deputy secretary's statement is a link in the chain of mayhem that the United States has unleashed in the name of the new world order.  Thank God Pakistan has not been named as a rogue state this time around....  The United States has objected to Syria developing biological weapons while the accusation is yet to be proven.  On the other hand the United States itself has rejected 1972 Biological Weapons Convention and refused to ratify it.  It is the United States that has jeopardized the world peace by deciding to continue the NMD program despite China and Russia objecting to it....  Continuing with its vigilantism and making the entire world its enemy would not result in something favorable for the United States.  The Bush administration should pay special attention to its role and attitudes.  The people of the United States of America have a role to play in this respect." 

 

"U.S. National Interest Supreme"

 

An op-ed by Farrukh Saleem in the centrist national News read (7/29):  "While the CIA-led, Bush foreign policy team will continue to use the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO and the UN as tools to achieve America's national interest, the importance of these bodies stands diminished in favor of bilateral agreements.  That means good-bye to CTBT and also the humanitarian agenda (essentially a Clinton legacy).  That means welcome to [NMD] and the supremacy of America's self interest over everything else."

 

"UN Anti-Racism Conference:  U.S. Should Try To Understand Changing World Thinking"

An editorial in the pro-Muslim League Urdu Pakistan (7/29):  "The holding of a UN conference to oppose racism, ethnic hatred and intolerance, to commence from August 31 in South Asia, has been jeopardized due to the U.S. opposition....  America has refused to equate Zionism with racism or allow the conference to raise issues related to reparation....  Such partial U.S. policies are the reason behind its image being spoiled.  America should try to understand the changing pattern of thinking in the world, in the backdrop of its defeat at the UN Human Rights Commission and the international protest over its policy on Kyoto Protocol." 

 

MIDDLE EAST

 

EGYPT:   "Bush The Pupil" 

 

Ayman Saad wrote in pro-government Al Akhbar (7/29):  "No one expected Bush's lack of knowledge of international affairs to reach this stage of confusion....  Bush started his rule by announcing the missile shield....  His fatal mistakes continue in failing to commit to the Kyoto  agreement....  He exerted every effort to pass the (Iraqi) smart sanctions  project...but caused an American diplomatic defeat....  His failure in the Middle East surpassed all....  He surprises everyone by sending three American envoys to the region, while continuing his hesitancy and discovering his mistakes." 

 

JORDAN:  "American Failure, The Old And The New"

 

Prominent columnist Uraib Al-Rantawi wrote in center-left, influential Al-Dustour (8/1):  "Six months have passed since the new U.S. administration assumed office, during which time it has scored a large number of foreign policy failures, most of which are related to the situations in Palestine and Iraq.  Today, as the administration wakes up from the nightmare of its failure over the missile shield and the Kyoto agreement, it seems to prepare for yet another stupidity.    Its expected strike against Iraq, which is imminent according to reports, would be an attempt to distract attention from the U.S. administration's abysmal failure over the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and a means to gain time for Sharon to break the will of the Palestinian people.  If this happens, it may be the last nail ion the coffin of American influence in the region....  America will have dragged the region to the point that it, the United States, wants most to avoid: a total regional explosion."

 

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

 

CANADA:  "Alice In Kyotoland"

 

Editorial writer Peter Foster queried in the conservative National Post (8/1):  "Who will oversee the gigantic bureaucratic machine that Kyoto has always implied?  Who will set the caps?  Who will police the emissions?  Who will be the trading system's 'Securities Commission?'  What penalties will there be?  How will they be enforced?  These are not merely tedious details.  They imply new global agencies of stunning--indeed, unprecedented--power, displaying all the competence and honesty that we have come to expect from the UN.  Of course, bureaucrats, consultants and policy wonks don't see it that way; they rub their hands at a huge, well-paid, well-tenured, lifelong challenge.  They, after all, are well used to attempting the impossible.  They thrive on well-intended intervention, not on achieving objectives....  Although he might not have signed on to Kyoto, Mr. Bush is still under enormous pressure to take action on global warming, and emissions trading remains a clear and present danger.  Among many other devils-in-the-details, emissions trading could create powerful vested interests.  The vision put forward by some U.S. analysts is of a world run on the same system as Manhattan cab licensing, with incumbents violently opposed to further permits being issued.  Just imagine the world run by ultra-Machiavellian socialist Manhattan cab drivers with PhDs.  There would be no place to hide, unless you headed for the carbon sink."

 

"Burning Bush"

 

Under the sub-heading, "George will fight his own fires," columnist Paul Jackson declared in the conservative Calgary Sun (7/31):  "President George W. Bush has decided he is not going to let anyone--either individual countries, conglomerates of countries, or the basket-case of the United Nations--push America around.  What's wrong with that?  He's also not going to let a bunch of Lib-Left types within his own country--phoney civil rights' organizations, self-serving lawyers' groups, sham environmentalists, or fraudulent 'peace' lobbies--tell him what to do either.  Bush is going to do what is best for the American people....  You've probably already concluded I like George Bush....  Bush has quite upset the international establishment because he's either pulling out of pacts (Kyoto), wants to re-negotiate them (the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty) or won't sign them (the germ warfare agreement)....  The Kyoto pact would have brought economic devastation to the United States....  The anti-ballistic treaty has long been outdated by world events and technology....  The biological warfare treaty is not about to be adhered to by the nations it is aimed at....  All these treaties are detrimental to the interests of the free world, and would hasten Western civilization into history.  The pseudo-intellectual sets can bleat or shout as much as they like, but no one in the White House is listening to them....  Those of us who can see the real world for what it is, can also see that, almost week by week, and certainly month by month, Bush is proving more than capable of handling the job.  He's ensuring that America's interests--which really are the interests of the Western world--come first, and that the United States does not either capitulate its leadership role outright nor let it be nibbled away by sham treaties.  The world is very fortunate to have George Bush in the White House, because Al Gore, like Jimmy Carter, would have been an absolute disaster."

 

"U.S. Must Act On Biological Weapons Issue"

 

Stephen Handelman commented in the liberal Toronto Star (7/31):  "The hostility of Washington's new foreign policy mandarins to international treaties--particularly arms control treaties--is certainly worrying.  It unhinges a certain global sense of predictability in which treaties, even bad ones, play an important part....   Pointing out the limitations of current thinking about biological weapons is one thing.  But it's now up to Washington to prove the skeptics wrong--and fast."

 

"When The U.S. Won't Listen To Its Friends"

 

Columnist Jeffrey Simpson wrote in the leading Globe and Mail (7/31):  "What we have now in Washington are not only military hawks but diplomatic unilateralists who reflect a mixture of Republican muscularity, American triumphalism and deep-seated U.S. exceptionalism.  The list of treaties or international agreements threatened, rescinded or scorned by the Bush administration grows every month....  The United States is the world's pre-eminent power and, as such, it might be argued that it is merely following the textbook rules for how hegemons behave in the international system.  The United States also has a strong sense of its own exceptionalism and predestination, which sometimes makes it insensitive to others' opinions.  What's disturbing, however, is that the United States built much of the postwar world's architecture.  The United States is obviously not abandoning allies.  It's not withdrawing from the world.  But it clearly views multilateralism much more skeptically than before, preferring to define the terms of its own participation in the world community without much regard for how other countries might like it to proceed." 

 

"Anti-Racism, In Name Only"

 

The conservative National Post editorialized (7/30):  "In the past six months, U.S. President George W. Bush has gained our admiration for, among other things, his view that the United States should not go along with superficially noble but substantially flawed multilateral exercises simply for the sake of show.  His administration's position on the Durban anti-racism conference agenda, the final version of which is now being debated in Geneva, is consistent with this position.... Canada and European nations have resisted the temptation to criticize Mr. Bush's 'unilateralist' approach on this issue, and some leaders have actually expressed support for the U.S. position.  They are right to do so.  Many of the Arab and Third World attendees at the Durban conference will be more interested in bashing Israel and ancient colonialists than in pursuing substantive measures aimed at redressing real examples of modern racism.  If spurious issues appear on the conference agenda, Western nations should not dignify the event with their representation."

 

"America First"

 

The left-of-center Winnipeg Free Press opined (7/27):  "There is a case to be made that the United States under President Bush has adopted a unilateralist policy--a go-it-alone position that disregards the opinions of its allies and the welfare of the world in the self-interest of America....  It is early days yet for the Bush administration and too soon to tar it with [the unilateralism] brush.  Mr. Bush's most arbitrary act would seem to be the abrogation of the Kyoto accord, but that could also be regarded as a simple recognition of cold reality.... On the most controversial issue, missile defense, Mr. Bush has made his intention clear but he has gone to great lengths to bring the allies and Russia on side....  For almost every accusation of unilateralism, some defence can be offered for Mr. Bush....  The United States runs the risk of increasingly being seen as a nation that thinks it needs no allies."

 

"Bush Takes 'Unilateral' Approach"

 

Washington's Paul Koring filed this in the leading Globe and Mail (7/27):  "The pattern is clear:  Washington will demand sweeping changes to pacts and treaties and proposals on global issues to suit itself, and threaten to walk away--or in fact walk--if those demands aren't met....  In the old days, Washington needed the support of its allies far more than it does today."

 

"One For All, All Against One"

 

The nationalist Ottawa Citizen wrote (7/27):  "John Manley, Canada's foreign affairs minister, is unhappy at the ostensible go-it-alone foreign policy of the United States....  Mr. Manley wrongly concludes Canada has to 'redouble' its efforts to persuade the United States against unilateralism.  Not only the wrong conclusion, but the wrong approach, too....  The Bush administration has been hit with a barrage of criticism...for its 'unilateral' opposition to everything from the 1972 [ABM] Treaty and the 1997 Land Mines Treaty to this month's rejection of agreements for controlling the small-arms trade and monitoring the 1972 [BWC]....  This is shallow over-simplification. The Americans have withdrawn their support for these agreements because they are unrealistic, unworkable and contrary to U.S. interests....  If Western countries are content to leave these global responsibilities to the United States, they should not be surprised if the United States has a different view of multilateral agreements that could weaken its ability to do the job the rest of the democratic world is unable or unwilling to do itself."

 

"George W. Bush, Multilateralist"

 

The conservative National Post editorialized (7/26):  "The Bush administration has...shown a healthy respect for the literal meaning of the treaties it has been asked to sign.  The president does not indulge in multilateralism as theater: Unlike European leaders, who have pledged support for Kyoto, but show no sign they will come close to meeting its ambitious emissions targets, Mr. Bush has the political courage to admit reality....  Many of those who accuse Mr. Bush's administration of isolationism--our own federal government included--would have his diplomats sign agreements regardless of whether their terms are consistent with U.S. domestic policy and its interests as the most internationally involved and least isolationist country on the face of the Earth.  This attitude promotes empty multilateralism and broken agreements.  The fact that Mr. Bush will not put his signature on objectionable treaties demonstrates that--ironically--he takes them more seriously than do his Canadian and European critics."

 

"Let's Teach Americans A Few Lessons"

 

Rachel Giese wrote in the liberal Toronto Star (7/26):  "The cringing, hangdog attitude that we and so much of the rest of the world assume in the face of U.S. bullying has to end.  It may be the only global superpower, but it isn't more powerful than the rest of the world combined.  We can refuse to trade our water.  We can meet and exceed the Kyoto targets.  We can set a global example of making the sacrifices necessary to stem greenhouse gas emissions.  We could freeze the United States out.  If standing trade agreements make tariffs and sanctions against the U.S. impossible, then global consumer boycotts of American goods, in particular, American oil, should be enacted.  Someone, soon, for the sake of the survival of this planet, has to say, loud and clear: 'Yankee, go home and stay there.'"

 

"Acting Alone By Exposing Bad Deals"

 

Washington columnist Alexander Rose filed in the conservative National Post (7/26):  "The United States is showing dismaying signs of unilateralism lately, the most recent example being its rejection of a draft protocol to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.  In fact, this is good news....  By rejecting the draft protocol on biological weapons, the United Sates will force negotiators to arrive at a workable solution rather than an unworkable compromise.  And that can only be a good thing."

 

ARGENTINA:  "A New Pariah State"

 

Claudio Uriarte, left-of-center Pagina 12's international columnist, opined (7/26):  "To term the United States a 'pariah state' could seem pointless.  After all, that was the term invented by Washington to refer to countries like North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and other sponsors of terrorism or illegal manufacturers of weapons of mass destruction.  Nevertheless, since Bush took over he has done nothing else but isolating the United States from the international consent on the most sensitive issues....  Now comes his rejection of a draft agreement designed to enforce an international ban on biological weapons....  Of course, the only superpower can never become a pariah state...in a world where strength makes the law.  But Bush's unilateralism...has started to unleash the rapprochement between Russia and China in the framework of the Shanghai Group, and NATO's internal dispersion, vis-a-vis attitudes that increasingly seem international delinquency.  And at some moment, this counterbalance will be felt."

 

BRAZIL:  "The Climate After Bonn"

 

Journalist and weather expert Washington Novaes opined in an-op piece in center-right O Estado de S. Paulo (8/3):  "The U.S. isolation--a result of its isolationist posture in general--will have profound consequences in international relations....  For more than one decade the United States has not improved the pattern of efficiency for fueled vehicles....  U.S. factories in Europe are beginning to pressure for a reduction of emissions in the United States because they are facing a delicate situation... Will there be changes in levels of competitiveness?  What will be their consequences?  The United States has made a risky bet for all.  This is very worrisome." 

 

"Onus On The Leader"

 

Rio's conservative O Globo commented (7/29):  "The behavior of the American government in exercising its world leadership suggests an excessive priority of local interests over international appeals.  The excessive application of the saying 'family first' contains a crude error in political vision--something along the lines that it's possible to be the leader of the world by remaining a bumpkin and insisting on isolationism."

 

"The Isolated Conservative"

 

Liberal Folha de Sao Paulo editorialized (7/28):  "The United States under George W. Bush does not stop surprising the world.  First was the unilateral decision on the Kyoto Protocol, followed by the threat of ignoring the ABM.  More recently the USG refused to participate in the UN accord to halt international arms traffic, and now it has refused to sign a protocol aimed at prohibiting biological weapons.  The United States justified its decision by stating that the protocol could not guarantee that biological weapons would not be produced, and that it could also aid industrial spying activities.  This is a weak argument. It would be the same as 'legalizing' homicide due to the impossibility of preventing it in one hundred percent of cases.  Bush's frequent collisions with the United States' important allies have led former President Carter to criticize current U.S. foreign policy.  This is a very uncommon attitude for former presidents....  No one expected George W. Bush to be a liberal while in power, but only a few bet that he would show himself to be so undeniably conservative."  

 

CHILE:  "The Mega Empire"

 

Privately-owned, Channel 11, Chilevision's international commentator Libardo Buitrago commented (72/7):  "While Clinton worked for economic reactivation which ensured his re-election, Bush is thinking that if he can make the world's superpower the mega empire of the 21st century (based on technology), this will undoubtedly open his way to reelection.   So, he works with all his team thinking only of the United States in isolation and believing that the United States will be able to establish such a technological divide with the rest of the world that no other country will be able to surpass it; and when this happens, negotiations in terms of politics, economics and commercial issues will not be of persuasion nor discussion, but only of imposition.  This is what Bush is betting on."

 

MEXICO:  "Bush's Foreign Policy, Isolationist Or Unilateral?"

 

Gabriel Guerra stated in independent Reforma (7/30):  "The anti-missile defense system is not the only or the most important danger of current U.S. foreign policy.  The Bush administration has renounced, or at least has outlined its opposition to, five international agreements that are supported by most of the international community:  the ABM Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, the Convention on Biological Weapons, the conference that tries to set limits to the trafficking of firearms, and the treaty to establish an international criminal court....  However, it is incorrect to state that Washington is promoting an isolationist policy.  Quite the contrary, President Bush and his closest advisors are engaged in a diplomatic offensive to convince everyone of the goodness of their proposals....  Whether we like it or not, the United States has come to realize that it does not need the consensus of the international community nor of its allies or foes to implement the policies that further its own interests.  Such policy could be shortsighted, but in reality the rest of the world cannot go on with the Kyoto Protocol without the United States, and Russia cannot do anything significant in reprisal for the eventual U.S. renouncing of the ABM Treaty or for the implementation of the Defense Shield System.  At the end of the day, a strong activism in the international scene, not isolation, will be the trademark of U.S. foreign policy."

 

##

This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State. Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.