Military

Commentators overseas continued to assail the Bush administration's foreign policy.  Analysts in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Africa, Latin America and Canada--in a now-familiar refrain--condemned recent actions by the Bush team as being "unilateralist" and largely driven by the desire to maintain U.S. pre-eminence.  They asserted that alleged hard-line forces--guided by "old-fashioned Cold War-thinking" and "isolationist" impulses--are prevailing over a more "moderate" faction in shaping the administration's foreign policy strategy.  Most editorialists concluded that, should the U.S. remain on its present path, it risks isolating itself from the rest of the world, and "could lose the competition for the leadership of global society."  Only a few opinionmakers--mostly the more conservative outlets in Europe and elsewhere--defended the U.S., seeing substantial merit in its actions. Salient themes follow:

 

MANIFESTATIONS OF BAD, 'UNILATERALIST' BEHAVIOR:   Observers saw what they considered to be mounting evidence that the U.S. was "going-it-alone."  This included the U.S.' perceived "snubbing of treaty after treaty" (among the latest were treaties or agreements on anti-ballistic missiles, land mines and plutonium); refusal to attend or send high-ranking delegations to international fora (e.g., the UN Conference Against Racism in Durban); and reluctance to engage in areas it does not deem immediately and solely beneficial to America (some suggested the Middle East).  Critics held that all of this continues to betray the White House's uncooperative and unilateralist/isolationist bent. 

RICE, RUMSFELD, CHENEY, MYERS VS. POWELL?:  Numerous observers in leftist and centrist dailies in Europe dwelled on the role of Secretary Powell.  Describing him as a "moderate" and an "internationalist," they concluded that the secretary "seems to be isolated in an administration where hard-liners prevail."  They noted instances where they believed he has "lost the debate" within the administration:  U.S. attendance of the Durban conference, the ABM Treaty and talks with North Korea.

THIS IS NOT GOOD BECAUSE...:  Citing a poll published by the International Herald Tribune which found that Europeans "disapprove" of the administration's foreign policy, dailies in Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Spain and South Korea warned that a growing rift in transatlantic relations looms.  Several lamented the apparent state of affairs, pointing out that the world--but especially Europe--and the U.S. are "doomed to work together."  European editorialists were joined by others elsewhere around the globe in warning that unless the U.S. addresses the concerns of its critics, it runs the danger of losing its grip on world power.

BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND...:  Conservative and rightist dailies in Britain, Canada and Nicaragua---as well as one centrist and one leftist paper in India and Poland--however, contended that the Bush administration's instincts are right and that it is only acting "cautiously" in questioning the worth of dubious international agreements.  They believed that the world should acknowledge that nothing can get done without America's "soft power" leadership.

 

EDITOR:  Diana McCaffrey

 

EDITOR'S NOTE:  This survey is based on 39 reports from 24 countries, August 8-29.  Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date. 

 

EUROPE

 

BRITAIN:  "America Works"

 

The conservative Daily Telegraph observed (8/10):  "It is not difficult to see why most Americans tell pollsters that their president should not be allowing himself a month-long holiday.  While George W. Bush ambles his way around Texan golf courses week after week, his fellow countrymen are lucky if they get a month off in a whole year.  In the land of the litigator, it seems surprising that Americans are not legally entitled to any holiday at all.  In fact, President Bush has no need to be in the White House, day in, day out.  Unlike a British prime minister, he does not have to make regular visits to Parliament or a constituency.  As with President Reagan, it suits his style to make the big decisions and delegate the little ones.  But the hard fact is that, if America wants to remain top dog, his less exalted fellow Americans will have to keep up the good work.  Here in Europe, our time off is our compensation for lost power.  Hard work wins."

 

"U.S. Search For Absolute Security Is Threat To Us All"

 

Richard Norton-Taylor held in the liberal Guardian (8/9):  "Washington's missile defense project is just one manifestation of an epochal and potentially irreversible shift in the relationship between the United States and the rest of the world....  There is time, before it is too late, to try to get Washington, including the U.S. Congress, to see sense, move towards a bipolar, even tripolar world--has not Tony Blair raised the prospect of the European Union becoming a superpower?  They could even soberly discuss a limited system of regional, as opposed to national, missile defenses, or, better still, effective arms control.  And rather than indulging in a posture of arrogant unilateralism, Washington should consider the causes of the real threats to the United States and where they come from."

 

FRANCE:  "International Herald Tribune Poll:  Euros Do Not Like 'Unilateralist' Bush"

 

Following a poll taken by the International Herald Tribune and the Pew Center, left-of-center Le Monde and left-of-center Liberation summarized the results (8/17).  Left-of-center Le Monde:  "Although President Bush has congratulated himself on his first six months in office, the least we can say is that he has not won over European public opinion."  Left-of-center Liberation:  "Europeans do not like George W. Bush, whom they consider to be unilateralist, narrow-minded and exclusively concerned with American interests, not caring at all about the Old Continent."

 

"Bush Takes the Oval Office to Texas"

 

In right-of-center Le Figaro, Washington correspondent Jean-Jacques Mevel wrote (8/9):  "In Washington, the latest joke about George W. Bush is that he must have French blood in his veins....  He leaves his office promptly at 6:00 p.m. as if he were following the 35-hour work week....  But the 30 days that he has decided to spend away from the Potomac raises a few eyebrows.  The majority of Americans, allowed to take only two weeks of vacation per year, find that their leader is taking it a bit too easy this summer....  The problem is that Americans will not re-elect him if they are not satisfied with the way in which he spends his time.  The vacation issue has become a nightmare for the White House team which has been transferred to the (heat) of the president's Texan ranch....  Why did W. choose this hole?  The press correspondents who have been parked ten kilometers away from the ranch in a rather humid school gymnasium in Crawford are not the only ones asking this question.  Even the president's entourage is wondering why and finding with horror that the polls suggest that George W. Bush is hiding far from everything because he is terribly lazy."

 

 

GERMANY:  "The Right Minister In The Wrong Government"

 

Washington correspondent Peter de Thier filed the following commentary for left-of-center Berliner Zeitung (8/29):  "There are rumors in government circles that President Bush and his security advisor Condoleezza Rice prevented Secretary of State Powell from taking part in the world conference against racism, but we will never know whether this was right, because Colin Powell does not criticize his colleagues and does not hatch plots against his president.  During his seven months in office, Powell has had to accept a number of humiliations.  The most blatant one was when he said that the United States would resume missile talks with North Korea but, on the order of his boss, he had to rescind this statement the following day and say that talks with Pyongyang would not be on the agenda.  This episode took place five months ago, but it is characteristic of the political influence situation within the security staff of the U.S. president.  Colin Powell, who entered office as a visionary with moderate political convictions and a pragmatic approach is sometimes degraded to act as an extra.  In his capacity as secretary of state, Powell has only one superior, namely President Bush.  But Bush's policies are based on decisions of a conservative staff of advisors, whose views clash with those of the moderate, internationalist Powell.  He pins his policy on coalitions and rejects unilateralism as propagated by President Bush .  As head of the joint chiefs of staff, he backed the ratification of the nuclear test ban treaty, which he, as servant of the new government, now has to reject.  Colin Powell is the right secretary of state within the wrote administration.  Under a Democratic president, he could have developed his potential as visionary in a much better way."

 

"Diminishing Willingness To Learn"

 

Stefan Kornelius opined in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (8/25):  "It may be possible that the U.S. president has been on vacation for too long or that he is too far away from the political pulse.  What he has now formulated in the Texas heat, need not make sense in Washington, and need not get any applause in Europe.   President Bush used a visit to a primary school in Texas to tell the world in sharp words...that he will cancel the ABM Treaty.  No 'possibly,' no diplomatic remark that he is willing to enter into talks.  He will cancel it.  Period.  To sum it up, we can say that this stupid U.S. summer offensive with respect to missile defense serves to give shape to this threatening scenario....   There is no other problem that moves the Bush administration like the quick implementation of missile defense, the destruction of existing disarmament agreements, and the reorientation of the strategic balance.  The concentration on foreign and security policy is even more astonishing, because he cannot score points at home with it.  Second, it is becoming increasingly clear that Bush is dodging the real challenges in domestic and foreign policy.  The dramatic plunge of the U.S. economy obviously did not create any sleepless nights for the president...and the eternal enemies in the Middle East are now also heading in different directions.  Meanwhile, the Bush team is stuck in its old-thinking and focussing on the challenges of the Cold War.  President Bush has only been in office for a brief period of time, and his predecessors also made serious mistakes during this period.   But his learning curve is turning downward.  It is not the tactics, nor the tone, from Texas that is reprehensible.  What is terrifying is the lack of ideas with which Bush pursues his foreign policy.  The president is confrontational, he thinks in simple friend-foe patterns.  All this may make it easier to mediate at home.  But it is hard to recognize a reason behind it, because the odd announcement from Texas and the ultimata to Moscow only allow one conclusion:  This man does not want to listen.  He may even want to be left alone."

 

"America's Risky Path"

 

Michael Stuermer said in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (8/27):  "A strategic revolution is under way, and the European NATO partner must comprehend that the overall direction of U.S. armament, strategic thinking and political philosophy is pointing in a new direction:  invulnerability through missile defense, an arms build-up in outer space, taking advantage of the geographical location of the [U.S.] continent, concentration on the Far East, availability of small expedition corps, and naval strength. 

 

"NATO doesn't  show up anywhere in this strategy.  If the Europeans continue to ignore the consequences, the curtain will rise up--and the stage will be empty.  The question is no longer whether, but when, the AMB Treaty will be cancelled.  Since the fall of the Holy Roman Empire, such striving for absolute dominance has always led to conflicts and wars.  This would be a high price for a strategic revolution, which, according to today's scientific knowledge, cannot be more than an illusion." 

 

"Maybe Jesse Helms' Departure Will Be A Loss"

 

Torsten Krauel noted in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (8/24):  "Senator 'No' prevented the appointment of ambassadors, because he didn't like the administration's position on abortion.  He refused to pay UN dues, because the world organization's positions ran counter to high-profile domestic issues.  Helms could do all this because the U.S. political landscape is marked by strong divisions....  Since Helms conveyed the impression that he could be counted on to protect the United States if necessary, U.S. presidents were frequently able to steer a more moderate course in his shadow.  They were able to present themselves as the voice of reason and did not have to put their patriotism on permanent display.  All of this could change now.  President Bush is already paying more attention to the radical patriotic sentiments in his party.  In light of Helms' departure, he will have to do so even more openly.  As strange as it may seem--maybe the Europeans will end up missing Jesse Helms."

 

"Indispensable World Policeman"

 

Dieter J. Opitz wrote in right-of-center Berliner Morgenpost (8/17):  "The world still needs a policeman, and the way things are right now, that role can be played only by the United States.  The country does not have to resort to force right away.  But even when it comes to mediation attempts, there needs to be the authority generated by power.  Only the United States can exert enough pressure and deliver guarantees credible enough so that peace can still be brought about in the Middle East.  In light of the Macedonian crisis, the Bush administration has given up for now on the idea of pulling out of Kosovo and leaving the Balkan problems to the Europeans.  U.S. mediation efforts in Northern Ireland continue to be important as well.  Even in areas that appear relatively calm right now, tensions can quickly turn into crises if people got the impression that the United States was becoming less vigilant--especially regarding China and Taiwan, or India and Pakistan.  Sorry, America, but the way the world turns, you will remain indispensable as world policeman for some time to come."

 

BELGIUM:  "Hardliners Isolate Colin Powell"

 

New York correspondent Tom Ronse wrote in independent De Morgen (82/7):  "From the very beginning, the Bush administration has left no doubt that it wants to get rid of the ABM Treaty which prohibits the deployment of a missile defense system....  Inside the administration, Secretary of State Colin Powell argued that a unilateral step was unnecessary and dangerous.  Last week, Powell seemed to have lost the debate.  He seems to be isolated in an administration where hard-liners prevail....  It is not the first time that Powell has lost the game in the administration.  His plans to reform the policy of sanctions against Iraq and to continue Clinton's North Korea policy were killed.  His candidates were rejected.  European leaders respect him, but they wonder to what degree he is speaking for the government.  Not Powell, but Rice stood at Bush's side at the G-8 Summit in Genoa.   Not Powell, but Rice and Rumsfeld 'consult' with the Russians and the European allies about NMD--and both the Russians and the Europeans complained that those consultations took place only pro forma.  Not Powell, but Rice negotiates with Putin.  Rice's star shines while Powell's loses its glow.  Rice, not Powell, presented the principles of U.S. foreign policy in the name of the administration.  Even the fashion magazine Vogue will devote a special lengthy report in its next issue to this 'Iron Lady.'"

 

 

 

 

"Strained Relations"

 

U.S. affairs writer Evita Neefs held in independent Catholic De Standaard (8/17):  "George Bush is in disfavor with the Europeans.  A major poll in four European countries has yielded the image of a solitary man on the international scene who is trying to achieve only his own goals.  He is a cowboy who doesn't know Europe and who doesn't want to know it.....  Three elements have caused a fundamental change in U.S.-European relations, argues Dominique Moisi, Deputy Director of the French Institute for International Relations:  the end of the Cold War, the changes in Europe and globalization.  Bush and his entourage are unaware of this.  During the Cold War the Europeans had to accept a subordinate role.  Today, they want a partnership.  The globalization process is stimulating Europe's search for an identity of its own.  To a large extent that is reflected in Europe's resistance to the United States, Moisi concludes.  Thirty years ago, anti-Americanism was a reaction against what America did.  Today, it is a reaction against what America is, Moisi says.  In European eyes, Bush is the personification of everything the Europeans hate.  Europe wants to safeguard its own values.  It defends its own specific form of capitalism:  flexible, dynamic, but also humane.  In Moisi's view, the Bush administration does not know the new Europe.  The Europe that they know is the Europe of the old Bush government, i.e., the Cold War Europe.  Antony Blinken, a member of Bill Clinton's National Security Council, however, sees rapprochement between the United States and Europe.  Cultural differences--like the death penalty, genetically modified food and popular culture--are exaggerated, Blinken believes.  The Europeans, Blinken adds, see U.S. position on the anti-missile shield, its unwillingness to ratify the land mine treaty, the International Criminal Court, and the climate treaty as evidence of egotistical unilateralism.  On the strategic level, however, he sees convergence--albeit to a limited extent.  Anyway, both schools come to the conclusion that the United States and Europe are doomed to work together.  Globalization, Moisi concludes, has changed nothing but the fact that nothing in the world can be achieved without the United States.  And, the presence of a multitude of factors means that there is not much that the United States can achieve alone."

 

DENMARK:  "Go-It-Alone USA"

 

Center-left Politiken asserted (8/24):  "The UN has run out of money and U.S. debt to the organization is at its highest for years.  Leading Republican congressmen will only pay the arrears if this is linked with U.S. immunity from prosecution at the ICC....  The UN question shows growing U.S. contempt for international agreements that put limits on U.S. foreign policy....  Nothing looks like stopping America's go-it-alone position, not even international law." 

GREECE:  "Euro-American Relationship"

 

Writing in pro-government Ta Nea (8/22), regular contributor George Sekeris argued:  "Despite catastrophic  scenarios generated by the recent International Herald Tribune poll, mutual interests make it rather unlikely that U.S.-European relations may be shaken in the foreseeable future:  The creeping anti-Americanism shown in the poll is not new.  It springs from of the contradictory feelings of the weaker party in an unequal relationship.  Its re-emergence in the post-Cold War era is natural due to the continuing U.S. leadership.  Europe's continuing dependence, however, is due to its own weakness in translating its potential into political and military power, not some obscure American scheme.  This weakness results, among others, in Europe's absence from the Far East where the sole superpower dominates the scene. 

 

"Europe also stays in the margins of Middle East developments, and its energy efficiency is determined by U.S. involvement.  Even in its Balkan geopolitical backyard, Europe relies on U.S. crutches.  Given that Washington still places crucial importance on European security and stability, and that the creation of a European confederation geopolitically equal to the United States is permanently postponed, the current Euro-American relationship will probably remain unchanged indefinitely."

 

 

IRELAND:   "Mr. Bush's Policies"

 

The moderately conservative Irish Times opined (8/20):  "This [poll published in the International Herald Tribune finding European disapproval of the Bush adminstration's conduct of foreign policy] is dramatic confirmation that U.S. diplomacy faces a real problem in getting Europeans to support its new priorities.   Most are convinced that President Bush makes decisions based entirely on U.S. interests....  For European politicians, the affirmation of clearly expressed interests and values that conflict with those of the United States will increasingly be a test of their electoral legitimacy.  This is the road towards a more balanced transatlantic relationship.  The Bush administration has a strategic choice to make in how it is handled."

 

LITHUANIA:  "What Is The Cost Of The Privilege Of Being The World Policeman"

 

Violeta Mickeviciute commented in second-largest Respublika (8/27):  "Inconceivable, but a fact:  The only political, economic and military super-state no longer has the strength and does not even want to try to  carry out its financial commitments to the UN....  Although the United States is still the greatest bread winner for the UN budget, due to its unpaid dues, the UN is again on the threshold of  bankruptcy....  The new Republican president's team muddled up the entire U.S. foreign policy:  having returned the idea of international policeman to the vocabulary of international communication, George Bush and company speak more often about national interests than about compromises....  By cultivating his domestic authority  on the 'national interests'  defense card, President Bush winds up in an ambiguous situation.  Not only must he come up against foreign criticism for arrogant politics, but he must also watch how more and more often the reins slip from U.S. hands....  Paying the dues is only a question of time....  The world policeman title is not only an honor, but also a luxury costing billions." 

 

THE NETHERLANDS:  "A Policy Of Weakness"

 

Centrist Het Parool's political commentator asserted (8/9):  "The most important political principle guiding George W. Bush is to do the opposite of what Clinton did....  Last week the U.S. administration made the basis of this policy known.  The United States will examine on a case by case basis whether it is in their interest to observe international treaties. That's it.  That is called 'a la carte multilateralism.'...  The neo-isolationism of the Bush administration...is not a sign of strength, but signifies the relinquishing of the U.S. position in the current world order.  An American administration that is sure of itself and of the U.S. position of the world would have taken the lead in coming to international agreements.  Now that Bush junior is taking a vacation twice as long as most Americans get, and since he no longer has to sign death penalty execution warrants, perhaps he has time to think about some of this.  However, thinking is not an activity he has been caught doing before."

 

POLAND:  "Explaining G.W. Bush's Unpopularity In Europe"

 

Foreign policy analyst Jan Eichler noted in leftist Pravo (8/22):  "The Europeans understand that without the United States, nothing can be accomplished in this world.  They are aware that, compared to Europe, the United States enjoyed faster economic growth in the 1990s, implemented newer technologies, and used the newest scientific discoveries.  In light of the fast rationalization of its defense industry, the United States widened the gap in the most modern weapon technologies.  Moreover, the United States has played a key role in solving international crises while the Europeans were not able to reach consensus....  Moreover, the United States keeps its dominance through the so-called 'soft power,' or cultural influence of the American version of the English-language and people such as Gates, Spielberg, or Welch.  These are the reasons why European politicians to continue to seek some sort of 'modus vivendi' in relations with the Bush administration even though they would also prefer a more embracing position from it."

 

 

 

SPAIN:  "Great And Free"

 

Left-of-center El Pais observed (8/27):  "It is significant that Bush has chosen for the powerful position of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, until now the number two, but above all a military man who considers space the next frontier for the defense of the United States, and who is a decided supporter of missile defense....   The militaristic bias [of the Bush administration] has put its imprint on a foreign policy which seems to come more from the Pentagon than from the department of state.  The head of diplomacy, Colin Powell, loses power and influence day by day.  Bush seems to be paying more attention to his national security advisor, Condoleeza Rice.  But it is the Pentagon that really counts, with Vice President Cheney, a former Secretary of Defense, converted into a kind of prime minister, and the actual Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, also having held the position years before....  The presence of Myers will facilitate the triumph of Bush's political thesis of constructing a missile shield....  Bush's policy is also a means of satisfying the famous 'military-industrial' complex that President Eisenhower denounced in his 1961 farewell address--more relevant than ever in a country that has begun to debate with more intensity if it is or is not an empire, and if so, what kind.  While Wall Street is in crisis, defense industry stocks have risen more than 40 percent."

 

"Helms, The Unilateralist"

 

Conservative La Vanguardia commented (8/24):  "Helms has been a disagreeable traveling companion.  The label of ultraconservative and anti-Communist fit like a glove, but it is insufficient to explain his behavior.  Helms, above all, has been the bitter enemy of supranational organizations and a believer that the United States should have its hands free.  Using the phraseology of the day:  Helms has been a formidable unilateralist....  Does this [Helms' announced retirement] mean we've come to the end of an era?  To the contrary,  Helms can rest assured.  In European eyes, the Bush administration is the most unilateralist of any of the unilateralists of the last decades.  The rejection of the Kyoto Protocol,  the refusal to ratify the International Criminal Court, and the anti-missile project, are all worrying proof that Washington wants to go it alone.  The apparent loss of influence in the White House of the secretary of state, Colin Powell, the friendly face, to the benefit of Condoleezza Rice, a convinced unilateralist, indicates that Helms will keep on marching, even after he goes."

 

"Bush According To Europe"

 

Conservative La Vanguardia wrote (8/17):  "This poll [on European opinion of Bush foreign policy published in the International Herald Tribune] would be seriously worrying for any American president....  Europe is not an adversary of the United States, rather its ally, with which we share--more than any other major power--culture, democratic values and economic interests.  And Europeans reject, as the poll shows, the idea that the two sides of the Atlantic are growing farther apart.  Europe disapproves of Bush, not of the United States."

 

MIDDLE EAST

 

EGYPT:  "The U.S. And UN At Odds"

 

Mahmoud Wahib El-Sayed wrote in pro-government Al Ahram (8/29):  "Apparently, the United States seeks to create an alternative organization with a strong military arm for international intervention and to impose its power, without any political or legal agenda, or even a parliament for discussions and ratification of resolutions.  Certainly, this alternative organization is NATO that is diligently extending its activities even to Russia and China.  This may be what Bush Sr. meant when he announced a new world order following the collapse of USSR.  Now, Bush Jr. insists on amending the ABM pact and implementing a missile defense shield.  Certainly, this is to consecrate the control of the current sole superpower, the United States, over the entire world.  However, there are indications that this leadership will not work in favor of all and will not act rationally or justly.

 

"Rather, the United States exhibits arrogance, tyranny, double standards, and self-interest.  Will the (countries of the) South or the emerging powers which the United States seeks to control be silent?"

 

SYRIA:  "U.S. Versus UN"

 

Riad Zein wrote in government-owned Syria Times (8/23):  "The arrogant and flagrant attitudes of the United States towards the UN are only a blow to the world organization....  Driven by arrogance and the cowboy mentality, the United States once again blackmails the UN by setting conditions on paying its financial dues....  Washington's tough stances towards the General Assembly's human rights committee is why the assembly has abandoned the Americans.  Washington went on further by warning the UN Durban conference against debating any topic denouncing Israel's anti-Palestinian crimes and condemning Zionism as a form of racism.   The flagrant U.S. conduct is virtually reckless and boisterous if not grave and detrimental.  If today's unilateral world master does not honor the UN, who else will?"

 

EAST ASIA

 

CHINA:  "Rights Demand Responsibility"

 

Jin Zeqing commented in the official, English-language China Daily (8/24):  "Rights and responsibility go side by side....  Yet the United States repeatedly defies this rule.  The most influential member of the UN is also the one refusing to pay its dues.  Washington has turned its arrears into a politically calibrated tool to promote its own interests and influence the UN.  The United States has expressed a desire to lead the UN and play a bigger role in this body.  But its failure to fulfill its basic obligation casts doubt over the nation's sincerity and credibility."

 

"Democrats Challenge Bush's Foreign Policy"

 

A story in the official, English-language China Daily read (8/20):  "In a series of recent speeches and statements, key Democrats in the U.S. Congress have begun laying out the central elements of an opposition foreign policy that challenges U.S. President George W. Bush's harmful approach as isolationist.  Political analysts say that the Democrats, who hold a slim majority in the Senate, but are in the minority in the House of Representatives, are smart to craft a unified message on this important subject, as they lay the groundwork for their bid to recapture the presidency in 2004.  But questions remain over whether these opposition leaders can:  Work out their policy differences with the Republicans to the American public; ensure the bulk of their own membership shares their more moderate vision, and offer constructive alternatives to Bush's position."

 

JAPAN:  "U.S. Should Be More Responsible To The World"

 

Top-circulation, moderate Yomiuri editorialized (8/27):  "The Bush administration's 'going my own way' diplomatic moves have become more pronounced than ever before.  The administration is showing its readiness to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and Kyoto Protocol, while giving up CTBT ratification on the grounds that those pacts do not serve U.S. national interests.  Without the participation of the United States, the only superpower in the post-Cold War world, however, existing international agreements would become less effective and even crippled.  If the United States opposes these accords, it should present counterproposals to show more responsibility toward the world.  Although there is no diplomacy that disregards national interests, the administration should re-adjust U.S. interests and then work harder for the benefit of the international community."

 

 

 

 

 

AUSTRALIA:  "Howard Will Fly Back In Time"

 

The liberal Canberra Times' Nick Stuart set the scene for the prime minister's upcoming visit to the United States (8/29):  "To ensure he savors the full flavor of the U.S. capital, John Howard should watch Dr. Strangelove as his in-flight movie on the trip over.  A lot has changed since the film was a hit, but there is little evidence that the Bush team has learned very much in that time.  The mood of isolation, conflict and paranoia expressed in the movie is very alive today. This administration is obsessed with conspiracy theories: rogue states, evil empires, and lurking at the heart of the new ideology a desperate desire to escape.  Washington wants to pull up the drawbridge, bring the boys back home, and leave the rest of the world....  The international arena seems to be about the only area where the new administration is managing to implement its agenda and that's just because it ignores opposition, even from its friends.  The right-wingers in the White House say they're consulting, but this doesn't mean they're listening to significant concerns that are being expressed virtually everywhere, apart from in Canberra.  And if Washington wants to scrap arms-control treaties, send greenhouse gases rushing to the heavens, abandon chemical and biological warfare restrictions, and generally behave like the biggest guys at a frat-house party nobody can stop them."

 

SOUTH KOREA:  "Rice's Growing Ultra-Harsh Influence"

 

Washington correspondent Yoon Kuk-han observed in pro-government Hankyoreh Shinmun (8/21):  "U.S. foreign and security policies are under fire for being unilateral and isolationist.  The problem is that such U.S. policies do not promote reconciliation and cooperation, but rather heighten tensions and confrontations around the world.  The United States has maintained a hands-off stance toward the recent bloodshed between Israel and Palestine, which is feared may develop into an all-out war....  Nevertheless, pointing out  that Israel is the largest beneficiary of U.S. aid in the Middle East, Arab nations are urging U.S. intervention, calling it their 'only hope.'  President Bush's diplomacy is also arousing profound distrust among Europeans.  According to a recent opinion poll, nearly 80 percent of people from the UK, Germany, France, and Italy think that the Untied States only cares about its own national interest without paying due consideration for other European nations.  Under these circumstances, the criticism that 'the United States is the primary rogue state' is being heard even from within."

 

VIETNAM:   "The U.S.' Double-Faced Policy"

 

La Mich Nhu wrote in Vietnam Confederation of Labor Union daily Lao Dong (8/28):  "U.S. President Bush's announcement of U.S. intention to withdraw from the ABM Treaty is in essence a move to put pressure on Russia....  The announcement reveals more clearly that the Bush administration's target is not just the NMD, but larger than that; it is a new military and security environment for international relations the United States wants to shape to serve its interests....  By unilaterally abandoning the ABM treaty, Bush also wants to erase the NMD issue from the agenda for this year's U.S.-Russia high-level meetings.  At the same time, by showing its tough position, the United States hopes to prevent Russia from becoming a savior for other countries, especially ones that are among the United States' allies, which do not support the NMD plan."

 

SOUTH ASIA

 

BANGLADESH:  "Bush Administration Out Of Step In The World Scene"

 

An editorial page article in the independent, English-language Daily Star read (8/21):  "The Bush administration appears to be in the habit of snubbing treaty after treaty, to the bewilderment of all countries.... 

 

 

 

"While the European Union and other countries agreed to keep alive the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on reduction of gas emissions in Bonn last July, the Bush administration abandoned it in March, although the United States is the greatest polluter on earth.  Since moving to the White House, President Bush seems determined to start building an anti-missile shield during his first term, with or without approval of his allies in Europe.  The rejection of treaties one by one by the Bush administration appears to be of great concern for the allies of the United States and has driven a wedge between the United States and its NATO allies.  The United States does not care about the attitude of other countries, because they do not vote in U.S. elections.  However, they do vote in the UN.  And that is where the United States was embarrassed when it was voted off the International Commission on Human Rights and the Narcotics Board last May.  The danger lies in the fact that, apart from a willingness to wear the tag of isolationism, the other message from Mr. Bush's first six months is an apparent desire to make an 'enemy' of China and a friend of Russia.  However, there seems to be a silver lining in the dark clouds that would reverse some of the policies of the administration.  On June 6, the defection of Senator Jim Jeffords from the Republican Party handed Senate control to the Democrats.  It appears that a small bunch of moderate Republicans with an eye on the Senate elections in the United States next year do not like Mr. Bush's winner-take-all, hard-right attitude and are joining with the Democrats to force President Bush to amend some of his unilateralist policies.   With the Democrats controlling the Senate, President Bush is reported to have shared his frustration recently with the White House press corps when he said, 'A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, no question about it.'  However, to the rest of world, President Bush's administration seems sometimes to be just that, as it continues to disregard world opinion.  The United States is the only superpower in the world, and it has to realize that it cannot disengage itself from the rest of the world in resolving key global issues."

 

INDIA:   "What Will Be The Powell Effect?"

 

The centrist Times of India observed (8/27):  "Some seven months after being sworn in as president George W. Bush is still trying to play the role of the proverbial outsider who just will not succumb to the inside pressures of his country's first job.  Which, he explains is why he keeps going back to his ranch in Crawford, Texas....   The latest instance is what he calls his 'working vacation' of 30 days away from the White House.  Others, including the impertinent media, might think that George W. is just trying to play cowboys on the ranch while simultaneously enjoying the plums of White House tenure, but President Bush sees it differently.  So is George W. Bush missing his former job as Texas governor?  Or is he merely making the point that it's easier to govern America from the heartland and far away from the corroding influence of the insiders of Washington D.C.?  There is a historical precedent of sorts.  One Muhammad-bin-Tughlaq attempted something similar by trying to shift the capital of the Delhi Sultanate to Daulatabad, only to return to the city on the banks of the Yamuna.  They may do things differently on the Potomac."

 

"The Powell Effect?"

 

The centrist Indian Express ran this article by retired Major General Himmat Singh Gill (8/27):  "U.S. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is what one could term as 'cautiously optimistic' when dealing with world situations.  His steady but sure handling of the Gulf War where he ensured that all the infrastructure was in position before the aerial and land blitz, earned him top marks with the then-president.  The same cautious American state policy is stamped all over the handling of the Balkans today, and in a way the lessons he brought home from the Vietnam war now define the Powell Doctrine that emphasizes principles that must be adhered to when handling conflict situations around the world, especially in far off places.... This brings up the question of China's 'co-existence' and Pakistan's confrontation with us and the likely Powell Doctrine effect at some stage....   For India...China is well beyond the category of being a strategic competitor, and Powell's straight talking with the Chinese recently on the issue of their suspected missile and weapons technology exports to a few countries, is music to the ears. On the issue of the NMD, India and the United States stand together, facing China. 

 

"India is the United States' new strategic partner in Asia, and both Vajpayee and Jaswant Singh deserve credit for getting off the blocks early in their foreign policy enunciations....  After all these years, India has finally got off to a strategic doctrine worth the name....  In this age, no country can go it alone....  The nuclear age has ushered in new power combinations, and all for the better."

 

"Honeymoon Behind Bush"

 

The centrist Pioneer ran this observation by Associate Fellow at IDSA Uttam Kumar Sinha (8/12):   "The issues that primarily dogged the Republican administration are its domestic energy policy and its international environmental commitments.... The Americans are both suspicious and skeptical of the Republican administration's handling of the energy crisis....  The other defining feature of Bush's six-months presidency has been what analysts have described as the 'militarization of policy thought.'  One look at Bush's team from Dick Cheney to Colin Powell to Donald Rumsfeld, all 'Cold War warriors' and one can draw a conclusion that the administration is pursuing a planned approach to create a national cohesiveness and recreate a conservatism in order to justify its spending on new defensive system and weapons.  The Pentagon has, by far, become the strongest player defining Bush's foreign policy....  Bush's foreign policy has little do with diplomatic acumen, but more with restating the fact that the United States is the sole superpower.  On the whole, while Bush continues to score on the missile defense issues, he has lost a lot of ground on the energy and environment-related policies.  To regain the lost ground, he has to show willingness to listen to the people.  Sadly for Bush the image of a pro-rich, industry-influenced, conscience-less conservatism leader has caught on.  Before this image takes the shape of arrogance and ignorance corrective measures are needed.  Credibility has to be restored, something which no U.S. president can live without."

 

"Tar Spangled Banner"

 

The centirst Telegraph opined (8/12):  "The image of a solitary sheriff or marshal taming a town in the Wild West has left an indelible imprint on the American imagination.  This is evident from the behavior of the U.S. administration towards the world from the time the United States, through a quirk of history, became the world's only superpower....  In various international fora, the United States is becoming the target of criticism and voices of dissent are being heard against its stand on various issues.  These are as yet subterranean shows of resentment.  But unless the issues are addressed, the United States runs the danger of finding itself isolated.  A sheriff without a base of social support may find it difficult to fight outlaws alone....  The United States' now unprecedented strength is its worst enemy.  Unlike Napoleon, Hitler or Stalin, the United States cannot live like a pariah in the community of nations.  It needs to review its image and global responses to it.  History has cast the United States in a peculiar role.  It needs to see history beyond the character assigned to it."

 

AFRICA

 

SOUTH AFRICA:   "Bush Facing Rising Tide Of International Criticism"

 

John Stremlau commented in the independent Business Day (8/29):  "Seven months into his presidency, George Bush is facing a rising tide of international criticism, even among America's closest allies....  Today's protests are more about U.S. disengagement that intervention....  Washington's attitude to the world conference against racism in Durban one of many UN initiatives where the United States is seen as a spoiler....  Most important still will be the extent of Bush's commitment to delivering substantial support for the millennium Africa Recovery programme.  Progress on these and other issues of concern to Africa will not satisfy those who believe the United States is diabolically determined to dominate the world.  More realistic dangers accrue from Washington's destructive disinterest."

 

 

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

 

CANADA:  "White House Moves Into Danger Zone On Plutonium"

 

Stephen Handelman observed in the liberal Toronto Star (8/28):  "A few years ago, before Washington worried about rogue nuclear missiles, it worried about rogue nuclear bomb makers....  There have, of course, been no 'accidents,' so far.  And the few verified incidents of nuclear smuggling haven't justified the scare headlines of the early 1990s.  So, time to relax, right?  The Bush administration apparently thinks so.  Last week the administration leaked word that it was considering abandoning an agreement with Moscow to eliminate 68 tonnes of plutonium from existing nuclear weapons--34 tonnes on each side--by 2007....  Money, if you believe the administration, is the principal reason the program is likely to be history....  But the new administration is cutting corners where it can.  Last May it signaled that it would cut spending on other key nuclear non-proliferation programs, such as retraining Russian military scientists and bolstering security and safety at Russian nuclear military installations....  The White House claims it needs to go back to the drawing board.  One idea being floated:  developing better American reactors to burn plutonium more efficiently.  But that could take years and it's left some nuclear experts scratching their heads in confusion....  However, Washington's turnabout makes sense if you consider another priority on this administration's agenda:  energy....  Building nuclear reactors that can reprocess waste plutonium is attracting keen interest....  But non-proliferation is evidently no priority for this administration.  The nuclear test treaty is dead in the water and this week Washington signalled it was ready to resume relations with India after the chill caused by the duelling Pakistan-India bomb tests three years ago.  Apparently, the mood in Washington is that treaties and sanctions do little to restrain would-be nuclear powers, so why bother?...  If the United States...accepts military plutonium as an 'invaluable' energy source, that would lower the bar against using plutonium generated by civilian reactors--about 1,400 metric tonnes in the world now and counting.  That's enough for 30,000 Nagasakis."

 

"A Summer Pause For George W. Bush"

 

Bogdan Kipling observed in the conservative Halifax Herald (8/8):  "President George W. Bush has been on the job for six months and already he needs a month-long vacation 'in the heartland' to hear 'what's on the minds of the people.'...  What I'm looking for is a reasonable assessment of his stewardship and possible hints to the future.  Now, as every political reporter should know, there are three ways to judge a politician.  First, examine the record.  Second, examine the record.  Third, examine the record.  All else is sycophancy, malice or indifference.  George W. Bush's domestic record is pretty good.  He got a huge tax cut through the Congress.... He got Congress to pass a major education bill.... 

 

"He got a budget through the House of Representatives by the end of March and through the Senate on a 65-35 vote.  Well on its way to reality is Mr. Bush's proposal to give churches, synagogues, mosques and other faith-based institutions a major role in providing community services.  In mid-July, the House approved legislation to make federal money available and a bipartisan bill is pending in the Senate where chances of passage are rated good.  Even his energy proposals are doing better than expected....   Not shabby at all, for a president who barely squeaked through the electoral college, lost the popular vote and faces an evenly divided Congress.  But looking at the record means work and that's something too many fat cat hacks shun like the plague.  Far easier to repeat the carping of ideological purists, disappointed followers and political opponents.  Not that his critics haven't got a point.  Mr. Bush has been much better at promising than at delivering.  For example, he should have known that it would be extremely hard to make good on private schooling for disadvantaged kids....  Nor is criticism of Mr. Bush's handling of Kyoto and global warming unjustified.  He handled it badly.  Extremely badly....  With luck, Mr. Bush will learn from his blunders as he lazes about near that crossroads town in Texas."

 

 

"Rules Must Apply To Needed Wars Of Intervention"

 

Guest columnist Bill Cox wrote in the conservative Halifax Herald (8/8):  "The Western democracies face an unusual time in history when, globally, the doctrine of the 'balance of powers' has been suspended for at least 10 years.  Europe and America command huge material wealth and through America, they control at least another decade of hitherto unimaginable military superiority.  Above all, they speak for the more or less universally acceptable political ideal that every country should have the sort of government most of its people freely choose to have, with a regular opportunity to change it.  Let us hope that the Americans do not decide to stroll through this critical period self-contentedly pursuing their own material interests, rather than helping to spread the ideas they did so much to create.  It would be a sad commentary on Europe's claim to be renewing itself if the Europeans retired into their own 21st-century version of America's 19th-century isolationism, rather than continuing the partnership that has twice overcome the enemies of democracy.  Finally, let us hope the only wars of intervention that meet the tests, are practically winnable and don't demand an unacceptable price."

 

MEXICO:  "Ostrich Policy"

 

Henz Dieterich Steffan asserted in nationalist El Universal (8/25):  "It is better to be by oneself than in bad company.  This is the motto that President Bush seems to have implemented since he took office.  The White House has walked out of four major international efforts to further peaceful coexistence....  In January Bush refused to ask the Senate to ratify the International Criminal Court....  In March he announced that the United States would resign from the Kyoto Protocol that would fight the greenhouse effects--actually the United States is the nation that most contributes to global warming....  In July, the United States threaten to walk out of an international conference to reduce the trafficking of light weapons if the U.S. citizens' right to own firearms were affected....  Finally in July, Bush rejected an international agreement to implement the Convention against Biological Weapons....  At a time when globalization prevails, the unilateral imposition of the rules of the game does not work any longer.  If President Bush and his cabinet continue to insist on acting unilaterally, they would lose the competition for the leadership of global society to the European Union--something difficult to prevent when one hides his head under the sand."

 

NICARAGUA:  "El Latino Bush"

 

In center-right La Prensa, newscaster and distinguished writer of Miami-based Hispanic Network UNIVISION Jorge Ramos-Avalos observed (8/8):  "Bush's critics agree upon...the lack of international alliances, growing isolationism and unilateral decision making....   In this panorama,  it is evident Colin Powell's absence, the invisible Secretary of State....  Despite this, there is a ray of light in U.S. foreign policy, and this is the special treatment given to Mexico....  Bush acts in a instinctive manner at the international and the national level....  As a former presidential candidate, Bush knows perfectly well that the Cuban-American vote in Florida took him to the White House; he also knows that if he can increase  the percentage of Hispanics voting for him in 2004 he has the reelection assured....  We cannot discard Bush strategies...just because they do not come from an academician or from an intellectual president like Clinton.  Maybe Bush's instinct is standing just right....  It is easy to criticize  Bush priorities as simplistic and instinctive....  But last time Bush acted instinctively he won the presidency. "

##