December 18, 1998
TREND ANALYSIS--U.S. IMAGE: DEMAND FOR 'UNDISTRACTED'--BUT RECEPTIVE--SUPERPOWER
Over the last nine months, foreign analysts commenting on a variety of global events and issues--including political, military, diplomatic, economic and democracy matters, with all of their attendant complexities--seldom failed to factor into their assessments a broader conceptual quandary. Frequently, for the vast majority of opinionmakers, the underlying issue seemed to be what various facets of American foreign and domestic policies reveal about the intentions of the world's last remaining superpower, the U.S. The sheer range and volume of commentary and editorials where analysts singled out the U.S. position demonstrates both the extent to which America has become involved in all aspects of post-Cold War world affairs, and the degree to which other countries seem obsessed with dissecting what they perceive to be the twists and turns in American foreign and domestic policies, as well as their implications for international stability. With a number of important exceptions, the majority of editorial appraisals of the U.S. and its foreign policy continued to be generally critical. This, of course, has been the case for a number of years. For example, analysts aimed their criticisms at what they viewed as "bullying" tactics, "wrongheaded", "biased" "unilateral," "selfish" or "interventionist" policies, and "arrogant" attitudes of the U.S. Yet, as evidenced in the avalanche of editorials expressing consternation about the Monica Lewinsky matter and the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton in the House, foreign commentators across the board in all regions identified a problem that they viewed with even greater concern: a distracted superpower. This implies that, while there may be general unhappiness with the way the U.S. conducts its foreign policy, in the eyes of most foreign elite observers, it is worse to have America "turn inward" and neglect its international responsibilities. Notably, while previous surveys found that there was a palpable yearning on the part of some pundits--mostly hailing from France, China and Russia and some developing nations, including India and Pakistan--for a more multipolar world, during this survey period those voices were somewhat more muted. Most opinionmakers appeared to acknowledge that, at this time, there is no other nation that can assume the superpower mantle.
Not surprisingly, criticism of the alleged American propensity to march to its own drum and to ignore or reject international input permeated much of the overseas accounts of American foreign policy activities, including most diplomatic and security/military matters--e.g. the U.S. response to Iraqi instransigence, as well as global issues such as international trade practices and policies, terrorism, the environment, human rights and anti-drug strategies. The overall impression generated by the totality of commentary is that most foreign observers would prefer to see a strong and engaged American foreign policy, albeit one that is more receptive and responsive to multilateral input. One can extrapolate from the mostly positive media response generated anytime the U.S. president traveled to a foreign country--visited during these nine months were nations in Africa, Latin America, Europe, East Asia and the Middle East--that such state visits are welcomed as opportunities for the superpower to listen carefully to the individual concerns of particular countries. Following are major regional themes:
This survey is based on commentaries appearing in previous R/MR reports, March-Dec. 1998.
EDITORS: Diana McCaffrey, Kathleen Brahney, Gail Burke, Katherine Starr
EUROPE: FOCUS ON SECURITY, TRADE
European commentators expressed a broad range of opinions about the U.S. on a plethora of subjects, with a particular focus on security and trade issues. For example, with regard to the the situation in Kosovo, the U.S. was generally viewed favorably, or at least, was seen to be taking appropriate action where Europe was not. The peace accord in Northern Ireland was another matter where the U.S. was seen as having played a constructive role. Many judged that U.S. leadership was the vital element that finally pushed the peace process forward in Northern Ireland. President Clinton and his envoy, George Mitchell, were singled out repeatedly for their good offices. Meanwhile, recent NATO enlargement activities were mostly lauded by European commentators, even though some pundits bristled at the way in which the U.S. imposed its views regarding who should be included in the first round of NATO enlargement. Dailies also expressed concern about the note of discord in U.S.-European relations, which was evident during the NATO ministerial summit earlier this month. Most media objected to the U.S. vision of NATO's "new strategic concept," which prompted fears that "NATO would become a global policeman with Alliance members tagging along behind American-led foreign policy initiatives." Nevertheless, several voices advised that Europeans need to assume more of the Alliance's financial burden, warning that the U.S. "will not indefinitely bankroll the security of wealthy countries...[especially] if those countries are unwilling to adapt to new security challenges."
U.S.-European trade frictions were extensively covered in the press, with the so-called "banana dispute" being the prime focus of most writers. Some criticized the U.S. for its efforts to get the EU to change its banana imports regime--which gives preferential trade treatment to fruits from former European colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific region. Others, however, inveighed against the EU, arguing that Brussels was wrongly ignoring an earlier WTO ruling that the EU must give up its discriminatory practice. However, the broader issue of U.S. trade sanctions policy--namely the Helms-Burton Act--provoked consistently critical commentary in European media outlets, with an overwhelming majority calling on Washington to refrain from imposing its "extraterritorial" laws on other nations.
From the viewpoint of the Russian media--despite the often inward focus of Moscow's press over the last several months on that country's economic crisis and political turmoil--U.S.-Russian relations, and particularly U.S. responses to its former Cold War adversary's problems, garnered considerable attention from the Moscow press. Editorial comment from papers of all stripes--the majority from chiefly reformist and centrist, along with a smattering from official government and neo-communist--generally lamented Russia's loss of status in the world, as it shifted from the role of superpower to "a country lost in the snow, on the sidelines" of world affairs. Also evident--and growing over last few months--was an undercurrent of resentment towards the West, and particularly the U.S. and "U.S.-controlled financial institutions," for, on the one hand, imposing what many writers viewed as a flawed "liberal market-economic concept" on Russia; while, on the other, abandoning or "quarantining" Russia. Several pundits criticized the U.S. for not being more "helpful," with a very few taking an even more jaundiced view that "the Americans, far from trying to help, are out to sink [Russia]." Several editorialists agreed with a reformist daily which complained that the U.S. interest in Russia centered solely on Moscow's long-awaited ratification of the START II treaty and other nuclear disarmament issues. "Were 'the nuclear push-button to disappear," the paper surmised, Russia would cease to be a major concern for the U.S.
MIDDLE EAST AND ARAB WORLD: FOCUS ON REGIONAL SECURITY
In an identifiable shift from previous media reaction surveys, Arab and Muslim views regarding the superpower have been somewhat less critical--this in a region where the response to U.S. policies in the region has been predictably negative, with accusations that the superpower is "biased" toward Israel and that it applies a "double standard" when dealing with Arab and Islamic countries.
Arab hopes rose with President Clinton's "historic" trip to Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, which was widely interpreted as heralding U.S. support for Palestinian statehood. Washington was seen as bringing a new realism and pragmatism to its policy in the region, and editorialists gave the president high marks for his personal "determination" to reach a Middle East agreement.
Earlier this year, there was considerable Arab criticism that the U.S. lacked the resolve to deal with the region's bitter disputes--read bringing pressure to bear on principal ally Israel. But after the Wye River interim agreement this October, Arab despair turned to hope that the U.S. would indeed make the hard decisions required to achieve peace. Eventually, Arab observers concluded that the U.S. had evolved a carefully balanced strategy--displaying incremental support for Palestinian independence while not straying from traditional support for Israel--that helped to break a nearly 20-month deadlock in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. And while Arab pundits were quick to point out that some of the most contentious issues of the Wye agreement, such as the release of Palestinan prisoners, are still to be resolved, and that the Netanyahu government has threatened to hold up Israeli troop withdrawals from the West Bank, many of these writers--as well as some of their Israeli counterparts--conceded that Mr. Clinton had "helped further Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation." Israeli opinion divided along partisan lines with mainstream and liberal-leaning media welcoming and right-wing news outlets criticizing U.S. efforts to keep the Wye agreement afloat. Mainstream electronic and print media took issue with Israeli leaders, who had protested Mr. Clinton's recent visit to the region, and blamed Prime Minister Netanyahu for failing "to foresee the intensity of American-Palestinian rapprochement." Right-wing papers accused the president of using his popularity in Israel to take his message directly to Israeli citizens, thereby "driving a wedge between the Israeli government and people." Arab papers were particularly pleased with Washington's hosting of an international donors conference for the Palestinians and the near doubling of U.S. assistance to the Palestinians. The meeting was heralded as the sign of a "dramatic shift" in favor of Palestinian statehood and a more balanced aid policy in the Middle East. Nevertheless, amid the plaudits for Washington's accomplishments, some writers judged that, given domestic pressures, Washington needs the Middle East as much as the region needs Washington. Deeming that Washington's "prestige" had been "badly bruised" by the Lewinsky allegations, as well as criticism that the U.S. had previously "waffled" in the face of Saddam Hussein's recidivism over weapons inspections and had alienated Arabs with retaliatory air strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan, Arab writers judged that the Clinton administration "needed to score a Middle East success" to answer its critics at home and abroad.
Regarding Iraq, initial Arab and Muslim reaction to the latest air strikes against Baghdad has been mostly critical, condemning Washington for its "slanderous use of force," "tyrannical aggression and "disrespect" shown to the Arab world. Editorialists argued against the logic of sanctions imposed on Baghdad and judged that the U.S. is increasingly isolated on this issue. The media in the Gulf monarchies continued to blame the U.S. for the increased tensions in their region which, they said, has been disastrous for their economies. Most stressed the need for a diplomatic solution to the Iraq problem. Media in a few moderate Arab nations, however, took a different view. Some papers in Saudi Arabia, for example, held that the "Iraqi people's suffering falls on Iraqi leadership." Also, others, while initially opposed to the idea of airstrikes against an uncooperative Baghad, eventually resignedly accepted the idea that military action as one of the few ways to make clear to Saddam the seriousness of his intransigence.
Meanwhile, while protesting the U.S. "unilateral" attacks against suspected terrorist-linked sites in Afghanistan and Sudan--Washington's retaliation for bombings at its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania--commentators in moderate Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, empathized with America's plight as the prime target of the world's rogues and terrorists and urged the superpower to "coordinate" with other nations to develop a global strategy for fighting terrorism.
EAST ASIA: FOCUS ON TRADE/ FINANCE, REGIONAL SECURITY
Uppermost on the minds of a majority of Asian pundits were the financial crisis, which had its roots in the wave of devaluations of Asian currencies beginning in Thailand in the summer of 1997, events in Indonesia and the debate over human rights vs. non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, the nuclear arms race in South Asia--set off by the series of nuclear tests carried out by India and Pakistan this past May and June--and relations between the U.S. and China, which some analysts saw poised to become a superpower rival to the U.S. in the post-Cold War era.
During the early days of the Asian financial crisis, the U.S. faced a good deal of criticism in Asian editorials, which held that the world's leading economic power did not take the crisis seriously enough, and, when the U.S. did take action, it was seen as "too little, too late." Over the past nine months, however, the opprobrium once reserved for the U.S. was passed to Japan, which, in the view of the majority of Asian analysts, failed to live up to the "key role" those writers felt it should play in leading Asia out of its economic doldrums. In contrast, the U.S. was seen as "having done its part" to alleviate the crisis, through such actions as its joint intervention with Japan to prop up the yen in June. The series of high-level economic meetings hosted in Washington in early September and President Clinton's speech that month to the Council of Foreign Relations in New York were likewise seen as signs that the world's "major economy" was "ready to fight to end the crisis." This euphoria abated somewhat in editorials covering the November APEC summit in Kuala Lumpur, where President Clinton's absence was interpreted as a signal that the U.S. was "indifferent" to the organization and its free trade agenda.
The tumultuous events that have rocked Indonesia in the lead-up to and in the aftermath of the political demise of former President Soeharto, who stepped down in May after 32 years in power, and street protests in Malaysia following the sacking and arrest of former Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Anwar Ibrahim by his erstwhile mentor and ally, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad, prompted many Asian observers to debate the themes of how Western-style democracy and human rights relate to so-called "Asian values." While only a few saw the U.S. as being directly involved in bringing down President Soeharto, Washington found itself at the center of a heated debate over the Anwar Ibrahim case in Malaysia. At issue were Vice President Gore's remarks, delivered at a business dinner during the APEC summit in Kuala Lumpur, in which he supported the "brave people" of Malaysia in their calls for "reformasi" ("reform.") Mr. Gore's statements unleashed a torrent of angry editorials in Malaysia's government-influenced papers, which castigated the "raw display of U.S. gall." With the exception of the Philippine media, editorials elsewhere in the region--particularly in Singapore--used similar phrases to decry what they saw as the vice president's "insulting" behavior toward his host. Over time, however, analysts in Indonesia, the Philippines, Australia and Thailand began to voice support for Mr. Gore's stance. Notably, in Indonesia, all leading publications insisted that criticism of the vice president's statements was decidedly "off target."
East Asians viewed with "grave concern" what they perceived to be a "new" nuclear arms race set in motion on the Indian subcontinent following the series of underground nuclear tests carried out by India and Pakistan in May and June. Editorialists in all major East Asian capitals strongly condemned the tests, which they viewed as a serious threat to stability in the region and beyond. A number of analysts hastened to point out that the de facto entry of India and Pakistan into the club of declared nuclear powers was "proof" that the "major powers"--but primarily the U.S.--had lost "diplomatic clout" in the region. Yet, dailies in China, Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea opined that a "more substantive" Sino-U.S. strategic partnership could compensate for the U.S.' perceived "lack of leverage" vis-a-vis India and Pakistan. A few observers praised the efforts of Secretary Albright in convening an emergency session of the P-5 members of the UN Security Council to discuss ways of reducing tensions on the subcontinent. A larger number of pundits, however, levied charges of "hypocrisy" and
"sanctimoniousness" against the U.S. and other nuclear states for possessing such weapons, while attempting to curb their spread to "less developed" nations.
President Clinton's trip to China in late June and early July garnered substantial praise from editorialists in East Asia. The vast majority of writers expressed relief that, given the choice of "conflict or friendship" with the world's most populous nation, the U.S. had chosen the latter. Analysts judged that it was of "paramount importance" for the U.S. superpower to forge closer ties with China as a way to ensure "stability" in Asia and to guarantee that China would be a "peaceful and responsible" presence in the region. Mr. Clinton's televised debate with Chinese President Jiang Zemin and the president's interaction with students at Beijing University--which was also broadcast live--were seen as a "groundbreaking" spectacle portending a "more open" China. In Japan, however, opinionmakers spoke of the visit in more somber tones. Tokyo dailies viewed the president's "successful" visit to China through the prism of Japan's own relations with the U.S., which papers saw as being "in decline." Japanese commentators expressed apprehension that the U.S.' focus was "shifting" from Japan to China, a view that seems to have been dispelled somewhat by Mr. Clinton's visit to Tokyo in November.
SOUTH ASIA: FOCUS ON REGIONAL SECURITY
The series of nuclear tests carried out by India and by Pakistan in late May and early June unleashed a torrent of editorials throughout South Asia. In both India and Pakistan, initial euphoria over the de facto entry of the two nations into the world's "exclusive" nuclear club gave way to concerns about the economic hardships caused by the sanctions imposed by the U.S. and Japan. The press in India expressed the conviction that India's nuclear tests were "necessary" in order to "contain" what it saw as the "danger" posed by the "Sino-U.S. alliance." Indian pundits also decried the U.S.' alleged "bias" in favor of Pakistan. Meanwhile, editorial opinion in Pakistan insisted that their country "had no choice" but to proceed with its own nuclear tests following those of India. In the weeks following the tests, however, a fairly strong current of editorial opinion maintained that Pakistan's security had been lessened rather than strengthened by its demonstration of nuclear might. Some pointed out that the "experience of the U.S. and the Soviet Union" had shown that the nuclear arms race is "unwinnable and self-defeating."
Not surprisingly, President Clinton's trip to China elicited sharply divergent editorial opinion from Pakistan and India. In Pakistan, the president's China visit drew commendation as a "bold and substantive" move that could make "a landmark contribution to the evolving global power scenario." Commentary from India, however, saw the visit as forging a "de facto U.S.-China alliance" that spelled trouble for India and for the region. Some Indian commentators charged that Washington appeared to have given China "a franchise to guard Washington's interest in South Asia" and to "keep an eye on New Delhi's activities." Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan writers welcomed the "dramatic new openness" between Washington and Beijing, and voiced the opinion that that Mr. Clinton's China visit had laid the foundations for "durable peace, prosperity and cooperation" between the United States and Asia.
AFRICA: FOCUS ON ECONOMICS/TRADE, REGIONAL SECURITY
In the most upbeat, pro-U.S. commentary in the African media in years, observers lavished praise on President Clinton's "historic" swing through sub-Saharan Africa this spring. The president was described in the most laudatory terms as a friend of Africa's "renaissance" who offered "new self-esteem and assurance" to a "somewhat marginalized continent." Media observers also welcomed the administration's policy initiative that "trade, not aid" would be the foundation of a "new form of partnership" between the U.S. and the region.
The president was also credited with initiating a dialogue between Africa and the West on how best to restructure and revitalize Africa's economies. In a debate that ensued in the aftermath of the trip, independent and financial papers judged that it is the responsibility of African governments to initiate reform--deferring current consumption in favor of savings and investment, cutting budgets and bureaucracies, and supporting local entrepreneurship--in order to boost the confidence of foreign investors. However, some government-run papers countered that it is incumbent on Western investors to take the first steps to help Africa's economies.
African editorialists were particularly impressed by the president's "candor" in acknowledging that the African slave trade was "wrong" and that the Western response to the carnage in Rwanda was tardy. Many urged the U.S. to send a stronger signal to the new generation of Africa's leaders emphasizing the importance of multiparty democracy and the protection of human rights. In commentaries throughout the year on such issues as Iraq's weapons inspections and the fight against global terrorism, African pundits judged that the U.S. had overriden the authority of the UN and is weakening that institution. These writers called on the UN to adopt a more clearly defined policy and a more "formal" way of dealing with the world's rogues and terrorists.
WESTERN HEMISPHERE: FOCUS ON TRADE, ANTI-DRUG POLICIES, HUMAN RIGHTS
Trade and economic issues and anti-drug policies were the predominant themes in commentaries from Latin America, the Caribbean and Canada. As in the past, observers in Latin America continued to criticize the annual U.S. drug certification process, which evaluates the anti-drug efforts made by major drug-producing and -trafficking countries. Pundits judged it an "interventionist" and "arbitrary" policy that "does great harm to bilateral relations" in the region. Commentators repeated their complaints that, as the world's largest consumer of illegal drugs, the U.S. has no right to judge others and must first do more to curb U.S. domestic drug use. A few pundits, however, expressed somewhat greater optimism, asserting that there were signs that the U.S. was attempting to soften its approach regarding the drug certification issue. These observers viewed favorably the suggestion--made first by the U.S. and discussed at the OAS--to begin work on forming a mechanism for a multilateral evaluation system to judge member nations. They hoped that the U.S. would scrap its "unilateral" certification process in favor of the multilateral approach. On other germane issues, commentators found particularly objectionable the so-called "Operation Casablanca"--a three-year U.S. investigation culminating in the indictment last May of officials from 12 of Mexico's biggest banks who were accused of laundering drug money for the Mexican Juarex and Colombian Cali cartels. The "sting" operation prompted a big wave of critical commentary in the Mexican press, with many analysts there imputing political motives--rather than law enforcement considerations--to the U.S. operation. Some even charged that Washington was determined to force down the values of Mexican bank stocks, making it "easy for the large financial consortia of New York to acquire our banks, as they have long desired."
The two-day Summit of the Americas in April afforded commentators an opportunity to examine U.S. trade policy toward the region. President Clinton's lack of fast track authority dominated pre-summit editorials. Opinionmakers agreed with the judgment that the absence of the trade authority makes negotiation of a hemispheric trade treaty--known as the Free Trade Area of the Americas or FTAA--"impracticable." Analysts expressed concern that the sentiment in the U.S. and Congress appears to be increasingly "protectionist and isolationist." The president's continuing lack of fast track authority also prompted skepticism in the press about the U.S.' commitment to hemispheric trade liberalization. Some pundits held that, over the long haul, it will have "negative" effects on the U.S.' credibility in trade negotiations.
Meanwhile, while most analysts in the region implicitly approved of the FTAA, others emphasized their concern that countries to the south were not yet ready to compete with the giant economy to the north and counseled a careful, deliberate approach when dealing with the U.S. superpower in trade negotiations. Writers from Brazil--the major economic power in the Mercosur regional trade bloc--were particularly emphatic on this latter point.
More recently, the arrest in London of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet prompted much interest in the region. Increasingly the focus has been on the U.S. and its erstwhile role in Chile and elsewhere in Latin America during the Cold War era. Commentators declared that the Pinochet case posed a "dilemma" for Washington, with most noting that the U.S. would be loath to reopen scrutiny of its past involvement in Chile. While many observers in the region applauded the detention of the former dictator, deeming it a victory for the causes of justice and human rights, others--notably in Brazil--worried that the arrest of General Pinochet sets a dangerous precedent. They asserted that the dominant world powers--read the U.S.--would be the ones who would decide which dictators would be held accountable for their crimes, and that justice would be "arbitrary."
For more information, please contact:
U.S. Information Agency
Office of Public Liaison
Telephone: (202) 619-4355
12/18/98
# # #
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
