World opinion not favorable to Bush
Whenever the Bush camp demands that Kerry identify the “foreign leaders” who hope he will defeat Bush in November, may I suggest that Kerry merely point to recent poll results that show that much of the world is suspicious of Bush?
“Well, you can count on foreign leaders to be in touch with their constituencies,” Kerry could say, “and most of the world seems to distrust the Bush administration.”
European distrust of U.S. role sharpens
One year after the war in Iraq, European distrust of the United States has intensified, with sharp doubts among America’s closest allies of the Bush administration’s motives in the war on terror, a global opinion survey has found.
The poll of more than 7,500 people in nine countries, conducted in late February and early March by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, before the bombings in Spain, showed that anger toward America is still fierce in Muslim countries, too, 12 months after the war began.
The IHT article goes on to state that “even in Turkey, an American partner in NATO, 31 percent felt such attacks were justifiable.” That’s a shocking statement: Even among our allies, there are people who feel we deserve to be attacked.
And it’s not just the predominantly Muslim that have hard feelings, either:
Majorities in the three countries - historically Washington’s closest NATO partners - also said that as a consequence of the war they had less confidence that the United States is trustworthy. Mistrust was expressed by 82 percent in Germany, 78 percent in France and 58 percent in Britain.
And what do you suppose the reason for this is?
According to Francois Heisbourg, director of the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris, alienation is increasing in Europe “because there’s been no give on the Bush side.”
He goes on to say that “there is a widespread perception in Europe that we have the choice of being treated as a vassal…or being treated as an antagonist.”
Well, yes, that is the Bush administration’s position in a nutshell, isn’t it?
As grounds for resentment, he cited continuing American neglect of European sentiment on issues ranging from the Kyoto Protocol on the environment to the treatment of prisoners at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
These things are decried at home as well, but the Bush administration has a selective deafness that seems to appear whenever these issues are brought up.
The survey results also indicate that there has been no rebound among America’s allies of post-Sept. 11 sympathy for the United States, which dissipated in the glare of European disapproval during the build-up to war.
Quite the contrary: Majorities in France, Germany, Russia, Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan and Morocco said they thought the U.S.-led war on terrorism was not sincere.
Anyone who is paying any attention should realize that the war on terrorism is mostly a political ploy. If Bush were truly sincere about it, he wouldn’t make such a mess of it every step of the way.
European dislike of President George W. Bush, too, has not diminished. Majorities in every country surveyed expressed unfavorable views, with negative opinion of Bush in France and Germany—85 percent—higher than in Muslim countries like Pakistan and Turkey.
So, Bush wants to know who these “foreign leaders” are. Do we really need to name them? All of them?! Producing an exhaustive list could take a really long time. Why does Bush really want to know, anyway? So he can antagonize these countries even more and sink our standing with the world even further into negative territory?
The Christian Science Monitor has a good take on what needs to happen to set things right again.
Spain’s wake-up call to US - to lead, listen to global constituents
Spain’s rebuff of the ruling Popular Party on Sunday was a slap in the face to the Bush administration, and a potential setback for US plans in Iraq and the fight against terror.
...
Democracy’s influence on international relations will only increase as liberalism spreads and wealthier, better-educated peoples become more effective, aggressive advocates for their views.
...
As the Spanish backlash illustrates, alliances that rely solely on individual leaders and parties are frighteningly vulnerable, and are no substitute for acceptance of shared values and priorities across a society - something the Bush administration as failed to do virtually anywhere.
...
Instead of trying to circumvent or override the role of democratic forces, the US should change its global leadership style to harness this powerful trend.
I can think of one way to “change [America’s] global leadership style” right away: Elect John Kerry. The world will welcome any change after being so transparently used by the Bush administration.
Oh boo hoo Europe doesn’t like us. Boo hoo hoo.
Well, Boise, aside from Tony Blair and John Howard, I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone in any of the other world capitals who would be terribly disappointed if Bush went down in flames.
Well that cinches it I guess. I’m voting for John Kerry.
The fact that Bush has absolutely no sense of diplomacy is what should cinch it for you, Boise, if you are genuinely concerned about diplomatic issues.
The choices open to us at this point are simple:
<ol>
<li>Get rid of Bush and try to clean up the mess he’s made.</li>
<li>Keep Bush and alienate the rest of the world even more with his continued pushy, obnoxious, feckless attempts at dealing with the serious problem of international terrorism.</li>
</ol>
Winston Churchill said it best: “You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something.”
“Sen. Kerry speaks often about the need for international cooperation, and has vowed to usher in a “golden age of American diplomacy.” He is fond of mentioning that some countries did not support America’s actions in Iraq. Yet of the many nations that have joined our coalition—allies and friends of the United States—Sen. Kerry speaks with open contempt. Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland and more than 20 other nations have contributed and sacrificed for the freedom of the Iraqi people. Sen. Kerry calls these countries, quote, “window dressing.” They are, in his words, “a coalition of the coerced and the bribed.”
“Many questions come to mind, but the first is this: How would Sen. Kerry describe Great Britain—coerced, or bribed? Or Italy—which recently lost 19 citizens, killed by terrorists in Najaf—was Italy’s contribution just window dressing? If such dismissive terms are the vernacular of the golden age of diplomacy Sen. Kerry promises, we are left to wonder which nations would care to join any future coalition. He speaks as if only those who openly oppose America’s objectives have a chance of earning his respect. Sen. Kerry’s characterization of our good allies is ungrateful to nations that have withstood danger, hardship, and insult for standing with America in the cause of freedom.”
“withstood danger, hardship, and insult for standing with America in the cause of freedom”
Something to be considered ... if indeed they were there for the cause of freedom, but actually since they are there to clean up all those weapons of mass destruction that are hidden in every nook and cranny of that country that statement seems a bit off.
Even disregarding that, it seems fairly apparent, to me anyway, that most members of the coalition were coerced or bribed, but you may have a good point about Britain, they seem to be pretty much on board with planning the whole rape a country for profit operation, so Kerry probably should have been referring to them as co-conspirators or something along those lines.
Cheney Fan (how can anyone call themselves a Cheney fan? but let’s not go into that now) - don’t confuse the leadership of the country with the people. This is a mistake that Bush makes; he likes to turn things into a touchy-feely person-to-person relationship. The problem is that it does not take account of the actual popular culture and feeling, as Spain has so dramatically shown. If every American thought like Bush, I would have no American friends, but happily they don’t - another wide disconnect between the “leadership” and the people.
Agreed with UltraBob that the UK was in it for plunder and pillage, and Japan is involved that way to a certain extent (as a Briton, I am deeply ashamed of my nation’s involvement in this grotesque travesty of international justice). US history will not, I fear, look kindly on this administration, and world history will record it as one of the most shameful episodes in US foreign relations.
I so thoroughly enjoy such high-minded political analysis.
We live in a world, and the present administration’s mindset notwithstanding, what they think matters. If we lose friends and allies, then we start losing trade agreements, security ties and wars. Bush had absolutely no need to anger other nations like he did—it was either out of spiteful arrogance or a desire to court votes at home, and either reason would be crass. He could have even invaded Iraq, without being such a jerk, and without losing the respect of most of the people and nations on Earth. Simply put: he’s either a horrendously incompetent president when it comes to foreign affairs, or he doesn’t care (which amounts to pretty much the same thing).
The problems start when you’ve stood up for the wrong things, as Bush has.
I note that you stopped at Poland and then said “20 other nations.” Would that by any chance be because there are few other nations of note in the list? Because you would soon have to be boasting of “Palau, Lithuania, Slovenia, Albania, Rwanda, Latvia, Eritrea, and Costa Rica”? Yes, Costa Rica. A nation with no military. Bush is so desperate for support that he has to include a nation with no military forces as his ally in a war half a world away. How can that be anything but definitive window dressing?
Whereas the nations that were against the war included China, Russia, Canada, France, Germany, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Greece, India, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon—a much more impressive list before you get to countries like Costa Rica.
As for bribes, do you truly not recall the $30 billion or so ($6 billion in cash) that Bush dangled in front of Turkey, and withdrew when Turkey did not cave in? Britain did not have to be bribed because Tony Blair was there and led an unwilling country into the fight, but American bribes were indeed proferred to nations, let’s not pretend about that.
It truly amazes me how anyone can see Bush & Co. as anything but a foreign policy disaster.
“Modern Democrats are peculiar in American political history in that they actually brag about non-American support. This is a political boast the Founding Fathers and early Federalists would find puzzling if not shocking. Independence from foreign opinion and influence is one of the founding marks of America. The Federalist Papers contain chapters entitled “Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence.” John Kerry’s foreign-leaders-are-pulling-for-me talk would sound to the American founders like the beginnings of treason.”
Whereas the nations that were against the war included China, Russia, Canada, France, Germany, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Greece, India, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon—a much more impressive list before you get to countries like Costa Rica.
I’m sorry, but that is not an impressive list. China is a Communist country. Russia and Germany killed over 100,000,000 people in the 20th century. France lets other countries fight her wars. Saudi Arabia and Iran are the one-two punch of international terror. Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan… dictatorship, dictatorship, dictatorship. And you forgot North Korea. Remember they were against the war too.
Please. If you want Kerry to win, this is exactly the wrong way to go about it. Americans will be voting for their President—not the Secretary of the UN. Many voters fought in wars against the countries you name. Do you think they give two sh!ts what those countries think? Here’s a hint. No.
Ted - sorry, but that actually is an impressive list in terms of the economic clout that these powers wield. The EU, which 7% of Americans have never heard of according to a recent survey, is poised to overtake the USA as the world’s leading economic power, and China is one of America’s major suppliers. If these powers decided that America was no longer an appropriate trading partner… The list may not be so impressive in terms of the history of the individual members, but then the USA has a less-than-impressive history as well (the 2000 elections in Florida were an international scandal). No country is perfect, the USA and UK least of all.
But… Maybe it’s because many of these countries have suffered so much that they see the horror of an aggressive, unprovoked war. When was an American town last destroyed by an air raid? Or the citizens rounded up and carted off to slave labor camps by an invader?
In countries other than the USA, the opinion of other countries actually does matter. But in the USA, you may well be right - the insularity and narrow-minded nationalism of so many Americans actually makes international cooperation a dirty word.
but then the USA has a less-than-impressive history as well (the 2000 elections in Florida were an international scandal).
Thanks for making my point. I couldn’t have invented a better example of depraved moral equivalence. China liquidates 25,000,000 million of her own people in the 70’s—but you’re worried about hanging chads. Nice.
And don’t kid yourself. International cooperation isn’t high on anyone’s list. No one demanded UN approval before bombing the Serbs. And the French certainly didn’t ask the UN’s permission to send troops to Ivory Coast—troops deeply resented by Ivorians, BTW. And “international cooperation” did a whole lot of nothing in Rwanda. The French, however, chose to intervene unilaterally:
But I don’t want to discourage you. I want you to go right on making the case that Jacques Chirac should dictate American foreign policy.
And please, keep repeating that Americans are “insular” and “narrow-minded.” Voters love it when you insult them.
One final note. I’m not a lawyer, but there’s this thing called the Logan Act which goes something like:
I think Kerry’s a swell guy and I wouldn’t want to see him thrown in the clink for shooting his mouth off about meetings with unnamed foreign leaders.
At the same time, I understand the terrible pressure he must be under to convince voters that Vladimir Putin knows best. Vlad, after all, knows more than anyone that good things happen when we all work together.
And please, keep repeating that Americans are “insular” and “narrow-minded.” Voters love it when you insult them.
Sorry if the truth hurts, Ted.
Let’s not talk about hanging chads, then, let’s talk about hanging people (or electrocuting them or lethal injections, shall we?).
Do you want Kerry to win? Yes?
Then get with the program:
“Many voters fought in wars against the countries you name.”
That’s not true. Let’s take a look at this unsupported assertion, shall we?
China
No armed conflict involving the U.S. that I am aware of since the Boxer Rebellion in 1900. If you can find many 120-year-old voters who fought in this uprising, I’d be surprised. Heck, I’ll concede the whole argument if you can find even one. (Update: UltraBob reminded me that we did fight with the Chinese during the Korean war, which I had overlooked. I stand corrected on that count.)
Russia
Counting the Cold War, Ted? That was a very intense period of mounting military pressure, yes, but there was very little actual fighting going on—nothing that you could consider a direct war, anyway.
Canada
Please.
France
Again, not in the lifetime of any current voters. Plus, it’s worth pointing out that there wouldn’t be a United States if it weren’t for France, so I think we can put this one to rest.
Germany
Okay, so you score one with Germany, but so what? They’ve been an ally for a long time now. We fought against Japan, too, but you don’t see anyone being dismissive of Japan the way you are of Germany. On the contrary, Bush goes out of his way to point out Japan’s contribution, so get over WWII already—Bush clearly has.
Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Greece, India, Norway, Finland, Sweden,
Have we been at war with any of these countries, ever?
Iran, Jordan, Lebanon
Okay, so we sent troops into Iran in 1980, but that was not a war and there aren’t “many voters” who were involved.
Not to mention that the ‘list of countries’ is more relevant as a list of those Bush could sway—not to actually join the invasion of Iraq, but just to support it in name only. China may not have been with us all the way in past adventures, but the other nations on the list have, with Russia being a recent addition as an ally—and most of the nations on that list being countries that we have traditionally, and today, call allies.
Of course, that is being redefined by the Neocons and Bush: any country that is with us for the moment is an ally; and any country, no matter how long they have been allies, no matter how important they are for us otherwise, that dares opposes the every whim of Bush is suddenly a nation of whining, appeasing, terrorist-loving traitors who deserve to be ridiculed by us.
This is a disgrace to the foreign policy of the United States. It really is.
Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.