January 31, 2005
Back from Davos
I just returned from the World Economic Forum and compared to past editions this year antiamericanism was harder to track for lack of...Americans. The absence of high profile representatives from the Bush Administration was due perhaps to the fact that many of them have not yet "passed their exams" at the Congress, but it was widely interpreted by Europeans as a proof that this Administration just does not care about the US image in the rest of the world
Posted by Federico Rampini at 5:35 PM | Permalink
Posted to Pro & anti Americanism
January 13, 2005
Media Influence on 2004 U.S. Elections
American Idol, Who Wants to be a Millionaire, Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake—each of these catch phrases have in some way or form, impacted public opinion in the last few years with the advent of reality shows and constant change in pop culture. Whether it connote a positive or negative image, each American’s eyes or ears have stumbled across these poster-child faces or television programs on at least one haphazard occasion. Such facts lead us to question the powerful influence that lies in the hands of the media, and what possible effects media coverage may have on something as trivial as pop culture, to something as important as the next President of the United States. Whatever the case may be, we have all been able to make some kind of communal reference point to such images as the media, either consciously or subconsciously, accentuating the large influence the media has on the American public.
The media has long played a large role in influencing public opinion. It is not shocking that the 2004 U.S. elections were no different in its catalyst effect in swaying the public. An even deeper rooted question one must pose however, beyond the obvious effects the media has on public opinion, is precisely how the media is able to convince such large masses in either voting for or against certain engrained political party inclinations. The subtleties in molding public opinion can sometimes be so slight that those involved are not even aware of the influence enfolding.
The rally of American patriotism, first after George Bush, Sr., during the Vietnam War, and now with George W. Bush, Jr., in the ongoing Iraq War, the American public seems almost handicapped in sidestepping media coverage of presidential campaign agendas on foreign policy issues. News briefs in the New York Times and Newsweek Magazine alike cannot rid themselves of articles recounting the most horrid conditions of war for young American soldiers on the battlefields today, while CNN, Fox News, and NPR, detail the remainder of such dreary stories. Many times, the general public is unaware of the degree to which such images may effect the common viewer, resulting in an apathy that all too often distinguishes the youthful child from the desensitized parent. The great extent to which media has played a role in affecting the public has been seen time and again, not only with war coverage, but with election coverage as well. Unfortunately, the vast American public seems to act no differently in situations that seem quite pressing, such as the next Democratic or Republican President, as the media undeniably plays a large role in molding American public opinion and therefore, voter turnout in many respects.
However, it is interesting to note that reports which date back to January 2000 show that the percentage of campaign news and coverage actually fell “9% for daily newspapers, 10% for network news and 5% for news abroad.” At the same time, there was a slow climb of “4%, for cable news, the Internet and comedy TV shows,” in terms of average campaign coverage (11/13/2004: “US elections and media influence.” http://www.netlexfrance.com/weblogs/index.php?p=21407)
In attempts to make sense of such statistics, it appears as if the general public has proven to change with time, becoming more disinterested with American politics, in the thick of the ongoing election campaign. This has resulted in more regular attempts to cover election updates through other mediums by the media, particularly through comedy and late night humor.
Perhaps the American public has opted out of traditional forms of media when it comes to election coverage as it tries to find another way to make light of the present situation at hand. I find it personally disturbing to see the American public turn towards the funnies first, rather than try to understand the American politik. Though the media has always played a large role in determining the outcome of candidate information during election season, perhaps a more serious attitude towards the matter would make others abroad view the U.S. elections with less skepticism and more faith in its choices taken in determining the future of America.
Posted by Stephanie Marie Lowe at 2:37 AM | Permalink
Posted to US media looking outside
America and its adverse International Community
Concerning the recent 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, the Independent from the British Daily aptly wrote, "America has voted for Bush, and the world must live with the consequences." In reflecting upon growing international anti-American sentiment and the role America must face in the imminent future, it is this type of rhetoric that leaves many questioning the new role America will by in the 21st Century.
In Europe, faith in U.S. government is far common belief. European-U.S. relations undeniably point to a bleak future as a once “long time ally” now has become a distant threat. Rumors of European alienation, largely due to George W. Bush’s reelection has been the talk of the town, especially in France, where President Jacques Chirac has “almost always said no to Washington” with regards to France in response to American proposals concerning current foreign policy issues. Perhaps such anti-American resentment is justified however, in lieu of the radical shift of American Republican politics seems to be heading.
Though America has won over some support in the greater European areas, including Tony Blair’s Great Britain (a long standing supporter of American government), Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi, and Russia’s Vladimir Putin, much is still at stake in the eyes of the international community at large. A looming fear seems to be settling in across European borders concerning America’s newly adapted support towards a more conservative Republican Party, strongly rooted in Christian ideals, as shown in Bush’s overwhelming conservative vote.
In fact, according to the Yale Global Online, “The European Union is proud of having shed extremism, exacerbated nationalism, and religious fundamentalism: The notion of the world divided between Good and Evil is perceived with dread, and religious practice is slowly fading away. Nothing underlines the cultural gulf better than the recent European Parliament rejection of a highly religious Italian commissioner candidate. He had publicly condemned homosexuality as a sin and stated that women should stay at home and bear children. Having rejected such views in their midst, European politicians find the influence of conservative religion in American politics extremely difficult to grasp.” (“US Election and the World.” Yale Global Online. 8 November 2004.)
Issues like abortion and gay-marriage continue to raise voices in the U.S. as rejection of pro-gay marriage legislation has become the norm. For many years now however, the U.S. has been a model of modernity in the eyes of the rest of the world. Thus, the increasingly baffled expressions should not shock us when Bush’s religiosity seems more similar to Middle Eastern ties to conservatism than to anything else remotely ‘modern.’ People are shocked by America’s tenacity to “values,” as religious fervor seems a battle of the past. Nonetheless, it is happening as we speak, perhaps revealing a cyclical trend human nature tends to resort to in dealing with questions “larger than themselves.”
Prior to the election results, many saw the European public in favor of John Kerry, as The Economist, (considered a rather conservative European magazine), endorsed the Democratic candidate, along with many politicians in France.
The growing adversity in the international community at large with regards to the reelection of George W. Bush looks bleak, particularly with regards to his foreign policy measures in Iraq. Though it is difficult to gage what the future has in store for the decline of the American hegemon, perhaps this is the beginning of a greater message that Europe will play a much larger role in world politics in the coming decade.
Posted by Stephanie Marie Lowe at 2:31 AM | Permalink
Posted to Pro & anti Americanism
December 8, 2004
Anti-Americanism- an intractable problem?
When someone hurls an insult at you, your instinctive response is likely to be something like this- you get highly defensive, enraged with your seemingly unreasonable critics and then devise devious plans to get back at them. Rage or feelings of being victimized blind reason, or at least when the wounds are fresh. Then, two things can happen- one, such hostility is further perpetuated unabatedly between you and your antagonist when no attempts are made to understand the reasons for such insults or two, you cool down after your initial enragement, calmly ponder over possible elements of truth in the criticism and seek to correct your faults or the misconceptions that led to this unpleasant episode.
Unfortunately, pride and intolerance have provided fodder for the brewing anti-Americanism today. In response to the anti-American sentiments abroad, the United States has not done much to abate such sentiments, nor does it seem to be affected much by them. In a nation where humility perhaps isn’t the most widespread national trait, there is a pervasive instinct to resist, rather than to admit. It certainly does not help that Bush, post-Sept 11, declared to the rest of the world that “Either you are with us or against us.”
Continue reading "Anti-Americanism- an intractable problem?"
Posted by Shi Min Tan at 8:15 AM | Permalink
Posted to Pro & anti Americanism
The co-existence of pro-Americanism and anti-Americanism – a paradox?
As an overseas student studying in Berkeley, I make it a point to visit the online version of The Straits Times from time to time to keep myself somewhat updated on local news. This past week, I was unwittingly drawn to the local buzz about the final showdown between two contestants on the show, Singapore Idol (a local adaptation of the widely popular American Idol). At the back of my mind, also, was the nagging concern of coming up with two final pieces of longer blog entries for my journalism class on Elections 2004.
Continue reading "The co-existence of pro-Americanism and anti-Americanism – a paradox?"
Posted by Shi Min Tan at 8:04 AM | Permalink
Posted to Pro & anti Americanism
December 7, 2004
India and US
India has much to gain from its relationship with the United States. India's economy is booming thanks to outsourcing. India continues its nuclear programs and tests its weapons capabilities with little protest from American government leadership. India will also receive a visit from US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Dec. 8 to discuss defense cooperation.
Continue reading "India and US"
Posted by Ki-Min Sung at 8:30 PM | Permalink
Posted to
December 6, 2004
We Are Ugly from Overseas - American criticism
I feel like so often, we see these older, well-established journalism giants in the U.S. making all sorts of criticisms and diagnoses. However, the media entity as a whole in the United States is what has perpetrated the leniency allowed to the White House and other establishments. These establishments have a responsibility to be forthcoming, in the interest of democracy, and the press should force them to do it. The founders of this country - among them Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln - made a seemingly clear and inexorable link between the concept of "democracy," and a free press that gives the citizen clear information with which to make a decision.
So why has this country abandoned its founding principles?
With American's abandonment of the principles of its democracy, and the government allowed to run rampant on its agenda of world-domination, the U.S. has come to look quite unattractive to the countries it reluctantly shares the world with.
And Morley Safer points some fingers at the media.
He and Osborn Elliott met Sunday at the Stonington, CT community center and spoke out about what's wrong with the media. Shafer talked about what it was like for him to go to Europe and watch the Democratic and Republican National Conventions.
He said that both parties were boastful and egocentric, seeming not to know or care that the whole world was watching the broadcast of their speeches, not only Americans.
From this article in New London, CT's The Day newspaper:
Safer, who covered the Vietnam war for CBS News, said the American press has not done enough to convey the image this country has around the world. He watched the political conventions this summer from Europe and said he cringed at the “awful bravado” he heard in speeches from members of both parties.
He said the candidates seemed little aware that their conventions were broadcast around the world. By taking two minutes to acknowledge the international audience, Safer said, the candidates could have dispelled the air of superiority they emitted with their exhortation, “God bless America,” a statement that he said seemed to be code for “God bless us and screw you.”
“This country looks arrogant, foolish and scary from overseas,” said Safer, who has a weekend home in Chester.
So then, Morley, the press has some responsibility to why they "ALLOW" their politicians to make mistakes, embarass their country, inflict violence on other countries, and end up hated? Should the people who perpetrate these actions be responsible?
Is it the government not cooperating with the media, or the media not upholding their responsibility of furious questioning to get the right information to its audience?
Two Veteran Journalists Critical of Today's Media Coverage: The Day, New London, Connecticut
Continue reading "We Are Ugly from Overseas - American criticism"
Posted by Lubna Takruri at 1:54 PM | Permalink
Posted to US media looking outside
Arabs: Anti-war? Yes. Anti-Americans? Look closer
Is the reelection of George W. Bush going to feed anti-Americanism? In the Arab world, the expected anger didn’t happen. Instead, media published a critique of the American foreign policy and reasons of its failure. Meanwhile, in the streets, Arabs just observe what will happen in Iraq and in Palestine.
Continue reading "Arabs: Anti-war? Yes. Anti-Americans? Look closer"
Posted by Najla Benmbarek at 1:26 AM | Permalink
Posted to Pro & anti Americanism
December 4, 2004
"Those Damn Yankees. They Deserved it": Canadian Anti-Americanism
The protests that drew thousands in Ottawa, Quebec, Vancouver, and elsewhere, during President Bush’s visit to Canada last week, do not represent a mild sentiment that was only triggered by the election and the visit. Canadian academics and politicians, and much of the population, assert many journalists, are rabidly Anti-American. Why would they feel this way about their neighbors?
In an Oct. 2001 article, “Those Damn Yankees,” from the Canadian Macleans media observation website, Historians J. L. Granatstein and Norman Hillmer give a historical overview of the US-Canadian relationship. At the time, a Canadian professor made comments about Americans deserving the punishment of the Sept. 11th attack, and was cheered on by hundreds of audience members who were subsequently joined by a chorus of media, intellectuals, and global activists.
From invasion threats in the 1700s and 1800s, to the overwhelming imposition of the American culture and economy on Canadians, to American’s braggadocio after the century’s two world wars that America entered far after the Canadians did, the authors say that “Canadians could effortlessly view their neighbours with a baleful gaze. They were rich and crass, but also immoral and violent.”
And with that history, Canadians find all kinds of current reasons to feel that way toward the United States. Not the least of these is Bush’s foreign policy and the mess he’s created in Iraq. The protestors were also angry about the prospect of Canada's participation in a U.S. missile-defense shield.
For his part, President Bush said the visit, here on a Canadian news website, intended to mend relations with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, went well. He thanked the few Canadians “who came out to wave – with all five fingers,” and gave his belated gratitude for Canada’s help with stranded airplanes during the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
That doesn’t mean the Canadian parliament is eagerly embracing Bush. One independent-party MP, Carolyn Parrish, is notorious for her brash anti-American and anti-Bush comments. Several months ago, she called Americans “idiots” and the day after Bush’s re-election she said she was “dumbfounded” and called him “war-like.” Parrish often refuses whenever she is asked by other Parliament members to “stop embarrassing” Canada.
At the Ottawa protests, Parris stomped up and down on a Bush doll.
Parrish was on CNN’s Crossfire last week, and as the Edmonton Sun reports, scored fairly well as she faced conservative commentator and host, Tucker Carlson.
As for whether the mend in U.S-Canadian relations has been accomplished, that remains to be seen.
Posted by Lubna Takruri at 5:05 PM | Permalink
Posted to Pro & anti Americanism
December 1, 2004
Pakistan and U.S.: Mixing Religion and Politics
THINKING ALOUD: Politics, elections and God
Daily Times columnist Razi Azmi warns in the Pakistani publication about mixing religion and politics. Written before the U.S. presidential election, Azmi writes that President Bush's call to evangelical Christians creates a volatile situation. Azmi says that Bush is on a dangerous path taken by countries that are now experiencing sectarian violence.
He blames Islamisation of Pakistan as a cause of the state's civil strife and violence. He describes the threat ultra Orthodox Jews cause for peace in Israel when negotiating with Palestians. Azmi fears Prime Minster Ariel Sharon could meet the same fate as his predecessor Yitzhak Rabin, who was assasinated by an Israeli, as Sharon supports withdrawal from Gaza. Azmi also describes Hindu extremism and violence over a mosque destroyed by Hindus. Iran and Saudi Arabia are also fanning the flames of religious extremism by incorporating faith with political will.
Continue reading "Pakistan and U.S.: Mixing Religion and Politics"
Posted by Ki-Min Sung at 9:02 PM | Permalink
Posted to Religions and politics
Zero Tolerance Policy Finds New Applications
"Zero tolerance" became a catch-phrase in the last two decades for everything from drugs to school violence to child abuse. George Bush adopted the phrase after 9/11 for his own purposes and "zero tolerance for terrorism" was born. Since then, it has resonated with leaders around the world and been adopted by Israel, India and numeorus other countries battling alleged terrorists. Meanwhile, the U.S. passed the Patriot Act to put zero tolerance policies into effect, sometimes with chilling results on civil liberties.
Now Europe is confronting its own tolerance with Muslim populations, and trying to decide what zero tolerance will mean for its liberal societies and traditions. In the Netherlands, the recent murder of a Dutch filmmaker by an Islamic radical on the streets of Amersterdam has inspired some serious soul-searching in an otherwise liberal country. The questions easily spill over Dutch borders to neighboring Germany, with its large Turkish immigrant population and documented ties to several of the 9/11 hijackers.
This heightened concern in Germany is complicated by the memory of Holocost atrocities against ethnic groups, which the government, church, and population have tried to distance themselves from while preventing their recurrence.
As a result, zero tolerance has evolved a new meaning in the German press this month: "Zero Tolerance for the Enemies of Open Societies," the title of a recent editorial in the conservative weekly Die Welt am Sonntag (The World on Sunday). It goes on to call for a serious rethinking of Germany's tolerance of anti-immigrant actions by rightist radicals (translation from Davids Medienkritik):
An explosive mixture has come to exist here just as in Holland. Its ingredients are the same: sub-cultures of fanatic Islamites, fanatic right-wing extremists, and fanatic left-wing extremists. More than anything else it is the fact that a large number of young men in either society cannot see a future for themselves assures that extremism of all stripes can find numerous recruits. And our societies call that tolerance.This attitude, developed under a cloak called exemplary tolerance, is in fact a mixture of well-meaning illusion, disinterest, conflict aversion and self-hatred...
It is high time that the enlightened societies, shaped by Christianity, become aware of the great value of their culture. There is a valuable European culture to guide us. Only by confidently understanding it can we become capable of consciously exercising and defending tolerance. Minorities must also accept Europe’s canons of values. At the same time the majority must credibly fight racism and prejudice in its own ranks. That the German majority is prepared to do this can be seen in its success in marginalizing both left-wing and right-wing radical parties and politicians.
It would seem that in their fear of the "other," (today Muslims, yesterday Jews?) Germans could move into an even more rigid stance of Christianity- which may only be a byword for racial purity, a phrase with frightening historic resonance. Cloaking this battle in the rhetoric of religion and "zero tolerance" may be a dangerous development in a world where words from Bush's mouth often become policy in other countries.
Die Welt am Sonntag (Germany) - Null Toleranz für die Feinde der offenen Gesellschaft
English translation (Davids Medienkritik)
Continue reading "Zero Tolerance Policy Finds New Applications"
Posted by Lauren Hertel at 12:07 PM | Permalink
Posted to Germany
Just how separate are church and state?
In an editorial for the New Zealand Herald, Richard Randerson comments on the merging of religion and politics in both the United States and Australasia. Citing examples of the Family First Party in Australia, backed by members of the Assemblies of God, and the recently-established Destiny Party in New Zealand, with strong ties to the Destiny Church, he describes "the association of religion with the exercise of political, economic or military power [as] a risky business, yet one that is on the rise."
Randerson goes on to explain his view that it is almost impossible for a single political party to encompass the wide range of issues considered important by a particular church or religion, causing the party to ignore part of the religious group's agenda or, even worse, take "a stance in conflict with [their] religious values." The author does not directly link this idea to the recent reelection of George Bush. Randerson could be suggesting, however, that the President's popularity with religious groups may decline, despite their approval of his handling of controversial matters like abortion and civil unions, if he continues to enact policies at odds with those supporters' views on social issues such as poverty and justice.
Rihard Randerson is the assistant Anglican bishop of Auckland, New Zealand's largest city.
New Zealand Herald - Just how separate are church and state?
Continue reading "Just how separate are church and state?"
Posted by Lena Malcolm at 11:11 AM | Permalink
Posted to Religions and politics
November 25, 2004
Anti-Americanism in Germany Twists Two Ways
Despite close cultural and economic links between German and the United States, anti-Americanism and U.S. bashing run rampant in Germany. Common refrains this election season were: every American is responsible if Bush wins, Bush supporters are ignorant and short-sighted, the country is going to hell in a handbasket and American voters are too stupid and ill-informed to stop it. (For articles and commentary on the trend see the excellent blog Davids Medienkritik.)
The drum-beating actually started during the first Gulf War. I could never get through a party in Berlin in those days without at least one person challenging me on our actions. These were educated, engaged people who were outraged by what they saw as American imperialism. They wanted to vent at me about Iraq (and even Vietnam!), not discuss the problem.
It grew wearisome, so I mounted a defense. “I’m happy to talk about the Gulf War, but let’s put it in context and start with WWI and WWII, and Germany’s role in both,” I would say, and the would-be combatant usually lost interest in the conversation.
Now this unidirectional criticism has reemerged during the 2004 election, while Germans have trouble brewing in their own back yard.
In the middle of the U.S. campaign battle this fall, something startling happened in Germany. Neo-Nazi and Communist parties made big gains in September in German state elections, while mainstream parties like the SPD and CDU lost votes. Commentators claim that voters, especially disgruntled eastern Germans, are fed up with attempted welfare reforms and feel that the nation is stagnating.
A Guardian article from that week (“Neo-Nazis set sights on disillusioned Germans”) showed how anti-Americanism can be twisted to fit any agenda, even that of the neo-Nazi NPD party that gained votes:
The NPD's virulent form of anti-Americanism, which condemns the wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, enables it to draw a parallel with the bombings of Hamburg and Berlin in 1943 and 1945, commemorate the martyrdom of the German people, and connect Germany's present travails with the tragic past. It is a novel approach, but one that pays off: last August no fewer than 7,000 people gathered at the NPD's summer festival at M¿cka, near the Polish border.
Bashing the United States stems, I believe, from a very understandable facet of human nature: the need for a scapegoat. Anti-Americanism is a convenient outlet for venting feelings of frustration and anger over global political change. Since Germans can’t vote here, it is easier to criticize Americans than to take a hard look at what’s happening inside their own country. Germany and its recent growing (re?)turn to a radical right agenda seems a perfect case study of this.
Davids Medienkritik, a blog that casts a critical eye on German media put it this way in a September 19th posting:
For the past year, the German media has dedicated an enormous amount of time to covering US politics and the upcoming presidential election. At the same time, that same media has under-reported troubling political changes going on right in their own collective backyard... With all of the concern and wringing of hands going on in the German media and the nation at large about the US elections, perhaps it is the US media that should be worried about the trend towards extremism manifesting itself more strongly with each passing day in German politics. The German media would also be well advised to pay greater attention to internal political affairs and the failings of Germany's leaders. Granted, it certainly wouldn't be as profitable as bashing George W. Bush and the United States, but it might save the nation from future election embarrassments.
And these embarrassments stem, in part, from American confusion and disbelief over the victory of these parties in Germany. Although coverage of the upset was light here because of the election, Der Spiegel hit the nail on the head when they wrote on September 20th that a victory of extreme right parties would confound Americans and make them less likely to want to visit or invest in Germany in the future.
Now that the election is over, and the consequences of the political choices of both countries are at hand, I would have expected a change in tone from German media. That has not happened. Instead, the leading organizations have simply moved on to stories on Arafat’s death and the Ukrainian election upset—as if the two elections never even happened.
Posted by Lauren Hertel at 1:34 PM | Permalink
Posted to Germany
"Bush is the biggest liar in the world"
That's what 1998's Nobel literature laureate José Saramago said in Colombia on Monday.
The Portuguese writer added that when the President manifests some interest for Latin America, as he recently did, the continent should "shiver." This could apply as well to Africa added the author of a recent "Essay on lucidity" that he just presented in Bogotá.
Posted by Francis Pisani at 9:35 AM | Permalink
Posted to Europe
November 24, 2004
American Anti-Americanism
The British writer Timothy Garton Ash notes is "seriously worried by anti-Americanism in America". Traveling for two weeks after the election he has heard quite violent reactions from frustrated democrats who want to emigrate to Canada or apologize publicly to the world.
There might not be many new elements in this article for an American public, but it is significant information in Europe where people tend (only "tend") to think that if Bush was democratically elected, it means that "Americans" are behind him. To them Garton Ash writes:
"Overstated though the dichotomy is between red and blue America, it does mean that no one who is at all well informed can believe that America is Bush and Bush is America. If the west is divided, the dividing line runs slap-bang through the middle of America."
Another cause for concern is the looming battle " preserve the strict separation of church and state that the founding fathers intended." About which Garton Ash writes:
"Hands need to be joined across the sea in an old cause: the defence of the Enlightenment. We are all blue Americans now."
It might be of interest to note that this column first published in The Guardian (U.K.) on November 18th then appeared in El País (Spain) on November 21st and then in La Tribuna Hispana, a Latino site in the U.S. on the 23rd. For those who are really serious about it, there are some differences in the stories. They might be revealing.
La Tribuna Hispana (U.S.) – El 'blues' de Estados Unidos
The Guardian (U.K.) – American blues
Posted by Francis Pisani at 8:40 AM | Permalink
Posted to Europe | Pro & anti Americanism | Religions and politics
Blair copies Bush
One party accuses another of using terror's threats to gain electoral advantage.
No, this is not the G.O.P., and we are not back in the U.S. presidential campaign. The accusation is the Tories answer to the Queen's speach in which she just laid out Tony Blair's program from the coming months. Most of it is focused on security (with a promise to improve public services.)
It is not the U.S. but it is getting very close to being a campaign. Most observers expect elections to be held in the Spring of 2005.
Most important for us, this is one more example of the impact Bush's victory is having on other countries. It can be quite paradoxical. Blair is Bush's best ally, but, notes the Guardian's Newsblog, "each time he appears with the US president, his popularity ratings fall."
El País (Spain) - Blair apuesta por la seguridad ciudadana como bandera electoral
Posted by Francis Pisani at 6:54 AM | Permalink
Posted to Europe
November 23, 2004
Bush II: Rice’s challenges
Condoleezza Rice will have a hard mission: take her president out of the trap she put him into. The war time is over, now is the time for the political action. She’s not a novice in this field. She is a specialist of the cold war and maybe is it a handicap. The world changed and if the bipolarity still exists, it’s under a different form.
Nobody knows much about this brilliant professor and researcher, she’s discrete but efficient. She has a huge capital: George W. Bush’s confidence.
But now, she needs more than his confidence to solve two of the greatest conflicts in the world: in Palestine and in Iraq. This time though, it is inconceivable to resolve any problem of that size without support of other great countries, especially Russia and European countries.
The multilateral action will be Rice’s lesson.
Saudi daily, London
Asharq Al Awsat
Posted by Najla Benmbarek at 5:42 PM | Permalink
Posted to Traditional Media
King George W. Bush
Almost 60 million votes decided of the face of the world for the four next years. Despite the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite Guantanamo’s scandals, despite Europe’s disagreement, citizens chose him. George W Bush stays even if artists, journalists and actors said they were against him and even if Michael’s Moore movie attracted the highest audience ever for a documentary. These 60 million votes comforted George W. Bush in his idea that he is right. It’s not a surprise then to see him replacing the only moderate of his administration, Colin Powell, by Bush’s “iron counselor”, Condoleezza Rice. This is just a clear signal to the world that he is ready for new “battles”. In the horizon: the American “empire”.
Saudi daily based in London,
Posted by Najla Benmbarek at 5:16 PM | Permalink
Posted to Traditional Media
November 20, 2004
The U.S.: a new "country-world"
The United States is not a western country any more. It is a "country-world," a country in which the whole planet is present, in which people and values from all over the globe are creating a new civilization.
This leads to a new cultural order. Indians will replace Jews at the head of the hierarchy. Chinese will be the new bourgeoisie and displace WASPS while Latinos will substitute Irish Catholics.
The relationships with Europe will be modified. England will lose it's privileged status while Spain will work as a bridge thanks to Hispanidad.
Such is the main thesis of Alain Minc, a French banker and intellectual with a social-democrat bend. In a recent book on the coming world (Ce monde qui vient) he invites the Europeans to think of the United States in a different manner. And get used to it.
According to Minc, Bush is just a blimp in this evolution. The U.S. will keep it's leading role thanks to technology and innovation. The growing gap with Europe will be nowhere as marked as on the place of the sacred in society (death penalty, abortion, stem cell research etc.)
Trends.be - L'Amérique n'est plus un pays occidental
Posted by Francis Pisani at 7:45 AM | Permalink
Posted to Europe
November 17, 2004
US Elections and the World
On the YaleGlobal Online Magazine, are four articles on US Elections and the World, broken into four parts, each corresponding to one of the four regions- Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Africa. I thought this would be a good overview of the issues we have been talking about in this class.
US Election and the World- Part I (Europe)
US Election and the World- Part II (Middle East)
US Election and the World- Part III (Asia)
US Election and the World- Part IV (Africa)
Posted by Shi Min Tan at 3:56 AM | Permalink
Posted to
November 14, 2004
U.S. Election Impact on India
Syndicated columnist Amulya Ganguli writes in the Kerala News on Nov. 5 about what a Bush victory means for India. Ganguli writes that Bush will be more lenient than Kerry on India's nuclear ambitions and the outsourcing of jobs. However, Bush will also likely continue a softer stance on Pakistan's violent struggle with India over Kashmir because Pakistan is a strong U.S. ally in the war on terror.
Ganguli writes that Bush and Kerry's position on terrorism fuels more anti-Americanism and Islamic terrorism. Perrenial Muslim-Hindu clashes in India are likley to continue.
Pros and cons of the Bush victory for India (COMMENTARY)
Continue reading "U.S. Election Impact on India"
Posted by Ki-Min Sung at 9:21 PM | Permalink
Posted to Asia
November 10, 2004
The World Votes For John Kerry
"If the rest of the world could vote in the U.S. Presidential election, John Kerry would win in a landslide." This is the outcome of an online poll conducted by The World Votes, an organization that wanted to "urge the U.S. voters to keep the rest of the world in mind when casting their vote[s]". Almost 10,000 people participated in the survey.
John Kerry won the mock election convincingly, receiving 81.6% of the vote. Incumbent George Bush was only favored by 6.2% of respondents, just edging independent candidate Ralph Nader, with 5.3%. The poll also asked who was more likely to actually win the November 2 election. 57.1% of participants thought that John Kerry would be elected, and 42.3% thought that Bush would be chosen to serve a second term.
Additionally, 43.5% of respondents thought that U.S. voters "would consider foreign policy as a major issue when casting their vote", and an overwhelming 91.4% considered the election to be an international event.
The World Votes - The World Votes For John Kerry
Continue reading "The World Votes For John Kerry"
Posted by Lena Malcolm at 2:46 PM | Permalink
Posted to
Enthusiasm on Wall Street after the election may not last
New York correspondent of Xinhua News Agency summarized the main influence of the election on Wall Street on Nov.9.
Wall Street cheered after Bush's victory, as the economic policy in the next term should favor the investor. Tax reduction is at the core of Bush's program, and his Social security reform should widen the role of the stock market in allocating pension savings. Reducing the burden of financing Social security for the enterprises would stimulate them to create more employment. Moreover, many companies will benefit from the orders related to national defence.
However, according to the article, some economists are pessimistic about the performance of the economy in the long run. Two key indicators are the increase of employment and profit margins of companies. The likelihood that the second Bush administration will drive them higher is small.
By most measures, the Federal Reserve is less than halfway through a course of gradually "normalizing" short-term interest rates.
Posted by at 1:22 PM | Permalink
Posted to China
November 9, 2004
World leaders react
As an overview of diplomatic responses to President George W. Bush's reelection, this article includes reactions from more than a dozen world leaders.
Many are predictable: Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert wanted to "congratulate the American people for their choice", while Hamas' Sami Abu Zuhri "urge[d] the new American administration to reconsider its positions."
Most respondents spoke of cooperation and the desire to "build bridges": French President Jacques Chirac, highly critical of recent U.S. foreign policy, discussed "our joint fight against terrorism" and Spain's Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero "expressed his wish to work with Bush."
Reuters - Bush Wins - World Leaders React
Continue reading "World leaders react"
Posted by Lena Malcolm at 1:07 PM | Permalink
Posted to Governments' reactions | Traditional Media
Good for Colombia's president, and so strange
On November 3rd, the main Bogota's daily shows it's pleasure after Bush's victory. For Colombia, it means "the continuity of a policy that has been good for the country." It is good in terms of military aid and in the negotiation of a Free Trade Agreement.
El Tiempo's publisher's brother is the Vice President of Colombia, but the paper's position reflects that of many business communitie in Latin America.
The cultural reaction is often very different. In an Op-ed piece published a few days later, an intelectual sees, tongue in cheek, the hand of God in the results. How could you explain otherwise that so many poor and Latinos voted for the incumbent president?
God is alive, and if Faulkner could travel in his country again, he would discover that Yoknapatawpha valley now extends from the Rio Grande to Alaska. What a revenge for the south.
El Tiempo (Colombia) - Bush: triunfo sin manchas
El Tiempo - Diós metió la mano
Continue reading "Good for Colombia's president, and so strange"
Posted by Francis Pisani at 1:05 PM | Permalink
Posted to Latin America