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
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
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
Bush Wins - World Leaders React
04/11/2004 10:07 AM
Reuters
A divided world is coming to terms with the prospect of four more years of US President George W Bush, with friends hailing his re-election and critics vowing to make the best of it, especially in Iraq.
Allies like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi saw Bush's victory as bolstering the US-declared "war on terror". But some disenchanted Europeans urged him to heal transatlantic rifts.
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, whose outspoken opposition to war in Iraq angered Washington but helped him win re-election in 2002, sought common ground with Bush.
"I will continue the good and close cooperation that we have. This is in the interests of the United States as well as those of Germany and Europe," said Schroeder on Wednesday.
French President Jacques Chirac, another fierce critic of the Iraq war, congratulated Bush and spoke of "our joint fight against terrorism".
Many Arabs forecast further bloodshed in the Middle East because of what they saw as Bush's misguided policies, but elsewhere politicians and commentators said continuity in the White House had its merits.
Bush supporters abroad focused on what they saw as the president's more resolute anti-terror line three years after the September 11 attacks.
In dramatic proof of the changes in Moscow in the past 20 years, Putin said victory for Bush meant the United States had not allowed itself to be cowed by terrorists.
"I can only feel joy that the American people did not allow itself to be intimidated, and made the most sensible decision," he told a Kremlin news conference.
Berlusconi, also in Moscow, said: "Bush will continue with the policy that assigns the United States the role of defender and promoter of freedom and democracy".
In Poland, which like Italy has troops in Iraq backing US forces, President Aleksander Kwasniewski said that on terrorism Bush "is a very decisive leader who is right, simply right" and that continued cooperation with him was "really good news".
Spain's Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq after his surprise March election win following Madrid attacks claimed by a group linked to al Qaeda, expressed his wish to work with Bush.
Build Bridges
The US election was watched intently around the world with issues of deep international interest, including the Iraq conflict and the state of the US economy, dominating the race.
The European Union said it looked forward to strengthening ties with the United States.
Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik spoke for several countries when he said: "I hope that (Bush) will try to build bridges ... and do more to cooperate via international organisations."
Both sides in the Middle East conflict congratulated Bush.
Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat said in Paris, where he is undergoing medical tests, that he hoped Bush's second term would lead to Middle East peace and "guarantee the just national rights of the Palestinian people," an aide said.
Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, whose country enjoys strong support from the world's only superpower, said: "We congratulate the American people for their choice."
But with the exception of Israelis and some Iranians, Middle Eastern peoples reacted with resigned disappointment.
Khaled Maeena, editor of Saudi newspaper Arab News, said: "Four more years means (Bush) will be relentless in fighting so-called terrorism. More innocent people will be victims ... All the Saudis I've seen so far are disappointed."
Sami Abu Zuhri, of the Palestinian group Hamas which is fighting Israel, said: "We urge the new American administration to reconsider its positions.
"Until they (do so) we will continue to regard the US administration as hostile to our Arab and Muslim causes."
Analysts said Bush would need to restore goodwill eroded by US opposition to worldwide issues such as the Kyoto pact to fight global warming - a top issue for his ally Prime Minister Tony Blair - and the International Criminal Court.
"(Kyoto is) not an easy issue for Bush to shift on. He may be prepared to make some cosmetic, face-saving shifts to try and help Blair, but I can't see him making a fundamental shift of position," said British politics professor Wyn Grant.
Posted by Lena Malcolm at 1:07 PM
New Zealand leader expects more of the same
New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark struck a very conciliatory tone when commenting on the reelection of President Bush in an interview for a national talkback radio station. Clark expressed her wishes to continue the "good relationship" that the New Zealand government has established with the Bush administration, and her expectations that their interactions would be "business as usual". She also compared Bush's reelection to that of Australian Prime Minister John Howard, commenting that "voters responded to strong leadership".
Keith Locke, foreign affairs spokesman for the minority Green Party (the party controls only 9 of 120 parliamentary seats), took a much more aggressive stance when asked about Bush's win. He wants to make it clear to the rest of the world that New Zealand is not supportive of the U.S. administration's recent foreign policy decisions and encouraged New Zealand to "take a lead, in the United Nations and elsewhere, to help curb the worst excesses of the White House."
New Zealand Press Association - Bush win won't change things in NZ - Clark
Bush win won't change things in NZ - Clark
THURSDAY , 04 NOVEMBER 2004
Prime Minister Helen Clark says George W Bush's victory in the United States presidential election means business as usual for New Zealand.
Miss Clark said she was sending a letter of congratulations to President Bush.
She was looking forward to congratulating him in person at the APEC leaders' summit in Santiago, Chile, later this month.
"I look forward to the New Zealand Government continuing its good relationship with President Bush and his administration," Miss Clark said.
"We know the Bush administration well, I know the president relatively well, I get on with him well. Our key ministers know their ministers well and we will get on with the good relationship we have developed," Miss Clark told NewstalkZB.
"Our countries work together on a range of issues and I expect it will now be business as usual."
After a long night of counting the votes it was clear Mr Bush had been given a clear mandate to govern the US for another four years.
"It is a very clear result. You can't argue with a three and a half million to four million votes ahead, and given that George Bush polled that well on the popular vote it would have been a travesty if the electoral college hadn't delivered that result."
Miss Clark said both the US result and the recent victory of John Howard in Australia showed that voters responded to strong leadership.
"Where you have a strong leader and that strong leader communicates conviction about what they are doing and the economy is moving up...it's hard for a challenger to beat," Miss Clark said.
Green foreign affairs spokesman Keith Locke said the Government should stand up to Mr Bush more often in his second term than it did in his first.
"America has voted and the rest of the world now has to live with their choice," Mr Locke said.
"After four years of illegal aggression, contempt for international conventions and abuse of human rights we can't allow Bush to continue setting the agenda.
"We can take a lead, in the United Nations and elsewhere, to help curb the worst excesses of the White House.
"The rest of the world must be left in no doubt that we, unlike Howard's Australia, aren't just another of George Bush's 'South Pacific deputies'."
Posted by Lena Malcolm at 12:39 PM
A different world
Bush's victory is bad news for Europe writes Le Monde's publisher, the very same person who, the day after 9/11 wrote "We are all Americans."
Europe hoped for a more multilateral approach to the world problems, but will have to live with continuity. It is an illusion to think that George Bush will change. He is a man of certitudes and he is convinced that his institutions are good and might be inspired by God, writes Jean-Marie Colombani.
This is not a reason to complain about the Hyperpower. It is perceived as such only because Europe does not or cannot make itself be heard. And adopting antiamericanism as a policy would certainly be a mistake.
The US are a different world, made of archaisms and an incredible dynamism. The XXIst century will not be built on the European model, it will merge economic freedom and moral surveillance, writes Le Monde's publisher.
Bush's reelection might have positive effects if it is received as an electrochoc.
Le Monde (France) - Un monde à part
L'éditorial de Jean-Marie Colombani
Un monde à part
LE MONDE | 04.11.04
C'est peu de dire que la réélection de George Bush est une mauvaise nouvelle. Pour l'Europe comme, sans doute, pour le reste du monde. Si l'une et l'autre avaient été amenés à se prononcer, ils auraient plé-biscité John Kerry, au nom d'une Amérique ouverte et "multilatérale"; traditionnelle, en quelque sorte ; en tout cas à nos yeux.
Mais passés la déception et le moment d'incrédulité - comment peut-on, après tout, expliquer cette victoire d'un homme qui a pêle-mêle entraîné son pays dans une guerre déclenchée au nom d'un mensonge (les armes de destruction massive), suivie d'une après-guerre chaotique, au moyen de la création d'un déficit abyssal, détruisant au passage un million d'emplois, etc. ? -, passé également le constat que ce pays est encore dans un état de vengeance après le choc du 11-Septembre, d'autant plus présent qu'il a été ravivé par Ben Laden lui-même au seuil du scrutin, nous, les Européens, sommes triplement sollicités. Nous ne pouvons, en effet, plus nous permettre ni illusions, ni excuses, ni échappatoire.
L'illusion serait de croire que Bush II pourrait, réalisme oblige, ressembler à la promesse d'une présidence Kerry. Certes, empêtré en Irak, on imagine mal George Bush se lancer dans une nouvelle aventure militaire. On l'a même entendu, à peine réélu, promettre que les militaires américains rentreraient d'Irak mission accomplie. Mais les quatre années écoulées à la Maison Blanche ne laissent pas présager un éventuel recentrage de sa part. Homme de certitudes, inapte au doute comme à l'autocritique, convaincu que ses intuitions sont les bonnes, et qu'elles peuvent lui être inspirées par Dieu, George W. n'a donné aucun signe de vouloir changer ou s'amender.
Tout laisse penser, en revanche, qu'il sera tenté de voir dans son succès à un scrutin qui avait pris l'allure d'un référendum sur sa personne une légitimation de la manière dont il mène sa guerre contre le terrorisme.
On voit donc mal comment son large succès populaire, tout comme celui que les républicains ont, grâce à lui, remporté au Congrès, ne le renforcerait pas dans quelques-unes de ses idées-forces : la bataille contre le Mal - le terrorisme - requiert des remèdes simples ; elle rend caduc le rôle des alliances traditionnelles ; elle autorise à malmener l'architecture internationale ; elle exonère les Etats-Unis du droit commun des nations ; elle sollicite plus que de raison des amis aussi peu recommandables que Vladimir Poutine ; elle permet d'être moins attentif, à l'intérieur comme à l'extérieur, au respect des droits de l'homme ; elle suppose enfin, et surtout, de privilégier la force sur le containment ("endiguement"), le militaire sur le politique.
L'horizon international est, d'une certaine façon, plus clair, même s'il est chargé d'épais nuages. L'Europe sait à quoi s'en tenir avec un homme qui a plus tendance à la mépriser qu'à la craindre, et qui en tout cas continuera à chercher à la diviser.
Les Européens n'ont donc pas d'excuses. Ils gagneraient à cesser de geindre dès qu'il s'agit des faits et gestes de "l'hyperpuissance" américaine ; ils devraient aussi se garder - tentation désormais aveuglante - de faire de l'antiaméricanisme leur idéologie. Car l'hyperpuissance n'est perçue comme telle qu'en écho à l'impuissance de l'Europe. L'unilatéralisme américain n'a libre cours que parce que l'allié européen ne sait ou ne veut pas se faire entendre. Nombre de crises - à commencer par celle du Proche-Orient - ne trouveront de solution durable que par un consensus et par une action commune américano-européenne.
Mais il ne peut y avoir de partenariat entre entités si inégales. Non que l'Europe ait à se doter d'un budget de défense aussi gargantuesque que celui dont bénéficie le Pentagone. Mais, tant qu'il faudra aux Européens l'appui militaire américain pour intimider une puissance aussi médiocre que le fut la Serbie de Milosevic, tant qu'ils considéreront la moindre augmentation du budget militaire comme une régression sociale, rien ne changera.
Pour être crédibles lorsqu'on veut, à bon droit, comme le proclamait Dominique de Villepin à la tribune des Nations unies, réglementer l'usage de la force, il faut pouvoir en disposer.
Enfin, nous n'avons plus d'échappatoire, car nous ne pouvons plus croire à des retrouvailles transatlantiques, faites de consultations et d'appréciations partagées entre gens d'un même univers. Même si l'Amérique des frontières - celles du Nord-Est et de l'Ouest - a montré par son vote démocrate sa proximité avec le Vieux Continent, le c?ur de l'Amérique - celle qui, du nord au sud, occupe tout l'espace central -, ce c?ur de l'Amérique de Bush est bel et bien un monde à part.
De ce point de vue, le vote du 2 novembre n'est pas principalement le résultat d'une surexploitation par les républicains des attentats du 11 septembre 2001. "Le vote de la peur est déjà là", confiait avant la campagne électorale celui que George Bush a désigné comme son stratège, Karl Rove ; pour expliquer qu'il ferait campagne sur les "valeurs".
Ce vote, donc, traduit et confirme une dérive plus profonde de l'Amérique, un éloignement grandissant de l'Europe. Quand celle-ci organise en son sein des abandons de souveraineté, celle-là se dote d'une doctrine stratégique de l'hégémonie, visant à empêcher l'émergence de tout concurrent militaire. Quand les Européens soulignent l'urgence, au Proche-Orient ou dans le Caucase, d'un traitement singulier des conflits qui déstabilisent le monde, les Américains déclarent "la guerre" à un ennemi indéfini, le terrorisme, comme une nouvelle catégorie du Mal. Quand les Européens rechignent, à raison, à se prévaloir dans leur Constitution de leurs origines judéo-chrétiennes, les Américains placent la religion au c?ur de leur débat politique.
Mais ce monde à part tire sa force d'un incroyable dynamisme, dont le principal ressort est cette phénoménale capacité à intégrer des vagues successives d'immigrés, principalement d'origine hispanique et asiatique (Chine et Inde mêlées). Depuis les années Reagan, l'Amérique se nourrit d'un flux ininterrompu d'immigrés, dont près de 600 000 sont naturalisés chaque année. Quand l'Europe, qui vieillit, ne songe qu'à fermer ses frontières, incapable de se doter d'une politique commune d'immigration.
Ce monde à part est à la fois archaïque, avec une survivance d'industries qui fonctionnent à l'ancienne (dans la sidérurgie ou dans l'automobile) et sur lesquelles Kerry s'est trop exclusivement appuyé, et très en avance, avec un secteur high-tech dominant, une recherche-développement et des universités au-dessus de tous les autres pays, un secteur financier au service de la nouvelle croissance. Ce modèle fonctionne à crédit : c'est le reste du monde - notamment la Chine, le Japon et l'Europe - qui donne aux Etats-Unis les moyens d'être "à part". Et bientôt d'utiliser le dollar contre l'euro. Mais où donc sont passés les leaders européens, s'il en existe encore ? Et, à cette aune-là, qui pourrait comprendre en Europe un "non" français à ce minimum vital qu'est la Constitution européenne ?
La réélection de George Bush achève de nous convaincre que le début du XXIe siècle est bien différent de celui dont nous avions pu rêver après le 9 novembre 1989 et la chute du Mur. Le monde ne se construit pas sur le modèle européen. Il peut en surgir un autre qui mêlera liberté économique et surveillance morale. Pour qu'il ne soit pas un jour le nôtre, qu'au moins le vote américain nous soit un électrochoc.
? ARTICLE PARU DANS L'EDITION DU 05.11.04
Posted by Francis Pisani at 12:27 PM
November 5, 2004
Arabs between disappointment and hope
Arabs committed a huge strategic mistake when they showed clear support to John Kerry. Now that Georges W. Bush is the president for four more years, they have to live with it. They started, via their newspapers, by wishing peace in the Middle-East and a calm situation in Iraq. If they hope it, they don’t really believe it. “We just hope President Bush will execute what he suggested himself: the creation of two independents states, Palestine and Israel, living in peace”, said Samir Ragab, executive director of Egyptian weekly Al Gomhouria. Ragab refers to the promise President Bush made a year ago, that he describes to day as “unrealistic”.
For Egyptian media, George Bush should “acknowledge his previous mistakes first”,
Saudi daily Al Hayat doesn’t believe Bush’s politics will become smoother, now that his party dominates the Senate and the Congress. “Nothing will change, especially not the Iraqi issue”, says the Saudi daily, predicting a crisis with Europe.
Analysts in Arab countries agree that these elections prove that half the Americans approve preventive war, uncomfortable with the feeling of insecurity they have since September 11. As for Arabs, their big fear is to see the US targeting Iran, Syria and Lebanon and why not Egypt.
“Americans judge security more important than economy”, says analyst Imad Omar, who adds that America has become the country of fear after being the country of dreams.
Posted by Najla Benmbarek at 10:56 PM
November 3, 2004
Setback for immigrants in Arizona
Arizona's proposition 200 (a rough equivalent of infamous California's prop. 187) is meant to prevent undocumented migrants to benefit from public services. It has been passed, and is cause for concern on both side of the border.
Mexican Foreign Affairs ministry published a communiqué that states:
Similar concerned is echoed in La Opinión, the Los Angeles Latino daily. Under the title "Setback for immigrants in Arizona," the newspaper special envoys cites Latino organizations concerns> They fear that similar measures might be adopted by other states.
Oponents of Proposition 200 will challenge in court. They hope it will run the same fate that 187 which was declared unconstitutional.
La Opinión (Los Ángeles, CA) - Revés para inmigrantes en Arizona
Posted by Francis Pisani at 11:09 AM
Argentina: government, markets and people
"It would be a lie to say that things went bad for us in our relations with Bush," declared the Argentinian Secretary of the Interior quoted by Clarín from Buenos Aires.
Another story informs on the positive reactions of the markets.
A third article retracing the first Bush presidency describes him as a neo-conservative with a mystic discourse and a bellicose mind.
Governments are cautious, markets are happy and people are bewildered. In a very short space on the home page of this Argentinian daily, one can get a pretty good view of common feelings outside the U.S.
Clarín (Argentina - Aníbal Fernández: “Sería mentiroso decir que con Bush nos fue mal”
Clarín (Argentina) - Los mercados reaccionan positivamente
Clarín (Argentina) - Un neoconservador de discurso místico y de espíritu belicista
Posted by Francis Pisani at 10:37 AM
From Mexico: a victory for fanatism
A Bush victory "would mean that ignorance and fanatism have created deep roots in the country of democracy and enlightened political institutions" writes the columnist Eugenio Anguiano in Mexico's El Universal.
Anguiano who is a professor and an ex-diplomant, wrote is piece before knowing the result. He nevertheless sensed the outcome that he deemed as dangerous because George W. Bush "has increased the risks that affect peace and security in the world due to the fundamentalism with which he acts."
El Universal (México) - Comicios en la Unión Americana
Comicios en la Unión Americana
Eugenio Anguiano
El Universal
Miércoles 03 de noviembre de 2004
A menos que haya ocurrido otro desastre en el sistema electoral de EU como el de hace cuatro años, a la hora en que circule este número de EL UNIVERSAL ya se sabrá si el presidente George W. Bush logró su reelección o si su principal contendiente, el senador John Kerry lo desplazará de la Casa Blanca para el periodo 20052008. Al escribir estas líneas apenas están abriéndose las casillas en la Unión Americana, de manera que estoy lejos de conocer resultados, aun preliminares, y la referencia que tengo, proveniente de diversas encuestas, es que habrá sido una contienda muy apretada pues el electorado estadounidense está dividido como nunca.
Comparto con otros mexicanos la idea de que los resultados finales de los comicios de hoy Día de los Fieles Difuntos en el país vecino del norte son particularmente importantes para nuestro propio destino, no sólo por la interdependencia existente entre EU y México sino por la posibilidad de que se ratifique a un gobernante estadounidense cuyas acciones internacionales han incrementado los riesgos para la paz y seguridad del mundo debido al fundamentalismo con el que actúa al combatir el fenómeno del terrorismo, al cual, en vez de debilitarlo o destruirlo, lo hace crecer con sus acciones escasamente razonadas.
¿Por qué fundamentalismo? George W. Bush se precia de ser confiable en tanto que con él cualquiera sabe dónde está parado: la derecha extrema a la que por mero eufemismo hoy se le llama "neoconservadurismo". Pero no se trata sólo de un político conservador o derechista sino de alguien "comprometido con la Iglesia cristiana" (Russell Baker, NYBR, 4/11/2004), la que le permitió escapar de una anodina existencia de alcohólico y lo hizo poseedor de la verdad fundamental.
Nadie tiene por qué dudar de la justeza de sus acciones unilaterales para castigar a los malos y conjurar los peligros porque eso equivaldría a ir contra EU, que es, sin duda alguna para Bush, el pueblo preferido de Dios. Desde luego que los encargados de escribir los discursos del presidente se han cuidado de evitar referencias a los "herejes musulmanes" o cosas similares al estilo de los mensajes de Osama bin Laden ("resistir las fuerzas de los cruzados y occidentales", etcétera), pero la retórica de Bush, con la que presume ser hombre de una sola palabra y advierte que prevalecerá sobre las "fuerzas del mal", no puede sino ocultar a un fanático (quizá sería peor que se tratara de un demagogo sin escrúpulos).
En cuanto a los efectos contraproducentes de su lucha contra el terrorismo, baste ver cómo surgió en Irak un movimiento de resistencia a la ocupación extranjera. Cada día sale más información sobre las dificultades que encaran las tropas estadounidenses y británicas para acabar de "liberar" a los iraquíes, de los cuales se calcula han muerto unos 100 mil desde que cayó Saddam Hussein, más de la mitad de ellos mujeres y niños. En palabras del profesor Ronald Dworkin: "La incompetente guerra en Irak del gobierno (de EU) no es sólo inmoral porque ha matado a miles sin ningún propósito legítimo sino también escalofriantemente contraproducente porque ha convencido a gran parte del mundo de que la ideología estadounidense, no los terroristas, es la más grave amenaza para la paz" (ibídem).
Esto último parece confirmarse con las opiniones mayoritariamente en contra de Bush que prevalecen en Europa, África, Asia, América Latina y el Caribe. Al mismo tiempo, hay indicios de que el fundamentalismo de Bush se extiende a un número enorme de estadounidenses, aquellos que habrán votado por él y le han aplaudido sus desplantes de arrogancia y desprecio a la opinión de quienes discrepan en lo referente a la supremacía política y moral que se adjudica para su país. Eso podría explicar ojalá la posición de Kerry de convalidar la idea de la guerra preventiva, que según Gore Vidal va contra la tradición de cualquier nación civilizada y del ethos estadounidense, y sus promesas de que combatirá y matará a los terroristas. Si no lo hablara así perdería votos por parecer blando y dispuesto a aceptar que otras naciones, aun amigas y aliadas de EU "veten sus acciones" (retórica de Bush).
Si casi la mitad de los que finalmente votaron lo hicieron por Bush o peor aún, si la mayoría lo reelige (mejor dicho, lo elige, porque la vez pasada ganó gracias a deficiencias de la ley), significará que la ignorancia y el fanatismo han echado extensas raíces en el país de la democracia y las instituciones políticas avanzadas. Cierto que en EU siempre ha habido un alto grado de abstencionismo político-electoral, pero en momentos cruciales los pensantes y actuantes en política han hecho avanzar a esa nación y ojalá que otra vez ocurra eso y gane Kerry. Esto no quiere decir que espero mucho del senador, o del Partido Demócrata, en beneficio de los mexicanos indocumentados que se encuentran en EU, o de otros intereses nacionales, pero otro periodo de Bush sería terrible.
Profesor e investigador de El Colegio de México.
Posted by Francis Pisani at 10:21 AM
European heads of States have something to talk about
European heads of States will gather in Bruxells on November 4th. They will discuss the issues raised by the ratification of the new Constitution, and strategies they should implement to remain in the economic and technological competition in front of the U.S. and the emergent Asian powers. They will have lunch with Iraki Prime Minister Iyad Allaoui.
The most important topic, though, is not on the agenda, reminds Le Monde. Governments have been very careful not to take side clearly during the U.S. campaign, but they cannot ignore that a significant majority of Europeans favored Kerry, and that Bush won.
It seems, according to this French daily, that the wounds created by the divisions because of the war in Irak have significantly healed, and that European heads of Sate feel the need to define common strategies.
Bush's victory might test that very soon.
Le Monde - L'issue du scrutin va peser sur les discussions du sommet européen de Bruxelles
L'issue du scrutin va peser sur les discussions du sommet européen de Bruxelles
LE MONDE | 03.11.04 | 14h47
Même s'il ne figure officiellement dans aucun ordre du jour, le résultat des élections américaines pèsera sur le sommet des chefs d'Etat et de gouvernement de l'Union européenne, qui s'ouvre jeudi 4 novembre à Bruxelles et s'achèvera par un déjeuner avec le premier ministre irakien, Iyad Allaoui. Les gouvernements se sont bien gardés dans les 25 capitales de l'Union de faire l'étalage de leurs préférences avant le scrutin, mais la place que lui ont consacrée ces dernières semaines l'ensemble des médias européens témoigne de l'attente que le choc Bush-Kerry a suscité.
L'Europe continue d'avoir devant elle de formidables défis : elle doit ratifier la Constitution que ses dirigeants viennent de signer vendredi dernier, le 29 octobre, à Rome, et qui, si elle entre en vigueur, dotera les Vingt-Cinq de nouveaux outils pour poursuivre leur intégration. Elle doit réussir le nouvel élargissement historique qui a été réalisé le 1er mai : l'entrée de dix nouveaux Etats, qui porte les frontières de l'Union jusqu'à la Russie, donne une nouvelle dimension continentale à l'Union, mais va demander pour longtemps encore de gros efforts de tous, compte tenu des disparités économiques et des vécus politiques différents de part et d'autre de l'ancien rideau de fer, qui a coupé l'Europe en deux pendant cinquante ans.
La cassure que la politique américaine en Irak, sous la présidence de George W. Bush, a provoquée dans cette nouvelle Europe émergente, est en train petit à petit de se cicatriser. Les Européens réalisent tous les jours à quel point le terrorisme, le Proche-Orient, l'Irak, mais aussi à leur porte la stabilisation des Balkans, les obligent à développer des politiques communes. Mais cet épisode montre aussi à quel point l'Europe est liée à sa relation transatlantique et à l'influence que celle-ci continue d'avoir sur sa propre évolution.
"C'est une nouvelle étape qui commence à un moment très important pour le monde", a estimé mercredi matin 3 novembre le ministre français des affaires étrangères, Michel Barnier, invité sur RTL à commenter l'impact de cette élection américaine alors qu'on attendait le résultat final du dépouillement. "L'Europe est en train d'atteindre sa maturité institutionnelle. Les relations entre l'Union européenne et la fédération des Etats-Unis sont à un moment-clé", a-t-il dit, en insistant sur l'importance de rétablir la confiance des Américains dans le projet européen "parce que les Américains ne peuvent pas imaginer de construire, de diriger, d'animer le monde tout seuls".
L'ordre du jour du sommet européen, jeudi, prévoyait, outre l'Irak, une discussion sur la relance de la "stratégie de Lisbonne", c'est- à-dire sur les mesures à mettre en œuvre pour réussir le pari de donner à l'Europe les moyens de ne pas perdre pied face aux Etats-Unis et aux puissances émergentes d'Asie sur le plan économique et technologique. Vendredi, les chefs d'Etat se pencheront sur les moyens à mettre en œuvre pour parvenir à la ratification de la nouvelle Constitution qui va donner lieu, dans plus d'une dizaine de pays, à des référendums souvent difficiles. Sur toutes ces questions, l'issue de l'élection américaine aura aussi son influence.
Henri de Bresson
• ARTICLE PARU DANS L'EDITION DU 04.11.04
Posted by Francis Pisani at 9:53 AM
October 22, 2004
CORRECTION: World poll sample larger
My earlier posting about the ICM/Guardian poll was premature and in error, as a closer look at the Guardian's methodology has shown. In fact, between 522 (Israel) and 1,417 (Australia) people were interviewed in each country, not 1,008 altogether as I wrote. I am including the entire methodology below.
Nevertheless, I believe the way the end of the original Guardian article was written was misleading in its phrasing. It goes from talking about statistics from polls around the world to writing how many people were surveyed in Great Britain, without making the switch clear.
As a result, the poll article has been reproduced all over the world, often with the addition of non-British statistics after the original final sentence. This only increases the confusion for readers, and I believe is a result of the unclear writing in the first place.
Still, my apologies for not digging deeper.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/viewsofamerica/story/0,15221,1327548,00.html
How the world views America: survey methodology
Friday October 15, 2004
La Presse (Canada)
Pollster: CROP
Telephone interviews from September 16 to October 4 2004
Sample: 1,000
Margin of error: 3%
Le Monde (France)
Pollster: Sofres
Telephone interviews on September 28 and 29 2004
Sample: 1,000
Margin of error: 3%
Guardian (United Kingdom)
Pollster: ICM Research Ltd
Telephone interviews on September 22 and 23 2004
Sample: 1,008
Margin of error: 3%
El País (Spain)
Pollster: Instituto Opina
Telephone interviews on October 1 2004
Sample: 800
Margin of error: 3,5%
Asahi Shimbun (Japan)
Pollster: Asahi Shimbun
Telephone interviews on October 2 and 3 2004
Sample: 1,000
Margin of error: 3%
JoongAng Ilbo (South Korea)
Pollster: Joong Ang Ilbo
Telephone interviews on October 4 and 5 2004
Sample: 1,028
Margin of error: 3,1%
Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne Age (Australia)
Pollster: AC Nielsen
Telephone interviews from September 21 to September 23 2004
Sample: 1,417
Margin of error: 2,6%
Reforma (Mexico)
Pollster: Reforma Department of Survey Research
Telephone interviews on September 25 2004
Sample: 850
Margin of error: 3,4%
Ha'aretz (Israel)
Pollster: Dialog
Telephone interviews on September 22 and 23 2004
Sample: 522
Margin of error: 4,38%
Moscow News (Russia)
Pollster: MN-Media Service
Telephone interviews from September 3 to September 10 2004
Sample: 1,050
Margin of error: 3%
Posted by Lauren Hertel at 9:29 PM
October 16, 2004
Saudis Blame U.S. for Rise of Terror... um, excuse me?
Every once in a while, an article comes along that makes me think, "Huh?"
The New York Times published just such a piece last week, trying to explain why Saudis feel justified in blaming the United States and its role in Iraq for the rise in terror in the region. My first reaction was: didn't 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers come from there, not to mention bin Laden, not to mention all the attention Bush's cozy relationship with the royal family has been getting?
Apparently, Saudis consider this all supremely unimportant.
Instead Saudis unceasingly complain about American support for Israel and the war in Iraq, which they call unjustified, though Saudi Arabia allowed American troops to operate here during the war. Government officials also say they deplore the Bush administration's call for more democracy here. "It's none of their business," one of them said with scorn.
This is such a different take on U.S.-Saudi relations than we normally get from our media that I had to reread the article to catch the major points. This is a wake-up call for Americans who think we understand the Middle East.
The New York Times, October 14, 2004
Saudis Blame U.S. and Its Role in Iraq for Rise of Terror
By JOEL BRINKLEY
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, Oct. 13 - Seventeen months into a shadowy terror campaign that has killed more than 100 people, numerous Saudis express less anger at the insurgents than at the United States for its invasion of Iraq, the signal event that they say touched off the attacks inside the kingdom.
In interviews over the last week, the Saudis condemned the terror attacks, aimed primarily at foreigners, but called them a small inconvenience that has not forced them to make significant changes in their daily lives. By contrast, they expressed unremitting disdain for the United States.
Many Saudis appear to have reached a form of intellectual accommodation with those carrying out the violence. When asked about the attackers' goals, they assigned varied motives but often one that is consistent with their personal, social or political concerns.
The interviews were with nearly two dozen Saudis, from a bejeweled prince of the royal court, sipping coffee at a cafe, to a truck driver wearing a frayed caftan, clutching a bag of onions at a local supermarket.
"The attackers want the government to give more money to the people," said the truck driver, Jaber al-Malky, 24. But Prince Mubarak al-Shafi said, "This certain sect of people is unhappy about alien ideas, particularly about the democracy that the United States wants from nations all over the world, especially Saudi Arabia."
Behind all this lies an ever more complex Saudi-American relationship. Its foundation, of course, is the shared need to buy and sell oil. But the fact that 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi has become an issue in the presidential campaign, as has the accusation that the Bushes are too close to the royal family.
No one here seems to care about any of that. Instead Saudis unceasingly complain about American support for Israel and the war in Iraq, which they call unjustified, though Saudi Arabia allowed American troops to operate here during the war. Government officials also say they deplore the Bush administration's call for more democracy here. "It's none of their business," one of them said with scorn.
Saudi Arabia's leaders offer conflicting opinions on the local terrorists' motives. Within hours of each other on Sunday, the Saudi interior minister and a half brother of King Fahd offered polar analyses.
"Unemployment creates one of the cornerstones of terrorism, and the poor who cannot get food on their table resort to other means," the king's half brother, Prince Talal bin Abdul Aziz, said at a conference in Amman, Jordan. In Kuwait, Prince Nayef bin Abdel Aziz, the interior minister, told reporters he doubted that unemployment was the reason for the attacks here, according to an account in the Arab News daily. The prince, Arab News added, noted that many arrested suspects were well-paid employees.
Saudi Arabia has a long history with terrorism, beginning when Islamic militants seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca in 1979. After that, the attacks came years apart and never became a consistent part of the fabric of life here, until May 13, 2003, when 25 people died in three coordinated suicide attacks on residential compounds here. That started a terror campaign that continues. That first attack and many that followed were attributed to Al Qaeda.
Gen. Mansour al-Turki, the Interior Ministry spokesman, said the Iraq war had spawned the attacks and added that most Saudis held that view.
Many of the attackers came back to Saudi Arabia after fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan, he said, drawing on interviews with arrested terrorists. "They were angry that their dream," a fundamentalist Islamic state, "had been killed by America," General al-Turki said. "They wanted to spread their war against the United States and found that doing this was easier in their own country. But it wasn't until the invasion of Iraq that they could convince others in the country to share their goals. For that reason, the invasion was very important to them."
Now, the general added, "I think we are a step ahead of them."
Saker M. al-Mokayyad, a director at the Naif Arab University for Security Services, said, "The situation is stable now." But the attacks continue, at least on a smaller scale. On Sept. 26, a French engineer, Laurent Barbot, was shot dead on the street in Jidda. Ten days earlier a British resident, Edward Muirhead-Smith, was fatally shot in Riyadh. A Saudi wing of Al Qaeda claimed responsibility.
Even with the continuing casualties, representatives of American communities say they have adjusted to the new reality of living here. Foreign complexes now lie behind heavy barricades, and residents try to avoid walking in public places. Most foreign workers have sent their families back home. Foreigners warily do their shopping and errands early in the day "because mornings are safer," said Gene W. Heck, head of the American Businessmen's Group in Riyadh.
Meanwhile, "business is going on anyway," said David Cantrell, an American business leader in Dhahran.
Saudis say that they do not like the continuing violence, but that it has changed their lives very little.
"The situation is not normal, but nothing is different now for me," said Ayman al-Ghamdi, 27, the manager of a marble business. Capt. Awab al-Hamiai of the National Guard said simply: "Our lives have not changed at all."
The Saudis interviewed were in complete agreement in their views of the United States and the role the Iraq war played in spawning the insurgency.
The first attacks in May 2003 came just as the major combat was ending in Iraq, "and that is when it really hit home here, with all the images of collateral damage," said Khaled al-Maeena, editor in chief of Arab News. "How could America be so oblivious to our feelings?"
Saudis certainly had no love for Saddam Hussein, but "why couldn't they topple Saddam and install a new government without destroying the country?" Prince Mubarak asked.
The Saudis said they see the attacks here as revenge against foreigners and against the Saudi government for failing to stop the Iraq war.
"The war in Iraq was absolutely not justified," said Saad al-Qahtni, 34, a businessman.
That led to attacks here because the Saudi government "did not prevent America from invading Iraq without justification," said Fareed Saad al-Asmari, a banker.
Those were common refrains. The attackers have seldom explained themselves. But when insurgents beheaded an American engineer, Paul M. Johnson Jr., in June, they said it was in revenge for "what thousands of Muslims taste every day because of the fire from the American Apache" helicopter.
Saudis have long held animosity toward the United States for its support of Israel. That and the invasion of Iraq "makes most people here hate the United States," said Captain al-Hamiai.
And at the same time, for decades it has been a rite of passage for wealthy Saudis to send their children to the United States for college.
"We are grateful to the United States; most of us were educated there," said Prince al-Shafi. He and others said Saudis are picking other countries for their children now because of their anger, and because of the immigration obstacles they believe they and other Arabs face traveling to the United States since 9/11.
As a result, foreigners living here say they the country is turning ever more inward.
"This was always an introspective society, but now I think it is turning xenophobic," said Mr. Heck, who has lived here for 34 years. "And I think the government likes that."
Still, despite the new attitudes, strong Western influences remain ingrained.
Mr. Qahtni, the businessman, railed about "the alien influences" that he said he believed were damaging Saudi society. He was seated at a Starbucks, sipping a tall cappuccino.
Posted by Lauren Hertel at 6:56 PM
Poll of world damns Bush, spreads like wildfire
The Guardian yesterday released a poll conducted by ten of the world’s leading newspapers, revealing that voters in 8 out of 10 countries prefer Kerry to Bush. While the results are certainly not surprising, the methodology used to make such a damning statement was highly suspect... and completely ignored by the media.
ICM research, which conducted the poll for the Guardian, noted at the end of the article:
ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,008 adults aged 18 and over by telephone between September 22-23 2004. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults.
This means that 100 people per country were interviewed—not exactly a large or representative sample.
Despite this, the Guardian felt comfortable making statements such as:
"Sixty per cent of British voters say they don't like Bush, rising to a startling 77% among those under 25." Exactly how many voters under 25 were interviewed in a random sampling-- and how startling would that increase be if the difference is only a few people?
To make matters worse, the results were picked up in the last 24 hours by at least two organizations, the Sydney Morning Herald and Germany’s Der Spiegel. Presumably, the major papers who helped conduct the poll (Le Monde, Reforma, El Pais, etc.) will use it as well in coming days.
Is this an objective use of valid data, or is it an international example of reinforcing preconceived notions?
Poll reveals world anger at Bush
Eight out of 10 countries favour Kerry for president
Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Friday October 15, 2004
The Guardian
George Bush has squandered a wealth of sympathy around the world towards America since September 11 with public opinion in 10 leading countries - including some of its closest allies - growing more hostile to the United States while he has been in office.
According to a survey, voters in eight out of the 10 countries, including Britain, want to see the Democrat challenger, John Kerry, defeat President Bush in next month's US presidential election.
The poll, conducted by 10 of the world's leading newspapers, including France's Le Monde, Japan's Asahi Shimbun, Canada's La Presse, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Guardian, also shows that on balance world opinion does not believe that the war in Iraq has made a positive contribution to the fight against terror.
The results show that in Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Japan, Spain and South Korea a majority of voters share a rejection of the Iraq invasion, contempt for the Bush administration, a growing hostility to the US and a not-too-strong endorsement of Mr Kerry. But they all make a clear distinction between this kind of anti-Americanism and expressing a dislike of American people. On average 68% of those polled say they have a favourable opinion of Americans.
The 10-country poll suggests that rarely has an American administration faced such isolation and lack of public support amongst its closest allies.
The only exceptions to this trend are the Israelis - who back Bush 2-1 over Kerry and see the US as their security umbrella - and the Russians who, despite their traditional anti-Americanism, recorded unexpectedly favourable attitudes towards the US in the survey conducted in the immediate aftermath of the Beslan tragedy.
The UK results of the poll conducted by ICM research for the Guardian reveal a growing disillusionment with the US amongst the British public, fuelled by a strong personal antipathy towards Mr Bush.
The ICM survey shows that if the British had a vote in the US presidential elections on November 2 they would vote 50% for Kerry and only 22% for Bush.
Sixty per cent of British voters say they don't like Bush, rising to a startling 77% among those under 25.
The rejection of Mr Bush is strongest in France where 72% say they would back Mr Kerry but it is also very strong in traditionally very pro-American South Korea, where fears of a pre-emptive US strike against North Korea have translated into 68% support for Mr Kerry.
In Britain the growth in anti-Americanism is not so marked as in France, Japan, Canada, South Korea or Spain where more than 60% say their view of the United States has deteriorated since September 11. But a sizeable and emerging minority - 45% - of British voters say their image of the US has got worse in the past three years and only 15% say it has improved.
There is a widespread agreement that America will remain the world's largest economic power.
This is underlined by the 73% of British voters who say that the US now wields an excessive influence on international affairs, a situation that 67% see as continuing for the foreseeable future.
A majority in Britain also believe that US democracy is no longer a model for others.
But perhaps a more startling finding from the Guardian/ICM poll is that a majority of British voters - 51% - say that they believe that American culture is threatening our own culture.
This is a fear shared by the Canadians, Mexicans and South Koreans, but it is more usually associated with the French than the British. Perhaps the endless television reruns of Friends and the Simpsons are beginning to take their toll.
· ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,008 adults aged 18 and over by telephone between September 22-23 2004. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults.
Posted by Lauren Hertel at 6:10 PM
October 13, 2004
NZ: US election polarises, Aussie race confuses
A poll conducted by New Zealand's National Business Review found that New Zealanders favored John Kerry over George Bush in the US presidential race, but were still more likely to vote for "George Bush's lapdog", Prime Minister John Howard, instead of challenger Mark Latham in the Australian general election. Asked if they would be likely to vote for George Bush, John Kerry, neither or if they were unsure, 59% of respondents supported John Kerry. Only 26% of those surveyed backed George Bush. When asked who they would prefer to win the upcoming Australian election, incumbent John Howard received 37% of the votes to Mark Latham's 31%.
Another confusing statistic centered on the high number of undecided votes, especially when those surveyed were questioned about the Australian election. Although only 10% of the New Zealanders surveyed were unsure who they would vote for in the US presidential race almost 14,000km away, 27% didn't know who they would choose "just next door in Australia".
Francis Till, an American NBR correspondent, tried to explain the inconsistencies as a result of the media attention given to the foreign elections. He said that "it's the media that undoubtedly drives New Zealanders' view of US and Aussie politics". Using the example of Mark Latham's poor showing in the survey, Till explained that "few Kiwis watch Australian news, and they get their news about Latham filtered through New Zealand mainstream media, where he's not had much coverage or often been portayed as a bit of a flake."
The National Business Review (New Zealand) - Poll comment: US election polarises, Aussie race confuses
Poll comment: US election polarises, Aussie race confuses
Nick Bryant
It just doesn't seem to fit.
If John Howard is George Bush's lapdog, and the country collectively loathes Bush, as the latest NBR-Phillips Fox poll suggests, then why do more of us reckon we'd vote for Howard than Mark Latham in next weekend's Australian general election?
Another question, which I suspect shows the masses' ability to be swayed by the skilful issues presentation of giant media organisations, is why a relatively small number of people -- 10% -- are unsure how they would vote in an election being held 13,894km away, but 27% of us haven't a clue who we'd vote for just next door in Australia.
In helping answer these questions, NBR correspondent and resident American, Francis Till, reckons the Kiwi political compass is out of whack when it comes to assessing where politicians stand beyond our shores.
"After being a lifelong liberal in America I was shocked to discover that meant I was slightly to the right of Richard Prebble in terms of the New Zealand political spectrum.
"Massachusetts Democrats like John Kerry are the most liberal in the country and that may have fooled some Kiwis into thinking that liberal will translate meaningfully into the New Zealand realm. It won't.
"Kerry has been more liberal than I was but the presidency automatically moves politicians to the centre -- and even at his most liberal, he would be miles to the right of Helen Clark. For more context, parties like the Greens in America are the lunatic fringe, by way of reckoning that yardstick out, and Don Brash is a liberal by both economic and social criteria."
As for a majority favouring John Howard, and a high undecided vote in Australia's upcoming election, Mr Till reckoned there was a strong media link to the results.
"When it comes to Australia, I suspect that the polling glitch reflects how few Kiwis watch Australian news, despite Sky's market penetration. They get their news about Latham filtered through New Zealand mainstream media, where he's not had much coverage or often been portrayed as a bit of a flake."
Certainly the US poll result ties nicely into a fascinating article in the Financial Times Weekend by Tom Bentley and Paul Miller on the global decline of political party membership and the emergence of government by celebrity politicians.
"Throughout the world," they argue, "wealth, leisure and the media seem to be conspiring against political involvement."
It's the media that undoubtedly drives New Zealanders' view of US and Aussie politics, and in the case of the US, it's big media polarising the issues.
"The upcoming polls in Australia, the US and the UK (expected next year) will increasingly be media events rather than party political. Staged for the media, with leading politicians made household names and faces by television, newspaper and radio coverage, and with the more 'boring' themes largely unreported, these are political shows rather than policy showcases."
Mr Till says such media presentation puts the US president on a collision course with many New Zealanders.
"The state of Texas takes a very hard rap in this country. Anyone from Texas is seen as being ridiculously over the top. So there's a hauteur working against Bush -- he's no buffoon, but one glimpse of him using a chainsaw on his ranch and a collective cloud of rue emits from the Kiwi bench."
The National Business Review- Phillips Fox poll
The UMR Research omnibus is a telephone survey of a nationally representative sample of 750 New Zealanders aged 18 or older. Fieldwork was conducted from September 9-13 at UMR Research's national interview facility in Auckland. The margin of error for a 50% figure at the "95% confidence level" is ±3.6%. If there are any inquiries about this poll, please contact UMR Research on 0-4-473 1061 (phone), 0-4-472 3501 (fax) or umr@umr.co.nz (email).
1-Oct-2004
Posted by Lena Malcolm at 11:47 PM
October 12, 2004
Seeing through international eyes, an overview
Today the New York Times attempted an ambitious overview of Bush's foreign policy as seen from the eyes of leaders around the world. A lot of rhetoric has been spouted and ink been spilled on these issues by both sides, but this article lays it out, region by region, issue by issue, conflict by conflict. The result is an excellent primer for Americans about how the rest of the world understands this election, for once without the spin doctors.
October 12, 2004
THE BUSH RECORD
Challenging Rest of the World With a New Order
By ROGER COHEN, DAVID E. SANGER and STEVEN R. WEISMAN
Jorge Castañeda, Mexico's former foreign minister, has two distinct images of George W. Bush: the charmer intent on reinventing Mexican-American ties and the chastiser impatient with Mexico as the promise of a new relationship soured.
The change came with the Sept. 11 attacks. "My sense is that Bush lost and never regained the gift he had shown for making you feel at ease," said Mr. Castañeda, who left office last year. "He became aloof, brusque, and on occasion abrasive."
The brusqueness had a clear message: the United States is at war, it needs everybody's support and that support is not negotiable. Mexico's hesitant stance at the United Nations on the war in Iraq became a source of tension. Yet Mr. Castañeda said, "I was never asked, 'What is it you need in order to be more cooperative with us? What can we do to help?' "
It is a characterization of Mr. Bush's foreign policy style often heard around the world: bullying, unreceptive, brazen. The result, critics of this administration contend, has been a disastrous loss of international support, damage to American credibility, the sullying of America's image and a devastating war that has already taken more than 1,000 American lives. In the first presidential debate, Senator John Kerry argued that only with a change of presidents could the damage be undone.
Mr. Bush had a sharp rebuttal, just as his advisers have long told a different story. In their narrative, Mr. Bush's presidency has been an era of historic change, of new alliances bravely embraced, critical relationships solidified, rapid adaptation to a mortal threat and, above all, a bold undertaking to advance freedom in the Middle East through Iraq.
That was the best way, they argue, to confront the terrorist threat to the United States. Along the way, they say, Mr. Bush has used the North Korea crisis to deepen an American relationship with China, steered Pakistan and India away from the brink of nuclear war, and nurtured a relationship with Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian president, even after scrapping the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
"The charge is, 'You guys are unilateralists and it's a strategy of pre-emption,' " Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said in an interview. "I just don't think it's true, but it gets repeated often enough that it starts to take on the aura of truth."
The Nov. 2 election will see if Mr. Bush's approach to foreign policy - replete with images of courage and endurance, of moral certitudes and of generational struggle to defeat a new enemy while transforming an entire region - has proved persuasive to most Americans. It has clearly divided America's friends.
Some are enthused. "Relations between Japan and America have never been better than with Bush," said Hatsuhisa Takashima, the foreign ministry spokesman in Tokyo, where spines have been stiffened by the North Korean threat and Mr. Bush's blunt approach to terrorism. "We have more than 500 troops in Iraq because we believe the American-British action prodded Libya to disarm, sent a strong message to North Korea and showed the price of noncompliance with United Nations resolutions. Failure in Iraq is unthinkable."
But as things stand, failure, with its potentially dire consequences for American world leadership, cannot be ruled out. Mr. Bush has proved to be a gambler in foreign affairs. Revolutions can bring big rewards. They can also deliver disaster.
New Attitude, New Allies
The story of the Bush foreign policy is one of startling change: from the promise of a "humble" approach in 2000 through the "dead or alive" search for the elusive Osama bin Laden to the articulation of a bold, pro-active doctrine summed up last month by Mr. Bush, when he told the United Nations:
"Our security is not merely founded in spheres of influence or some balance of power; the security of our world is found in advancing the rights of mankind."
In other words, less emphasis on containment - the policy of slow-squeeze that defeated communism - and more on the contagion of liberty installed, at least in Iraq, by force of arms. This is stirring stuff that resonates in Eastern Europe, where the wounds of oppression are still felt, as well as with Ayad Allawi, the interim prime minister of Iraq, and many of his compatriots. But it is also the stuff of upheaval, and a policy on which the NATO alliance, long a cornerstone of American security, has been unable to agree.
"We have been worried by the absence of debate, the presentation of faits accomplis," said Javier Solana, a former NATO secretary-general and now the European Union's chief foreign affairs official.
In effect, a new spectrum of relations with Washington has emerged. At one end are estranged allies like France and Germany, angered by the war, convinced it is a losing struggle, alarmed by America's use of overwhelming power.
In the muddy middle are nations like Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, important allies whose leaders are sometimes supportive, but where many people believe Mr. Bush has ignited a war against Islam. Their reliability is uncertain.
It has not helped that the Mideast peace process has stalled and that Mr. Bush has appeared less engaged in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute than his recent predecessors.
At the other end are nations, including Poland, Italy, Britain and Japan, that have made the choice to fall in line with Mr. Bush after Sept. 11. Others, including Russia, China and Israel, have embraced the war on terror for reasons of their own.
These divisions get little airing when Mr. Bush campaigns for a second term. The rhetoric at his rallies is of an America unbowed and unrestrained. The day after the first presidential debate Mr. Bush said Mr. Kerry would subject decisions on national security to vetoes "by countries like France.'' The U.N. is often derided at Republican events.
This sort of talk may bring partisan crowds to their feet, but it makes the world uneasy.
"If you want to get a cheap cheer from certain quarters in America, it seems that all you have to do is bash the U.N., or the French or the very idea that allies are entitled to have their own opinions," Chris Patten, the commissioner for external relations for the European Union, said last month. "Multilateralists, we are told, want to outsource American foreign and security policy to a bunch of garlic-chewing, cheese-eating wimps."
And so the cheese-eaters ask: What would a second Bush administration look like?
Have Sept. 11 and the bitter diplomatic clashes of the past three years so changed Mr. Bush's mental map of American alliances that every nation will be measured chiefly by whether it embraces his strategy against terrorism, and sign on to the small, reluctant coalition in Iraq?
Some see small signs since the ouster of Saddam Hussein that this may not be the case. Even in western Europe, the caricature of Mr. Bush as a gunslinger has faded a bit, replaced by a more complex picture of a man who, as Wolfgang Ischinger, the German ambassador to Washington put it, "is less outlandish in his practice than his rhetoric." After all, the ambassador noted, "We have some real live diplomacy with North Korea."
In an interview in late August, Mr. Bush waved off the accusation that he had damaged alliances.
"Wait a minute, a lot of people agreed with Iraq," Mr. Bush said. "There was a diplomatic process" at the U.N., he said, "that I think the world thought was the right thing to do."
But he was unapologetic about short-circuiting that process to invade Iraq. "It became clear to me that we were never going to get a second resolution out of the United Nations," he said. He realized, he added, that it was time "for an American president to set an agenda, make it clear, not change, not get blown around because of political winds."
That, he promised, is how he will operate if re-elected next month.
A World Alienated
While many nations have criticized Mr. Bush for walking away from certain international institutions and treaties, it is doubtful that any American president would have embraced an International Criminal Court that could put American peacekeepers on trial. Even Mr. Kerry says the Kyoto protocol on global warming that Mr. Bush rejected should be renegotiated. Certainly, any American president would have used force to respond to the attacks on New York and Washington.
But the complaint often heard around the world is that from the outset the Bush administration's dismissive attitude set a pattern of take-it-or-leave-it policies that needlessly alienated friends. The Iraq war accelerated that process. Then, the acknowledgment that there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and no proven links between Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda cemented the view in Paris, Berlin and elsewhere that Mr. Bush governed from ideology first, facts second.
"The United States had to react strongly to Sept. 11, a fact often forgotten in Europe," said Alexandre Adler, a French foreign policy expert generally sympathetic to America. "But Bush has given the image of a warmonger without subtleties and the result is no president since Nixon, and perhaps not even then, has been so unpopular here."
There is little question that if Europe were voting on Nov. 2, Mr. Bush would lose by a landslide. But Europe, of course, is not the world, a point driven home by Condoleezza Rice, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, who listed several ways she thought the president had improved relations with foreign leaders.
"The best relationship that any administration has had with Russia," she said in an interview. "The best relationship that any administration has had with China. An outstanding relationship with India at the same time that you have a very good relationship with Pakistan. The expansion of NATO into the Baltics without destroying the U.S. relationship with Russia."
China and India, of course, account for more than a third of humanity, a point Ms. Rice underscored as she urged the administration's critics to think hard about who is complaining about alienation and who is not.
But the complaints are often vociferous. "The Bush administration started with a belief that in the past 500 years or more, no greater gap had ever existed between the No. 1 and No. 2 power in the world," said Norman Ornstein, a foreign policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute. "Given this American domination, they believed, especially after 9/11, that it was enough to express the American national interest firmly and everyone would accommodate themselves."
They did not. While there was an outpouring of sympathy for the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks, by the end of 2002 the sympathy had vanished. When Mr. Bush arrived this summer in Ireland, he was spirited off to a castle, miles from anyone. Protests marked Mr. Bush's most recent visit to Britain, home of his most steadfast ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair. Even Mr. Blair had to apologize for the intelligence about unconventional weapons in Iraq, something Mr. Bush has resisted.
Anti-Americanism has become a winning European platform. In the most recent Spanish and German elections, opposing Mr. Bush's policies proved central to both the upset victory of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and the re-election of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, respectively.
But recently, Mr. Bush has been buoyed by the overwhelming re-election of a steadfast ally, Prime Minister John Howard of Australia. For the past few days, Mr. Bush has crisscrossed Minnesota, Iowa, and Colorado celebrating Afghanistan's first free election.
Still, anti-American hostility in the Islamic world is widespread. Last year, Mr. Powell asked Edward P. Djerejian, an experienced diplomat, to travel the world to examine the failures of American public diplomacy in the Arab and Muslim worlds.
Mr. Djerejian returned shocked at the picture of America he saw on Arab television and the absence of any effective American rebuttal. "We did not have anywhere near enough people in place with the right language skills or the right sensitivities to respond," he said.
Mr. Djerejian still believes the outcome in Iraq could be positive, but he added that a chronically unstable Iraq would "set back the key goals we said we were trying to achieve on the Arab-Israeli front, on energy security and certainly on democratizing the region."
His investigation came before the photographs of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq emerged. "The photographs shattered our reputation as the world's most admired champion of freedom and justice," said Philip Gordon of the Brookings Institution. "That is grave, because without the world's trust, America cannot flourish."
So three years after Sept. 11, Mr. Bush leads a United States whose image has been tarnished, while Europeans, Asians and Latin Americans still feel far less threatened by terrorism than Americans do.
The president speaks of the threat almost daily, but leaders elsewhere do not. In Europe, terrorism is not new and so seems less menacing; in Asia, the rapid growth of China and India continues to fuel an optimism that dispels, or at least diminishes, the dark clouds from the Middle East; in Latin America, trade and economic issues seem at least as important as Al Qaeda. The shared perception of a common threat that was the cornerstone of America's cold war alliances is gone.
"This America that speaks constantly of war and designates an enemy is not really accepted here," said Nicole Bacharan, a French analyst. "Europeans have a deep desire not to feel threatened. It is sad to observe this divorce in our world views."
In Spite of Rifts, Advances
Mr. Bush is aware of the divide, and in recent months has tried to bridge it. In Istanbul in June at a NATO summit meeting where Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and terrorism were on the agenda, he dispensed with his prepared speech in favor of a direct and emotional appeal.
An American diplomat in attendance said that Mr. Bush "spoke strongly, seemed a real leader'' and pressed his case that "whatever past differences, we all have a stake in the success of an independent Iraq."
But the next day, President Jacques Chirac of France shot back that NATO would never go into Iraq. "I don't believe it's NATO's job to intervene in Iraq," he said. Mr. Bush was angry, aides say, but pushed on. This summer NATO sent a 40-person team to Baghdad and recently, after long wrangling between the United States and France, agreed to increase the team to about 300 people to train Iraqi officers.
Ms. Rice and Mr. Powell say such missions prove that any tensions with France are overblown. "The relationship's fine," Ms. Rice said, citing the French role in Kosovo and Afghanistan. Relations with France are always "better in practice than they are in theory," she added.
Perhaps, but Mr. Chirac and Mr. Bush are no closer in world views than they ever were. The French president said recently that he sought a multilateral world in which the United Nations set the laws by which all nations abide - code words for limiting American power. Mr. Bush flatly rejects this view.
Ms. Rice insisted that Iraq had not thrust all other issues to the back burner.
"You have the most comprehensive policy toward Africa that any administration has had, including trade rights and AIDS and intervention with American forces to help solve the Liberia situation,'' she said. "You have China on the front lines against the North Korean nuclear program."
Her voice began to rise. "You want me to keep going?" she asked.
Certainly, Mr. Bush can cite the democratic opening in Afghanistan and Libya's move to abandon its nuclear weapons program as achievements. An Indian-Pakistani dialogue has begun, in part because of Mr. Powell's intervention last year.
At campaign stops, Mr. Bush often mentions the six-party talks with North Korea - involving China, Russia, South Korea and Japan - as an example of his diplomatic style.
"The difference between Iraq and North Korea, for example, is 11 years," Mr. Bush said in his interview. "Diplomacy failed for 11 years in Iraq. And this new diplomatic effort is barely a year old."
But the North Korean talks have also been an example of what happens when international diplomacy gets bogged down between hawks in the Pentagon and the vice president's office, and those in the State Department urging engagement. Not until it was clear that North Korea was probably manufacturing new weapons did Mr. Bush intervene.
"I give credit to Secretary Powell, who has been a lone voice of sanity on this issue, for creating the six-party talks, which now have the possibility of a potential solution," said Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who was engaged in negotiating efforts as a member of the Clinton administration and is an active supporter of Mr. Kerry. "But we should have engaged bilaterally with North Korea sooner."
Elsewhere, the record seems mixed. In Africa, Mr. Bush followed Mr. Powell's lead to describe events in Sudan as "genocide." The United States is still working with African, Arab and European nations to make Sudan accept a large force of African peacekeeping troops to stabilize the western region of Darfur.
Pakistan's continued help against Al Qaeda appears solid, but Islamabad pardoned Abdul Qadeer Khan, the nuclear scientist who had smuggled nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran. Mr. Bush uttered not a word of criticism, even after Pakistan refused to allow the United States to interrogate him.
A Question of Consultation
It often appears to his allies that Mr. Bush offers only a veneer of consultation. To deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Bush administration has embraced the "quartet" - the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations - to work on reciprocal steps by Israel and the Palestinians leading to a Palestinian state.
But Europeans, including Prime Minister Blair of Britain, remain frustrated by what they say has been Mr. Bush's failure to become actively engaged in pressing Israel to freeze the growth of settlements and to ease conditions for Palestinians living in the West Bank.
While some European states - though not France - have come around to the administration's view demanding that Yasir Arafat must step aside as the Palestinian leader, they say they are dismayed that Mr. Bush has listened to conservatives in the White House and the Pentagon on Israel policy rather than the State Department, which has always advocated more conciliatory steps.
"When Madeleine Albright spoke, you knew she spoke for the Clinton administration," said Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister. "Nowadays you never quite know."
As a result, European states no longer know how to structure their relationship with the United States. They wonder if there is enough stability in "coalitions of the willing" - Mr. Bush's favorite phrase to describe the nations that have joined the United States in Iraq.
Indeed, Iraq, many European officials say, was a costly distraction from fighting terrorism. They argue that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, whose images feed extremism across the Arab world, has been neglected. Iran, a more real and imminent threat than Iraq, and a source of further European-American division, was ignored for too long.
The resulting splits - those between Europe and America and those between the Arab world and America - are clear. What remains uncertain is whether Mr. Bush's policies will let terrorists exploit those divisions or whether his determination will crush them.
Posted by Lauren Hertel at 7:43 PM
October 5, 2004
From Mexico: "You scare us"
"The problem [with the United Sates] lies in foreign policy," writes Carlos Fuentes, a great Mexican and Latin American writer who expresses himself perfectly well in English. In a column for the Los Angeles Times he explains that the basic truth that shapes the relationship between the two parts of the continent is that "The United States is strong. Latin America is weak." Admiration in the South for the culture of the North, goes along with a huge capacity to resist "gringo fashions."
The problem lies in a history of military interventions balanced by moments of friendship and "good neighbor" policies. Campaigns in Central America, or Mexico, actions against democratic Chile cannot be forgotten easily.
These Latin American grievances were balanced by a perception that the U.S. never formally renounced the principles of international law and the hope that it would reaffirm them again.What is alarming about the Bush administration is its formal denunciation of the basic rules of international intercourse. [...]
Is it strange that many Latin Americans should see in these statements an aggressive denial of the only leverage we have in dealing with Washington: the rule of law, the balance obtained through diplomatic negotiation?
Los Angeles Times - You Scare Us
You Scare Us
Bush is giving Latin America the willies
By Carlos Fuentes
Carlos Fuentes is the author, most recently, of "Contra Bush," which will be translated into seven languages.
September 26, 2004
LONDON — The United States is strong. Latin America is weak. This is the basic truth that shapes their relationship. There is no irrational animosity toward the U.S. in Latin America. There is a measure of suspicion balanced by enormous admiration for the culture of Herman Melville to Walt Whitman to William Faulkner, of Hollywood and jazz, of Eugene O'Neill to Arthur Miller. Nor is there envy of the United States. Latin America is deeply aware of its cultural values. Our personality is not assailed by gringo fashions. We absorb and adapt to the cultures of the world, including that of the U.S.
The problem lies in foreign policy. Too often, the United States is seen as a benevolent Dr. Jekyll at home and a malevolent Mr. Hyde abroad. The wars against Mexico (1846-1848) and Spain (1898), Teddy Roosevelt's "big stick," Woodrow Wilson's well-intentioned but counterproductive intervention in Mexico during its revolution, incessant and arrogant meddling in Central America. Not an easy menu to swallow. One moment shines through, however: Franklin Roosevelt's "good neighbor" policy, his decision to win Latin American support during World War II through negotiation rather than confrontation.
And after that war, a limpid admiration for the Roosevelt and Truman policies of international cooperation through organizations based on the rule of law. "We all have to recognize," Harry Truman said in 1945, "[that] no matter how great our strength … we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please." The United Nations was a creation of U.S. diplomacy. Its principles were clearly stated and universally accepted. Even when the U.S. violated them in practice during the Cold War, the principles were never renounced.
This brings us to what Latin Americans find so shocking about the Bush administration. Instead of multilateralism, unilateralism. Instead of diplomacy and negotiation and a search for consensus and the use of force only as a last resort, the barbaric principle of preventive war.
U.S. support for brutal dictatorships in Chile, Argentina and Uruguay in the name of anti-communism caused great suffering. The overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala and Salvador Allende in Chile. The Central American wars in the 1980s and their high body counts. These Latin American grievances were balanced by a perception that the U.S. never formally renounced the principles of international law and the hope that it would reaffirm them again.
What is alarming about the Bush administration is its formal denunciation of the basic rules of international intercourse. With us or against us, President Bush declares starkly and simplistically. The U.S. acts according to its own interests, "not those of an illusory international community," asserts national security advisor Condoleezza Rice.
Is it strange that many Latin Americans should see in these statements an aggressive denial of the only leverage we have in dealing with Washington: the rule of law, the balance obtained through diplomatic negotiation?
Not only out of self-interest, but also as participants in the global society, many Latin Americans worry that U.S. unilateralism is incompatible with the multilateralist nature of globalization. This was the warning issued by former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo at last year's Harvard commencement. Add Chilean President Ricardo Lagos' perception that the world community is postponing the urgent global agenda of creating an adequate social-program fund, strengthening human rights and overcoming the chasms between haves and have-nots. And top it with former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso's plea to the French National Assembly: Fight vigorously against terror but also against the underlying causes of terror: hunger, ignorance, inequality and distorted perceptions of other cultures.
Fortunately, these composite voices of Latin American statesmen found a powerful echo in North America, when former President Clinton warned that you do not defeat terror if you do not figure out how to work with an interdependent world.
These voices, these warnings, these hopes have been disowned by the Bush administration. "With us or against us," Bush has said. It hardly matters. Offensive as these words are to the international community, I believe that Latin America, in particular, will not forget the outright deceptions of the Bush era: the shifting rationales for an unnecessary war and a disastrous postwar occupation; the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; the targeting of one tyrant (Saddam Hussein) among many (Kim Jong II, Robert Mugabe, Moammar Kadafi); the utter lack of foresight that an occupied Iraq would rise against the foreign occupiers and try to fashion its own political future out of its complex religious, tribal and cultural realities, all of them ignored by the neoconservatives in Washington.
But while not forgetting these mistakes and deceptions, we would put the accent on the restoration of the rule of law, the thrust of cooperation and the attention due to 3 billion human beings living in poverty, ignorance and illness. When Bush and his bellicose minions are gone, these problems will still be around. We in Latin America should try to bring them forward as the real agenda for this troubling century.
Posted by Francis Pisani at 8:41 PM
October 4, 2004
A New Election
John Kerry’s performance in the recent presidential debate has created a “new election”, one which the Democrat can still win. While Kerry appeared “self-assured” and “elegant”, George Bush arched body looked like a gargoyle, “exposing his intolerance with every grimace”. These opinions come not from one of Mexico’s notorious Bush-bashing newspapers but from Jesús Silva-Herzog Márquez, a renowned political analyst who writes for the rather conservative daily Reforma.
It has been obvious for several weeks that public opinion in many countries of the world would prefer Kerry over Bush in the upcoming election. In a recent poll conducted by GlobeScan the Democrat was favoured by more than a two-to-one margin, 46% to 20%, and especially in countries which are traditional US allies.
However, the harsh words of Silva-Herzog reflect an unusually strong reaction to the debate, a reaction which he notes is also showing in the most recent polls in the US (a dead heat again, according to Newsweek).
What gives? Kerry is seen today as “better learned, more serene and thus more reliable in risky times”, wrote Silva Herzog. Listening to Bush, on the other hand, “is like watching a drunk walking on ice”.
Reforma (Mexico) - La nueva elección
La nueva elección
Jesús Silva-Herzog Márquez
Reforma, October 4, 2004
El candidato demócrata a la Presidencia de Estados Unidos puede respirar con esperanza tras su desempeño en el debate del jueves pasado. Llegó con serios
problemas: un candidato equino, distante y enredado que no acertaba a despuntar, mientras su contrincante afianzaba su ventaja. Un político que se perfilaba tercamente a la derrota, viendo a un Presidente que trotaba hacia su reelección. Si hubiera tenido un mal desempeño en el debate, hoy sería exhibido como cadáver y el tiempo que resta de la campaña habría sido poco más que un paseo para el presidente Bush. No ha sido así. Su causa recibió un buen empujón en Miami hace unos cuantos días. No es claro que el debate vaya a tener un efecto definitivo en la elección de noviembre pero, si le hacemos caso a la encuesta más reciente de Newsweek, el demócrata levantó 11 puntos en unos cuantos días y se coloca ya por encima del presidente Bush.
La mayoría vio a Kerry como el ganador del debate, pero más allá de ese veredicto boxístico, lo que parece más importante es la transformación de una imagen. A Kerry se le ve hoy como un hombre mejor instruido, más sereno y, por lo tanto, más confiable en tiempos riesgosos. Si se desmenuza, es claro que la encuesta de Newsweek despide motivos de preocupación para el bando republicano. El 80 por ciento de los electores ve a Kerry como un hombre más inteligente y mejor informado que su rival. El 56 por ciento lo considera un líder más sólido. En efecto, como apunta el semanario en su portada, después de 90 minutos, la competencia electoral es otra. No es para menos, escuchar a Bush hablar, decía alguien recientemente, es como ver a un borracho caminar sobre el hielo.
Como todos los espectáculos de este tipo, el debate acentuó el peso de las formas. El podio, de idéntica estatura para los dos candidatos, ayudó a espigar al candidato demócrata al tiempo que encorvaba al republicano. Kerry parecía erguirse con elegancia, mientras Bush se arqueaba como una gárgola.
El tono de la voz, el lenguaje de los cuerpos fue elocuente. Kerry se mostró seguro, tranquilo, con una serenidad que brinda confianza a quien lo observa. Bush, por su lado, fue un impaciente que desnudaba su intolerancia en cada mueca. El Presidente incómodo; su adversario firme. Kerry entraba a la zona privilegiada del Presidente, el territorio de mayor fortaleza del presidente Bush: la política exterior. Ahí mismo, el senador fue capaz de poner a la defensiva al Presidente. Kerry observaba a su antagonista y lo escuchaba atento y respetuoso, Bush bajaba la vista en señal de frustración.
El demócrata también logró un gran éxito al comunicar con sencillez su mensaje, sin perderse en los meandros de su retórica.
El contraste no es superficial. Como bien apuntaba David Brooks en su artículo de este sábado en el New York Times, el debate escenificó el choque de dos culturas, de dos tipos de racionalidad. Por un lado, Kerry mostró que piensa como ingeniero: a cada reto responde con un plan de ocho puntos, cada uno de los cuales tiene dieciséis elementos y cuatro condicionantes. El hombre enlaza las piezas de una complicada maquinaria. Bush, por la otra parte, piensa y habla como predicador que entiende el mundo en los términos binarios del bien y el mal. No arma ningún artefacto: agita una bandera. Uno habla del enemigo en términos morales y abstractos: la ideología del mal. El otro responde con un blanco preciso: Al Qaeda. El contraste no da una ventaja muy clara a ninguno: "Kerry no puede tomar una decisión; Bush las toma demasiado rápido. Kerry cambia de opinión cada mes; Bush casi nunca cambia de opinión; Kerry piensa obsesivamente sobre problemas de método pero parece que nunca encuentra su convicción medular; Bush es admirable para definir objetivos concretos, pero no es nada bueno para trazar el camino para llegar ahí". Dos visiones del mundo político. Un par de líneas del debate del jueves pasado representa este choque de racionalidades del que habla el autor de Bobos en el paraíso. Nunca cambiaré de convicciones, decía Bush, el misionero; se puede estar seguro de algo y estar equivocado, respondía Kerry, el reflexivo. El terco frente al irresoluto.
Sea cual sea el origen de las creencias de Kerry, lo que parece indudable es que logró presentarse convincentemente como el arquitecto de una rectificación prudente. No se trata, por supuesto, de escapar cuanto antes del entuerto en que el presidente Bush metió a Estados Unidos y al mundo al invadir Iraq. Se trata de corregir el rumbo. Lo dijo con claridad: se trata de unir la fuerza con la inteligencia. La política exterior de Estados Unidos tiene que enlazar su poderío con la prudencia. Bush ha sostenido que en lo primero está todo. Su cantaleta es que la fuerza imbatible de Estados Unidos y la incuestionable moralidad de su causa son la garantía del éxito.
Simplemente hay que persistir. Se trata, argumenta él, de una guerra larga y dolorosa. Habrá que armarse de paciencia.
En el discurso de Kerry se asomaba el eco de un artículo reciente del historiador inglés Timothy Garton Ash: la militarización de la retórica oficial norteamericana ha aislado como nunca a Estados Unidos en un tiempo en que las alianzas son indispensables. No se trata de seguir pregonando que la civilización occidental debe terminar con el terrorismo. La verdadera cuestión es definir la forma en que puede librarse esta batalla inédita. En ese terreno es el demócrata, no el republicano, quien está capacitado para la tarea. Mientras Bush insiste en su ruta solitaria y amenazante basada en la fuerza y la terquedad, Kerry busca replantear la estrategia. La guerra de Iraq fue una guerra inapropiada que, de hecho, debilitó a Estados Unidos en su lucha contra el terrorismo. Sin razones que justificaran la invasión, sin vínculo demostrable entre el gobierno iraquí y el terrorismo de Osama bin Laden, Bush tomó la decisión de invadir Iraq en lugar de perseguir a quien había orquestado la masacre de septiembre. El resultado es terrible: el gobierno de Bush sustituyó la dictadura de Hussein por la anarquía, el nido ideal del terrorismo. Una gravísima distracción de la verdadera batalla que debe ser encarada con responsabilidad.
El argumento de Kerry es que resulta indispensable un nuevo comienzo, tener un Presidente que logre conformar una alianza internacional sólida. La credibilidad internacional del liderazgo norteamericano es indispensable para ganar la paz. El presidente Bush -expuso Kerry- no sería nunca capaz de rearmar esa credibilidad. Su terquedad, su incapacidad de reconocer los errores, el hermetismo de sus convicciones, su distante relación con el mundo real, lo incapacitan para la nueva obra.
Hace unos días la reelección del presidente Bush parecía casi segura. Tras el debate, ha surgido una nueva elección. La moneda empieza a dar vueltas en el aire. La incertidumbre se ha insertado en el último mes de la campaña por el voto en Estados Unidos.
Posted by Pedro-Enrique Armendares at 6:29 PM
Republicans are dumbfound, but Rove is confident
Spain's daily newspaper of reference summarizes the campaign's moment with two ideas:
Karl Rove remains optimistic and believes that the Dems will not be able to capitalize on their debate victory more than they have been able to remain ahead after their convention.
El País.es - Kerry sube en las encuestas y pone a Bush a la defensiva
Kerry sube en las encuestas y pone a Bush a la defensiva
El presidente trata de recuperar la iniciativa con el énfasis en los atentados del 11-S
JAVIER DEL PINO - Washington
EL PAÍS - Internacional - 04-10-2004
Aunque los historiadores insisten en que son raras las ocasiones en las que un debate ha cambiado la tendencia electoral, el tono de las campañas de demócratas y republicanos refleja el impacto psicológico de los 90 minutos de enfrentamiento televisado. John Kerry da por ganado el duelo sobre política internacional e intenta trasladar ahora la batalla al terreno doméstico. Los estrategas de George W. Bush, que aceptan, aunque no entienden, la derrota en el debate, quieren regresar a la disputa sobre Irak para que el presidente haga lo que casi olvidó hacer el jueves: asociar la guerra con el 11-S. El equipo de Kerry ha sabido moverse desde el jueves por la noche para que la victoria de su candidato sea presentada como contundente, a lo que ha contribuido la primera encuesta amplia tras el debate: Newsweek da a Kerry 47 puntos frente a 45 de Bush en intención de voto. Su nueva campaña de anuncios en televisión lo establece como un hecho inapelable: "George Bush perdió el debate. Y ahora miente", dice el locutor en un anuncio que empezará a emitirse hoy en las principales cadenas. Kerry se negó a usar el verbo "mentir" durante el debate pese al esfuerzo del moderador por conseguir que lo pronunciase.
La acusación hace referencia al principal argumento que emplean los republicanos para deslucir la actuación de Kerry en el debate. Bush habla ya en los mítines de la "doctrina Kerry", que establece, según su interpretación, la necesidad de consultar con todos los gobiernos del mundo cualquier acción en defensa de EE UU. Los demócratas tratan de explicar que esto no es demagogia, sino mentira, y recuerdan que Kerry también expresó en el debate su apoyo a la política de acciones preventivas.
El equipo de Kerry, poseído por un inocultable sentimiento de excitación, intenta ahora saltar de la escena internacional al bolsillo del electorado. Kerry sentó las bases en el debate al acusar a Bush de favorecer a los ricos y a las grandes corporaciones. En los próximos días, el demócrata hablará fundamentalmente de empleo y sanidad. "Sabemos que hay mucha gente más preocupada por sus puestos de trabajo y por pagar su seguro médico que por lo que ocurre en el otro lado del planeta", dijo Joe Lockhart, consejero en la campaña demócrata.
Al otro lado, los estrategas del equipo de Bush se dividen entre los que están sorprendidos por la pobre actuación de Bush y los que se declaran estupefactos por la contundencia de las críticas; reconocen que Bush no tuvo su mejor debate, pero no creen que fuera tan nocivo. Su objetivo ahora es tratar de borrar las impresiones del debate, y esperan conseguirlo desviando el foco de la micropolítica a la macrodoctrina, es decir, harán que el presidente no hable de la situación actual en Irak, sino de los "nuevos retos heredados del 11 de septiembre", una fecha cuyo concepto tiene para ellos una enorme rentabilidad política. En todo caso, el sentimiento en el cuartel republicano está lejos de la desesperación: "Me acuerdo del impulso que tuvieron durante su convención, y al final aquello quedó en una oportunidad perdida para ellos y ganada por nosotros", dijo ayer Kart Rove, cerebro político de Bush.
Posted by Francis Pisani at 7:20 AM
October 3, 2004
"Round one to Kerry" for U.K press
Almost every English newspapers studied, on saturday, the first debate between Senator Kerry and President Bush.
They all declared Mr. Kerry victorious. They pointed out the President's "body language", "peeved and frustrated", whereas Mr. Kerry was "relaxed and a picture of patrician calm and ease", "sharp and at times eloquent"(Scotsman).
They also insisted on the TV split screen, which showed "a sour-faced Mr Bush, scowling while he listened to his adversary" (The Guardian)
However, Rupert Cornwell wrote in The Independant that "in Presidential debates, first impressions have often proved wrong" and Alec Russel pointed out in The Telegraph that "[Mr Bush] was clearly speaking more to the television audience than to his opponent, a tactic that may have lost him points in the debate analyses but in the long run may prove significant".
Here are some british newspapers's headlines on saturday :
The Guardian - U.S election 2004 : special report
Scotsman - Democrates claim first blood as eloquent Kerry rattles Bush
Posted by Pierre Langlais at 8:58 AM
October 2, 2004
The U.S. Race in Arabic Newspapers
In a rare (but increasingly common) attempt to understand what those abroad think of U.S. politics, the New York Times took a look at Arab media last week.
Is this a sign of things to come, when savvy readers will start looking for new sources of information outside American borders? Given that the internet is accessible to most people here, and that organizations like AlJazeera supply English-language editions, the question may not be IF Americans will read foreign media, but rather WHEN they will do so.
From the New York Times, 9/26/04:
That the Arab Middle East should be interested in the American presidential election is no surprise. What may be surprising is the degree to which support in the Arabic language press is split between President Bush and Senator John Kerry.Neither man is much admired by Arab editorialists, who hope only for the lesser of two evils when it comes to how America's foreign policy in the region might change, depending on who wins the White House. What follows are excerpts from some prominent recent articles.
September 26, 2004
The U.S. Race in Arabic Newspapers
By PETER C. VALENTI
THAT the Arab Middle East should be interested in the American presidential election is no surprise. What may be surprising is the degree to which support in the Arabic language press is split between President Bush and Senator John Kerry.
Neither man is much admired by Arab editorialists, who hope only for the lesser of two evils when it comes to how America's foreign policy in the region might change, depending on who wins the White House. What follows are excerpts from some prominent recent articles.
In Support of President Bush
Dr. Abd al-Wahhab al-Afandi, writing in Al-Quds al-Arabi (Arabic Jerusalem), a London-based independent daily, supports President Bush because, he says, he may be less fearful of the "Zionist lobby" in his second term.
For American Arab and Muslim voters as we have already said, it is completely logical to reject George Bush, who practically announced a war on Arabs. And he excelled in his zeal for Israel more than every former president, as supporters of Israel themselves will even testify. However, Kerry doesn't represent a better solution from the viewpoint of Arab interests, as the Democrats - as it is well known - are zealous supporters of Israel, and this is the same factor that pushed Arabs and Muslims to prefer Bush over Al Gore, his Democratic opponent, in the previous elections.
A president elected for a first term will be preoccupied with re-election for a second term, which will force him to exert every effort to both win the affection of the Zionist lobby and ignore Arabs and Muslims. However, a president in his second term to a large extent doesn't need direct political support, and is more concerned with immortalizing his name in history through important accomplishments, and for this reason Clinton was busy in his second term implementing the Palestinian-Israeli agreements linked to his name.
Keeping America in Iraq, and interested in working closely with the Gulf States, are reasons to support President Bush, writes Abdullah Bisharah, in Al-Seyassah (Politics), a pro-government Kuwaiti daily.
The statements and speeches of the Democratic competitor, Senator Kerry, do not convey reassurance on the continuation and strengthening of the American presence in Iraq.
Furthermore, you don't realize the difficulty of the situation that would occur in the absence of an active American presence because the weakening of the American position would encourage those who are currently in retreat to interfere in a more extensive and more effective manner in the affairs of Iraq.
The Gulf region is still surrounded by unstable and ambitious regimes, inside of which are conflicts between rigid extremists and oppressed moderates. There is also the insane effort of Iranian extremists to possess nuclear weapons, which they imagine will guarantee deterrence against attacks from neighboring nations or from the United States.
We think of our interests in the Gulf and our priorities, and I believe that the continuation of President Bush for a second term will enhance the close connections between the nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council and the United States and will make it possible for the nations of the council to establish a greater role and influence in regional affairs and global affairs.
In Support of Senator Kerry
An editorial in Al-Quds al-Arabi rejects President Bush for his actions in Iraq and his policies involving the Israelis and the Palestinians.
American President George Bush directed some criticism ... against the Jewish state in his speech that he gave yesterday in front of the United Nations General Assembly, where he called for the freezing of settlements in the occupied Arab lands and an end to the humiliations of the Palestinian people. However, this is not the first time he has raised the likes of these criticisms, as he has repeated them in previous speeches, yet this hasn't changed anything on the ground.
President Bush ..., while he talks about acts of humiliation that these people face under occupation, hasn't imposed any deterring punitive measures on the Israeli government to end these humiliations. However, he uses the weapon of the veto in the United Nations Security Council to protect these practices, which are completely incompatible - not only with international law - but with the principles of American freedoms.
President Bush should be held accountable for actions and not words, especially in the Palestinian and Iraqi cases.
Rashid Hasan, writing for Addustour (The Constitution), a pro-government Jordanian daily, opts for Senator Kerry on the ground that he will be able to abandon the Bush administration's Iraq policies.
Democratic candidate John Kerry's announcement of his clear and straightforward platform to lay out a plan for the war in Iraq gives assurance that the man is placing his hands over the wound that has caused the American citizen to lose sleep and suffer so much pain.
Kerry, or rather his advisers, decided upon a magical solution after their candidate fell behind Bush in polls, and especially after the convening of the Republican Party's convention. And this solution is the withdrawal from Iraq within four years as a rejection of Bush's reckless policies that dragged America to a war with no end in sight, according to Kerry's statements.
Peter C. Valenti is a contributing editor for World Press Review (worldpress.org).
Posted by Lauren Hertel at 2:19 PM | Comments (1)
October 1, 2004
A perception that Argentinians will like
Argentinian newspapers underline Kerry's debate performance and his enhanced possibilities.
Página/12, for example, quotes polls according to which Kerry's image has improved for 46 percent of viewers while Bush's image has only improved for 21 percent of them.
La Nación goes further and says the senator won both the debate and the intentions of the voters.
Clarín, gives only scant importance to the debate on its first page. The daily's correspondent in the U.S. insists on the "roughness" of the debate with Kerry's accusation that the President lied and Bush insistance on the fact that the Senator's position change with the wind.
Pagina12/WEB - El error colosal capitalizado por Kerry
La Nación - Kerry salió victorioso en el primer debate frente a Bush
Clarín - Duro cruce entre Bush y Kerry en el primer debate electoral
Posted by Francis Pisani at 10:27 AM
Celebrating Kerry's victory
Most readers of Le Monde, the French leading daily, will like the main article published on the debate. There is not much doubt for the correspondent that John Kerry won the debate by appearing presidential. He underlines the moderate tone of the contender, and the vigor of his attacks against the "colossal error" that he accuses the President of making by invading Irak.
An article on "Spin Alley" nuances slightly the judgement. What we don't find yet is the notion that Kerry's debate victory might not have been sufficient to "knock-out" the incumbent as an american analyst has noted.
Le Monde.fr : Devant les Américains, John Kerry franchit le premier obstacle
Devant les Américains, John Kerry franchit le premier obstacle
LE MONDE | 01.10.04 | 15h38
Pour son premier débat télévisé avec George Bush, le candidat démocrate à l'élection présidentielle a développé de manière offensive son "plan" pour l'Irak et ses profonds désaccords avec le président sortant sur la politique étrangère et de sécurité.
Coral Gables (Floride) de notre envoyé spécial
George Bush et John Kerry ont débattu, pendant une heure et demie, jeudi 30 septembre, des décisions prises par le président américain après les attentats du 11 septembre 2001 et, principalement, de la guerre en Irak. Le candidat démocrate a accusé son adversaire d'avoir commis "une colossale erreur de jugement" quand il a décidé d'engager les hostilités contre Saddam Hussein, plutôt que de se concentrer sur la lutte contre le terrorisme et contre Oussama Ben Laden, en Afghanistan. M. Bush a répondu que la menace représentée par Saddam Hussein était réelle et que "l'Irak est une partie centrale de la guerre contre le terrorisme".
Organisé à l'université de Miami, dont le campus est situé à Coral Gables, le débat a eu lieu devant une centaine d'étudiants et devant les invités des deux candidats. Il a été animé par Jim Lehrer, journaliste à la chaîne de télévision publique PBS, et suivi sur place par 2 500 journalistes.
TON MODÉRÉ
Le sénateur du Massachusetts a employé un ton modéré, mais il a critiqué rigoureusement la politique de M. Bush, qui a été contraint de se justifier. Le président sortant a laissé paraître son agacement. Il a riposté en reprochant à M. Kerry, à plusieurs reprises, d'avoir décrit la guerre d'Irak comme "la mauvaise guerre, au mauvais endroit, au mauvais moment". Selon M. Bush, un tel propos ne peut avoir que des effets négatifs sur les Irakiens, sur les troupes engagées en Irak et sur les alliés des Etats-Unis. Comment les convaincre de venir aider les Etats-Unis dans une guerre que l'on présente comme "de diversion" ? M. Kerry a expliqué que le choix de faire la guerre en Irak avait eu pour conséquence de délaisser l'Afghanistan. Non seulement Ben Laden n'a pas été capturé, a-t-il dit, mais l'Afghanistan est redevenu le principal producteur mondial d'opium, les élections y ont été reportées trois fois, et plus de soldats américains y ont été tués en 2003 qu'en 2002.
Le propos du candidat démocrate a porté surtout sur l'Irak. "Nous aurions pu continuer les inspections", a-t-il dit en se référant au processus mis en place par la résolution que le Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU avait adoptée, à l'unanimité, en novembre 2002. M. Bush a mis cette confiance dans les procédures de l'ONU au compte d'une "mentalité d'avant le 11-Septembre". Selon lui, si les Etats-Unis n'étaient pas passés à l'action contre Saddam Hussein, alors qu'il "n'avait aucune intention de désarmer", le dictateur irakien en aurait été renforcé, et la menace qu'il représentait aurait été plus grande. "Le monde est plus sûr sans Saddam Hussein", a répété M. Bush.
ÂPRES DISCUSSIONS
L'argument selon lequel l'Irak est, de toute façon, aujourd'hui, le front central de la "guerre contre le terrorisme" a été très âprement discuté. "L'Irak n'était même pas près du centre de la guerre contre le terrorisme avant que le président ne l'envahisse", a dit M. Kerry. Pour le sénateur du Massachusetts, c'est la guerre qui a fait de l'Irak un terrain d'action du terrorisme. Il a rappelé qu'aucun lien n'a été démontré entre Saddam Hussein et les attentats de New York et Washington. En revanche, aujourd'hui, le chef du gouvernement intérimaire, Iyad Allaoui, dit lui-même que "les terroristes affluent en Irak". "S'ils affluent en Irak, c'est bien parce qu'ils pensent que ce qui se passe dans ce pays aura de lourdes conséquences pour eux", a objecté M. Bush.
Le président sortant n'a pas contesté l'absence des armes de destruction massive, qu'il avait accusé l'Irak de détenir. Il n'a pas repris non plus l'affirmation selon laquelle Saddam Hussein entretenait des relations avec Al-Qaida. Il s'est borné à parler, en termes généraux, de la défense de l'Amérique et de la contribution qu'un Irak libre pourra apporter à la stabilité du Proche-Orient, à la sécurité d'Israël et à celle des Etats-Unis. Il paraissait surpris par les critiques de son opposant, comme si des semaines de campagne, avec ses partisans pour seuls interlocuteurs, lui avaient fait perdre la notion des objections qui pouvaient être faites à sa politique. Ainsi a-t-il présenté la guerre d'Irak comme la réponse au fait que l'Amérique avait été "attaquée". "Pas par l'Irak", a souligné M. Kerry, pour qui faire porter sur l'Irak la riposte aux attentats du 11-Septembre se compare à ce qu'aurait fait Franklin Roosevelt s'il avait décidé de répondre à l'agression de Pearl Harbor en affrontant non pas le Japon, mais le Mexique.
CRITIQUES VARIÉES
Les critiques du candidat démocrate n'ont pas porté seulement sur la guerre d'Irak ou sur la lutte contre Al-Qaida. Il a mis en question de façon générale la protection des Etats-Unis contre le terrorisme, en expliquant que les baisses d'impôts et l'argent dépensé en Irak ont empêché de financer comme il l'aurait fallu la sécurité du territoire. Il a insisté surtout sur les dangers de la prolifération nucléaire, en accusant M. Bush d'avoir adopté face à la Corée du Nord une politique qui a permis à ce pays de fabriquer plusieurs bombes atomiques. Il a dénoncé l'incapacité du gouvernement Bush à entrer assez tôt dans une stratégie commune avec les Européens, pour faire pression sur l'Iran. Il s'est indigné de l'insuffisance des crédits consacrés à l'élimination des charges nucléaires de l'ex-Union soviétique, dont la dissémination représente une menace grave. M. Bush a répondu en affirmant notamment qu'accepter le dialogue bilatéral réclamé par le dirigeant nord-coréen, Kim Jong-il, ferait le jeu de celui-ci.
Le président a défendu aussi sa ligne d'action vis-à-vis de la Russie, en rappelant qu'il avait critiqué publiquement les décisions prises par Vladimir Poutine après le massacre de Beslan pour renforcer son pouvoir. Il a ajouté toutefois que le président russe "est un allié fort dans la lutte contre le terrorisme" et qu'il a toujours, personnellement, "une bonne relation avec Vladimir".
M. Bush a résumé son propos, à la fin du débat, en répétant qu'il ne remettra jamais "la sécurité de l'Amérique entre les mains des dirigeants d'autres pays". C'est l'un des deux thèmes de ses attaques contre M. Kerry, l'autre étant l'accusation d'"inconstance", qu'il a énoncée plusieurs fois. Le sénateur du Massachusetts a répété, de son côté, que, président, il saura défendre les Etats-Unis comme il l'a fait en s'engageant pour combattre au Vietnam quand il était étudiant. "L'avenir appartient à la liberté, pas à la peur", a-t-il conclu, en une claire allusion au style de la campagne républicaine.
Patrick Jarreau
• ARTICLE PARU DANS L'EDITION DU 02.10.04
Posted by Francis Pisani at 10:15 AM
Celebrating Kerry's victory
Most readers of Le Monde, the French leading daily, will like the main article published on the debate. There is not much doubt for the correspondent that John Kerry won the debate by appearing presidential. He underlines the moderate tone of the contender, and the vigor of his attacks against the "colossal error" that he accuses the President of making by invading Irak.
An article on "Spin Alley" nuances slightly the judgement. What we don't find yet is the notion that Kerry's debate victory might not have been sufficient to "knock-out" the incumbent as an american analyst has noted.
Le Monde.fr : Devant les Américains, John Kerry franchit le premier obstacle
Devant les Américains, John Kerry franchit le premier obstacle
LE MONDE | 01.10.04 | 15h38
Pour son premier débat télévisé avec George Bush, le candidat démocrate à l'élection présidentielle a développé de manière offensive son "plan" pour l'Irak et ses profonds désaccords avec le président sortant sur la politique étrangère et de sécurité.
Coral Gables (Floride) de notre envoyé spécial
George Bush et John Kerry ont débattu, pendant une heure et demie, jeudi 30 septembre, des décisions prises par le président américain après les attentats du 11 septembre 2001 et, principalement, de la guerre en Irak. Le candidat démocrate a accusé son adversaire d'avoir commis "une colossale erreur de jugement" quand il a décidé d'engager les hostilités contre Saddam Hussein, plutôt que de se concentrer sur la lutte contre le terrorisme et contre Oussama Ben Laden, en Afghanistan. M. Bush a répondu que la menace représentée par Saddam Hussein était réelle et que "l'Irak est une partie centrale de la guerre contre le terrorisme".
Organisé à l'université de Miami, dont le campus est situé à Coral Gables, le débat a eu lieu devant une centaine d'étudiants et devant les invités des deux candidats. Il a été animé par Jim Lehrer, journaliste à la chaîne de télévision publique PBS, et suivi sur place par 2 500 journalistes.
TON MODÉRÉ
Le sénateur du Massachusetts a employé un ton modéré, mais il a critiqué rigoureusement la politique de M. Bush, qui a été contraint de se justifier. Le président sortant a laissé paraître son agacement. Il a riposté en reprochant à M. Kerry, à plusieurs reprises, d'avoir décrit la guerre d'Irak comme "la mauvaise guerre, au mauvais endroit, au mauvais moment". Selon M. Bush, un tel propos ne peut avoir que des effets négatifs sur les Irakiens, sur les troupes engagées en Irak et sur les alliés des Etats-Unis. Comment les convaincre de venir aider les Etats-Unis dans une guerre que l'on présente comme "de diversion" ? M. Kerry a expliqué que le choix de faire la guerre en Irak avait eu pour conséquence de délaisser l'Afghanistan. Non seulement Ben Laden n'a pas été capturé, a-t-il dit, mais l'Afghanistan est redevenu le principal producteur mondial d'opium, les élections y ont été reportées trois fois, et plus de soldats américains y ont été tués en 2003 qu'en 2002.
Le propos du candidat démocrate a porté surtout sur l'Irak. "Nous aurions pu continuer les inspections", a-t-il dit en se référant au processus mis en place par la résolution que le Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU avait adoptée, à l'unanimité, en novembre 2002. M. Bush a mis cette confiance dans les procédures de l'ONU au compte d'une "mentalité d'avant le 11-Septembre". Selon lui, si les Etats-Unis n'étaient pas passés à l'action contre Saddam Hussein, alors qu'il "n'avait aucune intention de désarmer", le dictateur irakien en aurait été renforcé, et la menace qu'il représentait aurait été plus grande. "Le monde est plus sûr sans Saddam Hussein", a répété M. Bush.
ÂPRES DISCUSSIONS
L'argument selon lequel l'Irak est, de toute façon, aujourd'hui, le front central de la "guerre contre le terrorisme" a été très âprement discuté. "L'Irak n'était même pas près du centre de la guerre contre le terrorisme avant que le président ne l'envahisse", a dit M. Kerry. Pour le sénateur du Massachusetts, c'est la guerre qui a fait de l'Irak un terrain d'action du terrorisme. Il a rappelé qu'aucun lien n'a été démontré entre Saddam Hussein et les attentats de New York et Washington. En revanche, aujourd'hui, le chef du gouvernement intérimaire, Iyad Allaoui, dit lui-même que "les terroristes affluent en Irak". "S'ils affluent en Irak, c'est bien parce qu'ils pensent que ce qui se passe dans ce pays aura de lourdes conséquences pour eux", a objecté M. Bush.
Le président sortant n'a pas contesté l'absence des armes de destruction massive, qu'il avait accusé l'Irak de détenir. Il n'a pas repris non plus l'affirmation selon laquelle Saddam Hussein entretenait des relations avec Al-Qaida. Il s'est borné à parler, en termes généraux, de la défense de l'Amérique et de la contribution qu'un Irak libre pourra apporter à la stabilité du Proche-Orient, à la sécurité d'Israël et à celle des Etats-Unis. Il paraissait surpris par les critiques de son opposant, comme si des semaines de campagne, avec ses partisans pour seuls interlocuteurs, lui avaient fait perdre la notion des objections qui pouvaient être faites à sa politique. Ainsi a-t-il présenté la guerre d'Irak comme la réponse au fait que l'Amérique avait été "attaquée". "Pas par l'Irak", a souligné M. Kerry, pour qui faire porter sur l'Irak la riposte aux attentats du 11-Septembre se compare à ce qu'aurait fait Franklin Roosevelt s'il avait décidé de répondre à l'agression de Pearl Harbor en affrontant non pas le Japon, mais le Mexique.
CRITIQUES VARIÉES
Les critiques du candidat démocrate n'ont pas porté seulement sur la guerre d'Irak ou sur la lutte contre Al-Qaida. Il a mis en question de façon générale la protection des Etats-Unis contre le terrorisme, en expliquant que les baisses d'impôts et l'argent dépensé en Irak ont empêché de financer comme il l'aurait fallu la sécurité du territoire. Il a insisté surtout sur les dangers de la prolifération nucléaire, en accusant M. Bush d'avoir adopté face à la Corée du Nord une politique qui a permis à ce pays de fabriquer plusieurs bombes atomiques. Il a dénoncé l'incapacité du gouvernement Bush à entrer assez tôt dans une stratégie commune avec les Européens, pour faire pression sur l'Iran. Il s'est indigné de l'insuffisance des crédits consacrés à l'élimination des charges nucléaires de l'ex-Union soviétique, dont la dissémination représente une menace grave. M. Bush a répondu en affirmant notamment qu'accepter le dialogue bilatéral réclamé par le dirigeant nord-coréen, Kim Jong-il, ferait le jeu de celui-ci.
Le président a défendu aussi sa ligne d'action vis-à-vis de la Russie, en rappelant qu'il avait critiqué publiquement les décisions prises par Vladimir Poutine après le massacre de Beslan pour renforcer son pouvoir. Il a ajouté toutefois que le président russe "est un allié fort dans la lutte contre le terrorisme" et qu'il a toujours, personnellement, "une bonne relation avec Vladimir".
M. Bush a résumé son propos, à la fin du débat, en répétant qu'il ne remettra jamais "la sécurité de l'Amérique entre les mains des dirigeants d'autres pays". C'est l'un des deux thèmes de ses attaques contre M. Kerry, l'autre étant l'accusation d'"inconstance", qu'il a énoncée plusieurs fois. Le sénateur du Massachusetts a répété, de son côté, que, président, il saura défendre les Etats-Unis comme il l'a fait en s'engageant pour combattre au Vietnam quand il était étudiant. "L'avenir appartient à la liberté, pas à la peur", a-t-il conclu, en une claire allusion au style de la campagne républicaine.
Patrick Jarreau
• ARTICLE PARU DANS L'EDITION DU 02.10.04
Posted by Francis Pisani at 10:15 AM
September 30, 2004
Measuring media treatment in some foreign countries
Ecoresearch.net, an interesting Australian project measures each week in a variety of media how the candidates are treated.
"The project analyzes the Web sites of the Fortune 1000 (the largest US corporations ranked by revenue), environmental organizations and international media from the US, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. Processing these sites yields more than 500,000 documents each week, comprising about 125 million words in 11 million sentences. An automated process then identifies attention by counting the number of references to a candidate. It measures attitude by associating these references with positive and negative terms. Keywords, grouped by political party and geographic region, reflect current events associated with the candidates."
The foreign media that are reviewed are limited to mainly white English speaking countries but the results are interesting and can be viewed clearly candidate by candidate.
Recent trend (before the debate): Kerry/Edwards are catching up. There is much more treatment of Bush/Cheney, and it is slightly more favorable.
Posted by Francis Pisani at 10:47 PM
September 28, 2004
A Civics Lesson for Germans
What do you do if you’re interested in U.S. politics, but didn’t have the (dubious) benefit of a high school civics class? If you read German, you can check out Der Spiegel’s “Background” section, part of the magazine's U.S. election coverage.
It’s generally good, but there are a few curiosities that might cause confusion among American readers:
1. The Republicans are the party of Lincoln and Watergate, while the Democrats are associated with social programs and the Kennedys. Watergate doesn’t come up much in national presidential elections these days, but then neither does Monica Lewinsky.
2. The President is a kind of replacement monarch, who the founding fathers modeled on the English monarch of the 18th century but in a republican framework. Really? The basis for this assertion are the numerous over-the-top formal events staged at the White House every year.
3. Television plays a particularly big role in convincing voters. TV-spots try to reach voters across the country. Except in this election, that is.
What’s missing? For one, the judicial branch isn’t mentioned. Odd considering that the last election was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. There’s also no mention of the President’s role as Commander of U.S. forces or limits on this power through the purse strings of Congress. But it's a start.
Der Spiegel (Germany) -- Amerika waehlt: Hintergrund
Posted by Lauren Hertel at 12:24 PM
September 27, 2004
Plain words from the Philippine
Few information on the US found in traditional foreign media is surprising. The sources remain widely the same and everybody seems to follow the same agenda. But the tone may change substantially.
The following examples are taken from an editorial published on September 26th in The Philippine Daily Inquirer. It deals with President's Bush speach at the United Nations and how well his administration is doing there.
For the newspaper: "The sad truth is, Iraq today is capable only of inspiring fear: fear that American stubbornness and stupidity will make the volatile Middle East even more unstable, and terror-stricken nations even more unsafe."
As for the President himself: "He was lying through his teeth, before an audience familiar with both his lies and the conventions of lying. They saw through him."
The Philippine Daily Inquirer (Manila) - Bush at the UN
Posted by Francis Pisani at 11:47 AM
September 15, 2004
Latinos die in Irak
The Mexican El Universal has no story today on the US election. It covers with some detail the destructive hurricane season and has a story on the fact that Latinos fighing in the US Armed Forces in Irak suffer proportionnally more casualties than others. They will keep going, the story adds, because it offers them a fast track to becoming US Citizens.
El Universal - Sufren hispanos las mayores bajas
Sufren hispanos las mayores bajas
(Con in-formación de Luis Carlos Cano)
El Universal
Miércoles 15 de septiembre de 2004
Internacional, página 40
Washington/el paso (Notimex). Los hispanos que participan en las Fuerzas Armadas de Estados Unidos son los que más bajas han tenido en Irak y sin embargo se prevé que se mantenga el flujo de su reclutamiento por las facilidades que les dan para su naturalización.
De los más de mil soldados muertos hasta la semana pasada, 122 fueron hispanos, 12 por ciento de todas las bajas, aunque la mayoría han ocurrido entre militares anglosajones, de acuerdo a cifras del Departamento de Defensa (DOT por sus siglas en inglés).
Algunas organizaciones civiles, además de varias encuestas, apuntan a que el número de hispanos muertos en este conflicto resulta elevado, si se toma en cuenta que ellos representan 9.2 por ciento del total de las fuerzas activas.
"Si los números son correctos, podemos decir que los hispanos están muriendo, proporcionalmente hablando, en mayor cantidad, dijo Manuel Luján, presidente de la Hispanic Alliance for Progress Institute (HAP por sus siglas en inglés).
En la actualidad, 10 por ciento de los soldados desplegados en Afganistán e Irak llevan nombres y apellidos hispanos. Un estudio del Pew Hispanic Center que mostró que un mayor número de hispanos (17.5 por ciento ) están asignados a posiciones y tareas con mayor riesgo en las líneas de combate de las Fuerzas Armadas.
Falsas promesas
El padre de uno de los soldados muertos en la guerra de Irak, el señor Rubén Estrella, pidió a los jóvenes reclutas que no crean en las promesas que les hace el Ejército de EU, ya que solamente los envían a la muerte con falsas expectativas de mejorar.
El pronunciamiento lo hizo luego de inaugurar, en el sector de Montana Vista, al este de El Paso, un parque con el nombre de su hijo Rubén, quien murió en una emboscada en Irak en marzo del año pasado. El señor Estrella comentó que a ellos no les han pagado el seguro de vida de su hijo, además de que la ayuda legal que deben entregar por ley a la familia "ha sido una burla" para ellos, ya que les enviaban cinco dólares al mes, pago que, además, "fue suspendido el mes pasado". (Con información de Luis Carlos Cano)
Posted by Francis Pisani at 11:15 AM
French learn about Kerry's difficult situation
A recent trip to Mexico and many conversations with friends from different countries led me to realize that for many people outside the US Bush is so "bad" that he cannot win. That's not, obviously, what a balanced political analysis is telling us at this point. Tempted to please their readership while reporting on the real world, media walk a fine line. One can find stories trying to explain the complexity of the situation but they are still scarce and tend not to be well positioned. This is obviously changing as this story on Kerry's difficulties announced on first page reveals.
Le Monde - John Kerry est en mauvaise posture dans la course présidentielle
John Kerry est en mauvaise posture dans la course présidentielle
LE MONDE | 15.09.04 | 13h46 • MIS A JOUR LE 15.09.04 | 16h09
Le candidat démocrate pour le scrutin présidentiel du 2 novembre, John Kerry, a tenté de relancer sa campagne, mardi 14 septembre, dans l'Ohio. Cet Etat, victime de la récession de 2001-2002, jouera un rôle-clé dans l'accession à la Maison Blanche. Devancé depuis deux semaines par George Bush dans les sondages, John Kerry a tourné le dos aux querelles sur son propre passé militaire, au Vietnam, et celui du président sortant, resté au pays dans les rangs de la Garde nationale. Plus agressif qu'au début de sa campagne, il peine cependant à opposer au discours républicain sur les "valeurs" fondamentales un programme économique et social répondant aux inquiétudes des électeurs. Même dans son propre camp, des critiques sur son manque de popularité deviennent de plus en plus audibles.
Toledo (Ohio) de notre envoyé spécial
De retour dans l'Ohio, l'Etat le plus disputé de la campagne présidentielle américaine, John Kerry a exposé, mardi 14 septembre, son plan pour réduire le prix de l'assurance-maladie, afin de la rendre accessible à tous. Concentré, attentif aux questions qui lui étaient posées, combatif, le candidat démocrate n'a pas paru affecté par les sondages qui confirment, jour après jour, l'avance acquise par George Bush dans les intentions de vote.
C'était la quatrième visite de M. Kerry à Toledo, une ville industrielle de 300 000 habitants, sur le lac Erié, et une place forte démocrate, adossée à des comtés ruraux à dominante républicaine. Dans un faubourg, nommé le Village polonais, où des pancartes précisent que "les Américains hongrois" votent aussi pour lui, le candidat démocrate est arrivé ponctuellement, à 15 heures, pour une rencontre de presque une heure et demie avec environ huit cents personnes de tous âges. Le public lui a fait un accueil chaleureux et lui a manifesté un appui croissant au cours de la réunion.
"Il est tel qu'il paraît", disait Claudia Brown, chef d'une petite entreprise de produits surgelés. "Il sait de quoi il parle. Il dit les choses comme elles sont. Son plan, il est évident qu'il y réfléchit depuis longtemps et qu'il y a travaillé lui-même", ajoutait-elle. Jack Ries, un agent d'assurances, était confiant. "Je n'ai pas de doute à son sujet, expliquait-il. C'est un type sérieux, solide. Il lui arrive de changer d'avis. Cela prouve qu'il est intelligent." Un autre participant à la réunion disait que John Kerry "est le candidat dont - les démocrates - ont besoin aujourd'hui", celui qui correspond le mieux aux attentes des Américains, mais que la difficulté est d'arriver à le faire savoir.
Un intervenant, s'adressant au sénateur du Massachusetts, l'a félicité pour ses propos, puis a ajouté que "les médias doivent porter le message de Kerry". Plusieurs personnes se sont tournées, alors, vers les journalistes et les caméras, au fond de la salle, en scandant : "Kerry ! Kerry !" Ni les responsables démocrates, ni les observateurs les plus critiques n'accusent les médias de parti pris anti-Kerry.
"FAUSSES AFFIRMATIONS"
En général, ce sont plutôt les républicains qui accusent les grands journaux et les principales chaînes de télévision - à l'exception de Fox News - d'être "biaisés". Ainsi, la campagne Bush a dénoncé, mardi, les "fausses affirmations" d'un article du Washington Post, chiffrant à 3 000 milliards de dollars les baisses d'impôts et les dépenses promises par le président pour un nouveau mandat et observant qu'aucune d'entre elles ne figure dans le budget qu'il a soumis au Congrès pour l'année fiscale 2005. Cependant, si les médias ne sont pas hostiles à M. Kerry, ils n'en reflètent pas moins, depuis trois semaines, l'efficacité de la stratégie républicaine, qui est parvenue à faire, de la crédibilité du candidat démocrate le sujet principal de la campagne.
Fin juillet, à Boston, M. Kerry avait voulu éviter que la convention démocrate ne soit perçue comme un festival d'attaques contre le président sortant. A présent, M. Kerry se montre plus agressif. A Toledo, il a commencé par reprocher à M. Bush la "décision désastreuse qu'il a prise au sujet de l'Irak", celle "d'y aller seul" et "d'ignorer les avertissements - venus du Sénat - sur l'absence de plan pour la paix". "Maintenant, a-t-il continué, il glisse sur l'Irak comme si tout allait bien. Mais la vérité est que la situation n'est pas meilleure, elle est pire. Plus de mille Américains ont été tués. L'instabilité augmente. La violence s'étend. L'extrémisme croît."
Exposé aux critiques de ceux qui lui reprochent d'avoir voté, au Sénat, en octobre 2002, la résolution autorisant M. Bush à employer la force contre Saddam Hussein, M. Kerry peine à trouver le point d'équilibre entre son opposition au président sortant et la cohérence de ses propres choix. Une série d'enquêtes de l'institut Gallup, dans quatre Etats-clés, dont l'Ohio, montre qu'aux yeux des électeurs qui ont décidé de voter pour M. Kerry, l'Irak est une question aussi importante que l'économie et l'assurance-maladie. En revanche, le terrorisme vient loin derrière, dans leurs sujets de préoccupation, alors que c'est une priorité écrasant toutes les autres chez les électeurs de M. Bush.
Les électeurs qui ne se définissent ni comme démocrates, ni comme républicains, et que M. Kerry cherche à attirer, donnent moins d'importance que les républicains au terrorisme, mais le placent, néanmoins, avant l'Irak dans leurs préoccupations. La difficulté, pour le candidat démocrate, est de tenir, au sujet de l'Irak, un langage suffisamment critique, mais qui ne puisse le faire accuser de mollesse face au danger terroriste.
Le deuxième reproche adressé à M. Kerry est d'avoir trop mis en avant son passé militaire. En voulant empêcher M. Bush de se prévaloir, contre lui, de son expérience de la "guerre contre le terrorisme", le sénateur a ouvert la porte à d'obscures disputes sur des faits datant de trente-cinq ans, tandis que les problèmes qui intéressent les Américains aujourd'hui sont passés au second plan. Le candidat démocrate et son équipe ont décidé de ne plus parler ni des combats auxquels a participé M. Kerry, ni de ceux qu'a évités M. Bush.
Patrick Jarreau
George Bush se détache dans les sondages
A l'échelle nationale, les derniers sondages sur les intentions de vote au scrutin présidentiel du 2 novembre donnent tous une nette avance à George Bush. Le sondage Gallup, réalisé dans la première semaine de septembre, crédite le président sortant de 52 %, avec sept points d'avance sur John Kerry, 45 %. L'ultime sondage du Washington Post corrobore l'avance acquise par George Bush depuis la tenue de la convention républicaine à New York, du 30 août au 3 septembre. Il crédite l'actuel président de 50 %, six points devant le candidat démocrate, avec 44 %.
L'écart varie en fonction des thèmes de campagne. Il est le plus large, quand les futurs électeurs sont interrogés sur la "sécurité nationale", la lutte contre le terrorisme et la conduite de la guerre en Irak. Lors du dernier sondage Washington Post-ABC News, à la question de savoir "qui ferait un meilleur travail pour gérer la crise en Irak", 53 % de l'échantillon représentatif nomment George Bush, alors qu'ils ne sont que 37 % à croire aux capacités de commandant en chef de John Kerry.
• ARTICLE PARU DANS L'EDITION DU 16.09.04
Posted by Francis Pisani at 10:34 AM