|
|
|
CIAO DATE: 09/03
Foreign Policy
Grading the President – Want To Know More?
John Lewis Gaddis offers an upbeat assessment of George W. Bush’s security doctrine in “A Grand Strategy of Transformation” (FOREIGN POLICY, November/December 2002). Four of the presidential candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2004 explain what they would do differently in “If I Were President . . .” (FOREIGN POLICY, March/April 2003). Foreign journalists rank the performance of Secretary of State Colin Powell in “The Secretary at Midterm” (Foreign Service Journal, March 2003) and National Journal offers a report card on the entire cabinet in “Grading the Cabinet” (January 24, 2003). For a look at how the world rated Bush’s predecessor, see “Grading the President” (FOREIGN POLICY, Winter 1997–8).
Former South African President Nelson Mandela accused Bush of “wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust” in “Mandela Blasts U.S. Policy Towards Iraq” (Accra Mail, January 30, 2003). Makwaia Kuhenga examines why most other African governments have been comparatively restrained in their criticisms of U.S. policy in “As the World Speaks Out, Why Is Africa Silent?” (East African, February 17, 2003). James N. Karioki examines Bush’s revival of the Cold War doctrine of “with us or against us” in “The World Has Refused To Be Cowed by Uncompromising U.S.” (Sunday Times, April 13, 2003). Martin Mbugua Kimani argues that it is in East Africa’s interest to support the United States in “Forget the Peace Rhetoric, EA Must Back Bush” (East African, February 24, 2003).
People’s Daily, the official Communist Party newspaper in China, assesses the consequences of the U.S. victory in Iraq in “Personal View: After U.S. Hawks Get the Upper Hand” (April 18, 2003). Frank Ching examines emerging tensions in “War in Iraq: A Wedge Between China and the U.S.” (South China Morning Post, April 2, 2003). An editorial in the Hong Kong–based Standard urges the Bush administration not to deal with North Korea by military means in “Throw Lifelines, Not Bombs” (April 28, 2003).
Many East Europeans saw parallels between Iraq and their own struggle against totalitarian rule. Among those who expressed their support for Bush’s stance on Iraq were Adam Michnik in “Nie bylo wyboru” (“There Was No Choice,” Gazeta Wyborcza, March 21, 2003), Vaclav Havel in David Remnick’s “Exit Havel: The King Leaves the Castle” (New Yorker, February 17–24, 2003), and György Konrád in “Warum ich für den Irak-Krieg bin” (“Why I Am for the War in Iraq,” Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung, February 26, 2003). Their pro-Bush standpoint received strong criticism from “Old Europe.” Notably, novelist Günter Grass argued in the Polish press that Bush is a greater menace than Iraqi President Saddam Hussein ever was in “Wojowniczy Bush grozba dla Ameryki” (“Belligerent Bush as a Threat to America,” Gazeta Wyborcza, April 14, 2003).
León Krauze explores the role of faith in George W. Bush’s political life in “El mesías de Midland” (“The Messiah of Midland,” Letras Libres, April 2003). Moisés Naím challenges the Bush administration to promote trade in the Western Hemisphere in “Saving Latin America” (FOREIGN POLICY, November/December 2002). And former Mexican Minister for Foreign Affairs Jorge Castañeda explores the current state of U.S.–Latin American relations in “The Forgotten Relationship” (Foreign Affairs, May/June 2003).
Aluf Benn casts a critical eye on the Bush administration’s role as peacemaker in “Bush Moves an Inch on the Mideast” (Salon, March 19, 2003). Edward Said asks “What Is Happening to the United States?” (Al-Ahram Weekly, April 24–30, 2003) and denounces Bush as “the moral equivalent of a cowboy sheriff.” Ray Takeyh argues that Bush’s tough rhetoric against Tehran could prove self-defeating in “Bush’s Hard Line Trips Up the Reformers in Iran” (Los Angeles Times, August 9, 2002).
Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev lambasts the United States for waging “a felonious war,” declaring that “America Needs a Perestroika, and U.N. Funeral Is Way Too Premature” (Novaya Gazeta, No. 21, March 24, 2003). Vyachelsav Nikonov says that Russia’s partnership with the United States is more important than friendships with dictators such as Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in “The Puzzle of Iraq” (Trud, September 21, 2002). Sergei Karaganov offers an analysis of Russia’s handling of the Bush administration in “Some Lessons From the Iraqi Crisis” (The Moscow Times, April 25, 2003). Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov stresses Russia’s desire for smoothing over relations in “A Russian Resolve for Peace and Partnership” (Washington Post, March 15, 2003).
India Today presents a collection of essays on how the world—and specifically India—should deal with the United States after the downfall of Saddam in “U.S. Policy: The World According to Bush” (April 28, 2003). Arundhati Roy claims “Bush-bashing is fun, because he makes such an easy, sumptuous target” in her essay “U.S Reveals Its True Imperial Colours” (Sunday Times, April 6, 2003). Many Pakistani exiles have criticized the Bush administration for making common cause with Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s regime, most notably former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in “A Chameleon Ally in Pakistan” (Christian Science Monitor, February 5, 2002). The resignation of the U.S. ambassador to India, Robert Blackwill, allegedly over the Bush administration’s refusal to take a tougher pro-India line on Kashmir, has sparked extensive commentary in the Indian press, most notably “U.S. Envoy Blackwill Pays For His Pro-India Line” (Indian Express, April 22, 2003).
Philip Bowring thinks the time has come for East Asia to reevaluate its position vis-à-vis the United States in “Time to Rethink East Asia’s Strategic Interests” (South China Morning Post, March 24, 2003). However, others argue that it is in their country’s national interest to back the United States, as Singapore’s Mark Hong does in “Pragmatism Means Backing the Right Horse” (Straits Times, March 26, 2003). Tony Parkinson believes the changes wrought by the September 11 terrorist attacks leave the United States little choice but to pursue a more activist foreign policy in “Yes, The World Has Changed Profoundly” (The Age, September 7, 2002). Kumar Ramakrishna proposes that the United States needs a more sophisticated approach to dealing with terrorism in the region, in “U.S. Anti-Terror Strategy Needs a Rethink” (Straits Times, August 27, 2002).
Opposing French and British perspectives on the Bush doctrine can be found in “How Should Europe Respond to the New America?” (Prospect, April 2003), a debate between Charles Grant and François Heisbourg. The depths to which trans-Atlantic relations have sunk were demonstrated by a French opinion poll, taken midwar, which showed that only 34 percent of those questioned were supporting the coalition (“French Harden Their Opposition to War In Iraq,” Manchester Guardian Weekly, April 16, 2003). In his 2003 Harkness lecture, “After Iraq: America and Europe”, William Shawcross argues that European attempts to hobble the United States “will undermine if not destroy its own security.”