Office of Research | Issue Focus | Foreign Media Reaction |
|
|
|
Editorialists in several regions offered
retrospectives on 2001, and mused on whether "the year of September
11" will have a lasting impact on global politics. The question on the minds of a number of
Western and East Asian writers was whether Sept. 11 had "inaugurated a new
era" in U.S. foreign policy, "one less unilateralist and more
accommodating of international opinion."
The Bush administration was given high marks by several in Europe for
its conduct of the anti-terrorism war, with some pointing to "the amazing
feat of bringing together in a few weeks' time a broad international coalition
against terrorism." Nevertheless,
many in Europe, Asia, the Mideast and Latin America were uneasy that
Washington, emboldened by its success in Afghanistan, would expand its military
campaign to other venues and further neglect, in their view, other foreign
policy priorities. Highlights follow: Europe/Canada: An underlying theme in many papers was that
the U.S. emerged from 2001 "bloodied but vindicated"--shown to be
vulnerable to terrorist attacks but unchallenged as the world's
superpower. Media diverged on whether
9/11 and its aftermath made the U.S. more cognizant of the need for
international cooperation, or only "reinforced America's unilateralism." Some in Britain, the Czech Republic and
Portugal praised the Bush administration for rounding up international support
and mounting a determined and able response to the terrorist attacks. Others in France, Belgium, Finland, and The
Netherlands saw the U.S.' effort at consensus-building on anti-terrorism as an
aberration. Citing the Kyoto Protocol
and ABM Treaty, they complained that 9/11 had failed to dissuade the U.S. from
its "solitary conduct." A
leftist French paper and an opposition Russian daily even accused the U.S. of
"aspiring to global hegemony."
A few papers reminded readers that "terrorism is not the world's
only enemy," and urged the international community to bring the same rigor
to fighting other global problems as it has to battling terrorism. OIC Countries:
Columnists in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Pakistan ominously warned that
the U.S. would draw upon its success in
Afghanistan and use its "military prowess" to ensconce itself in
Central Asia, thus confirming the "trend" toward a "unipolar
world." Writers in Egypt and
Turkey, meanwhile, lamented that the 9/11 events had widened the gap of
misunderstanding between the West and Islam.
Rather than exclusively blaming the U.S. for the "horrible
setbacks" in the Arab world, however, a number adopted a self-deprecatory
tone, admitting that outdated thinking, extremism, and the tendency to hold
onto the past were also responsible for the enmity. An Egyptian pundit ridiculed the Arab "naivetT" toward
the Bush administration, which, in the writer's view, had led many to believe
that Bush's "background in the oil industry and his father's old
relations...could make American policies more sympathetic to Arabs and less
biased toward Israel." Another
argued that a "broad dialogue" among Arabs was necessary in order to
establish a "formula" to gain acceptance into the "modern
world." Similarly, a Turkish daily
stressed that 9/11 had underscored the need for Muslims to
"re-evaluate" the values of Islamic "in the light of secularism
and rationalism." East Asia: Chinese papers alleged
that the U.S., far from "softening its policies," would emerge from
9/11 even more unilateralist and bent on "establishing a unipolar
world." Papers in S. Korea and
Singapore also picked up on "sole superpower" theme. Seoul papers worried that the U.S. would
make 2002 "a year of war" and voiced their opposition to
"unilateral U.S. militarism."
A Singapore daily, likewise, mused that the U.S.' swift victory in
Afghanistan, "confirming as it has America's overwhelming might,"
might tempt it to "wield the big stick" too readily. A Taipei paper, by contrast, saw the U.S.
"relying more and more" on its regional allies in fighting
terrorism. Japanese and Hong Kong
writers stressed the need for better international coordination on terrorism
and other issues, from economics to the environment. Latin America: A sense
of resignation that 9/11 signalled a "breaking point" with early Bush
administration attention to the region pervaded much of the end-of-the-year
commentary. The abrupt turn of events
frustrated expectations that this was to have been the year to mark
"America's century," as "promised" by the president, and
fueled resentment in some outlets, notably in Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, the
Dominican Republic, Ecuador and Mexico.
Most of these critics perceived U.S. "detachment" toward the
Argentine crisis, the "lower profile" given to the war on drugs and
the FTAA as evidence that the Bush administration applied a "different
standard" toward Latin America.
Many essentially agreed with a Quito daily's assessment that post-9/11
U.S. foreign policy would "be based on what is convenient for the great
power." While the autopilot was
set on U.S. criticism for most, a Bogota daily took different, pragmatic tack,
arguing that Colombia's "only reasonable option is participation in the
international mainstream led by Washington." EDITORS: Katherine Starr, Irene Marr EDITORS' NOTE: This survey is based on 64 editorials
from 36 countries, Dec. 12- Jan 10.
Editorial excerpts are grouped by region and country, and listed from
the most recent date. EUROPE BRITAIN:
"A Nation That Stands Bloodied But Vindicated" Gerard Baker, Washington correspondent for the
independent Financial Times, expressed this view (12/27): "The sentiments most powerfully on
display in the United States are enduring optimism and renewed faith in what
their country represents. Indeed, the
paradox of 2001 is that, in seeking to bring the United States lower, its
enemies have succeeded only in building it up.
This is not empty political rhetoric.
It is an accurate picture of American self-regard today. It would be absurd to suggest that the rest
of the world has embraced everything that America stands for in the wake of
September 11. The details of how you
organize a free society will be quibbled over for centuries yet. However, the war on terrorism has set in
stark relief the really important political choices the human race
confronts. In its way, September 11,
2001 and its aftermath could prove as significant as November 1989 in its
consequences in the global struggle for freedom." FRANCE:
"Consequences Of The September 11 Attacks" A two-page report under the above headline was
featured in right-of-center economic Les Echos (1/10). In the report, Stephane Dupont had this
opinion piece titled: "George W. Bush Transformed After a Year in the
White House" (1/10): "A
controversial figure up until last summer...the White House's occupant has
proved to be a true leader able to rally members of the political class to his
cause in a rare united front.
Unskillful up to then on the diplomatic scene, the former Texas governor
also succeeded in the amazing feat of bringing together in a few weeks' time a
broad international coalition against terrorism." “Is What’s Good For The U.S. Also Good For The
World?” Herve Kempf opined in left-of-center Le Monde
(1/8): “If one analyzes America’s
diplomacy since the September 11 attacks on all issues that exclude ‘the war
against terrorism,’ it is obvious that the United States has deliberately
adopted a unilateral position. The
United States has not moved an inch on the Kyoto Protocol.... On GMOs it has not only maintained its
position against the protocol on bio-security but also vigorously fought
against the Nairobi conference.… [It] has also reaffirmed its opposition to the
treaty on banning nuclear tests. In
reality, this solitary conduct by the U.S. is not surprising. It is a continuation of the policy adopted
by President Bush in 2001. The
September 11 attacks did not change America’s position on dealing with major
world issues.” "Back To The Drawing Board" Pascal Boniface of IRIS (Institute for
International Strategic Relations) commented in left-of-center Liberation
(1/7): "Americans are interpreting
their military victory as a triumph. It
reinforces their belief that they are almost always right and that they can
always impose their point of view.
Their unilateralism...comes out reinforced by this war...which was led
with great political intelligence....
The United States managed to demonstrate that the war was not against
the Muslim world, or even the Afghan regime, but that it was led by the United
States in the interest of the rest of the world, rather than as selfish
revenge.... Now that it has been
reassured by a victory that turned out to be easier than expected, it has once
again become sure of itself, very sure in fact.... The events, far from proving its weakness have proven [its]
superiority. Its victory has reinforced
America's unilateralism and its desire to impose its vision.... America has learned nothing and could face
other rude awakenings." "Wars Against Europe: American Military Unilateralism" Jean-Pierre Ferrier held in right-of-center Le
Figaro (1/4): "Europe's
incompetence in the military sector has been accentuated through three wars
initiated and led by the United States in the past ten years. Iraq presented the opportunity to verify the
individual faithfulness of the members of the Alliance. Kosovo showed the minimal role played by
European allies, whose participation the Pentagon considered as a weakening
factor militarily but nevertheless diplomatically very useful. Afghanistan served to summarize the
situation: The allies have the
obligation to participate in missions decided by the United States following
the guidelines determined by Washington.
In each instance the rules are the same: At most, the Europeans have the right to information, or to the
impression that they have been kept informed.... But the EU is in general absent.... In spite of Maastricht and the euro, Europe's joint defense and
security policy is still very much in the future." "The Year Of September 11" Jean-Paul Pierrot had this to say in communist L'Humanite
(12/31): "The war in Afghanistan
did indeed lead to the fall of an abominable regime...one that Washington, in
the not so distant past, supported....
While still under the shock of...September 11, the world wondered, which
lessons would U.S. leaders learn? Would
they rethink their unilateralism...by involving themselves, along with the UN,
in finding solutions to the problems of the world? For now, nothing seems to point to that end. On the contrary, the threat of seeing
military operations spread to other countries, such as Somalia, Yemen or Iraq,
is a sign that hegemony remains the number-one priority of the Bush
administration." GERMANY: "The
'I'-Alliance" Washington correspondent Wolfgang Koydl filed
the following editorial for Munich's center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung
(1/9): "Today, Pakistan fits even
less the draft for the future of the region which is currently being developed
in the State Department and the White House.
The United States is unable to control this region all by itself.
That is why it is planning to appoint three reliable deputy sheriffs who
patrol the region once U.S. marshals are absent. The first is a reliable and experienced cop, the second worked
for Washington before, and the third is a newcomer: Israel, Iran, and India....
In the future, Iran's significance may even grow, because the United
States may no longer want to rely on the ambiguous Saudis. And Israel, in turn, could live well with
these two sheriff colleagues. But Delhi
and Tehran could learn something very important from Israel, too: How to keep U.S friendship by making oneself
indispensable." "The Appearance Of Normality" Malte Lehming maintained in an editorial in
centrist Tagesspiegel of Berlin (1/4):
"Washington's desire for invulnerability was already part of the
discussion about missile defense.
Terrorism has not reduced this desire; it has made it stronger. Whether in Somalia, Sudan, the Philippines
or Iraq, the United States will not give up its fight against various threats
any time soon. In addition, the Bush
administration will generally act alone in these matters. Success in Afghanistan has encouraged those
military strategists who view coalitions as obstacles. Anyone in Europe who had hoped that
'unrestricted solidarity' with the Americans would mean the chance of gaining
more influence is likely to be disappointed.
All of this will put tremendous pressure on transatlantic relations. The U.S. administration, which less than a
year ago was viewed as unstable and likely to fail, is now solidly in
charge. It is being led by a president
whose strength, among others, is to be underestimated by his opponents. Congressional elections will take place in
the United States this year, and there is no Democrat in sight who could
challenge Bush." RUSSIA: "What Future
for NMD?" The reformist weekly Vlast (# 50, 1/4)
published this article by Ilya Bulavinov and Ivan Safronov: "The latest
turn in relations between Russia and the West as a whole and the United States
in particular, profanely speaking, is owed to the September 11 terrorist
attacks. Moscow has officially been
recognized as a key player in world politics.
The events in Afghanistan have proved something no one except Russian
politicians believed anymore: There is, effectively, no [way of] solving major
international problems without Russian participation." "Russia Adrift" Under this headline, the nationalist opposition Sovetskaya
Rossiya (12/29) ran a piece by Vasiliy Safronchuk: "There have been no
qualitative changes inside Russia or in its relations with the West since
September 11.... The current regime, as
Yeltsin in his time, has been wooing the West, hoping for Russia to be
recognized as a capitalist country....
There is a new force in the world that openly challenges the majority of
humankind...and aspires for global hegemony.
It is the United States. But the
Americans have been trying in every way to hide their true intentions,
disguising them as fighting against international terrorism.... The United States' attempts to drag Russia
into the Gold Billion's coalition to stand up to the rest of the world are
really disturbing. It is surprising how
easily Putin fell for the antiterrorist trap Bush set up for him. He readily joined the U.S. action against
Afghanistan and used his influence to get Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan
to pitch in and offer their bases for the U.S. aviation and airborne troops. The ungrateful Washington responded by
declaring its withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.... In effect, Putin has had Russia bonded with the U.S. war chariot
in a crusade against all those who oppose the United States' global
hegemony." AUSTRIA:
"Bush Unopposed" Martin Kilian opined in independent political
weekly Profil (1/7): "Bush knows he owes (his current popularity)
to the military success in Afghanistan.
Quite cleverly, he declared 2002 yet another 'war year.'... As far as U.S. security policy and the 'war
against terror' are concerned, clearly no one is going to oppose him.... With barely a word of complaint everyone
accepted that after September 11, this president extended his power like no
other supreme commander since Roosevelt." BELGIUM:
"The Year Of The 'Lonely Sheriff'" Diplomatic correspondent Mia Doornaert argued in
independent Christian-Democrat De Standaard (1/3): "2001 will remain the year of September
11 for the Americans--and for a major part of the world. Will 2002...become the year of the 'lonely
sheriff' with Bush in a key role? It is
frightening that Bush appears eager to play that role--with the support of the
Congress and the people.... Despite the
predictions of the prophets of doom the United States achieved an early
victory. The bridgeheads of the
terrorist network have been destroyed.
The Taliban regime has been ousted.
A broad coalition government has been installed under the auspices of
the UN.... America, however, does not
feel accountable to anyone about the goals of its future operations and refuses
to say at what moment it will judge its war against al-Qaeda to be
over.... America's lonely march is not
limited to Afghanistan. In recent
months, the United States swiftly distanced itself from the [CTBT]. In Geneva, it obstructed the [BWC]
conference and insulted...Putin by withdrawing from the ABM Treaty. Moreover, the United States worried friend
and foe by talking about possible attacks against Iraq. That obvious unilateralism is a strange
result of '9/11'--the date that should have made the United States realize that
even the mightiest nation does not live on an island." "One Day Changed Everything" Foreign editor Paul De Bruyn observed in
conservative Christian-Democrat Gazet van Antwerpen (1/2): "One
year ago [Bush] was described as...stupid, narrow-minded, extremely
conservative and not interested in the rest of the world outside America. He rejected the Kyoto Protocol and irritated
friend and foe with his anti-missile shield.... Today...he has shown that he is a strong and moderate war
leader. He has kept a tight rein on the
hawks in his administration and, with the help of Tony Blair and Colin Powell,
he built a broad coalition against terrorism.
Minus points are his blunders like his Wild West style dead-or-alive
statements and the fact that he cannot always conceal his disdain." CZECH REPUBLIC:
"Year One Only Started After September 11" Milan Vodicka maintained in right-centre MF
Dnes (12/31): "Just like the
20th century only started after the first shots of WWI in 1914, the 21st
century really only began after September 11.... Almost everything changed: emotions, attitudes, alliances. The year 2001 did not have 'major news,' it
only had September 11. Events of that
day showed that power does not necessarily induce safety. It showed that the United States is
superpower No. 1, which also makes it a super-target No. 1.... When Bush appealed to the rest of the world
to unite its efforts in the fight against terrorism, the Cold War came to its
final end, and the world set out on a new urgent mission.... The Americans had long viewed their foreign
policy as a charitable act, but after the Manhattan attacks they realized that
they need the rest of world as much as the rest of the world needs the United
States.... The events of September 11
proved that prophesies about a war between civilizations were wrong, but they
also showed how easily anger turns into violence, and how many of us still do
not really appreciate that we all are involved in this fight." FINLAND:
"Looking Forward To 'A Great Year' But For Whom?" Independent regional Aamulehti's
editorial read (1/3): "The tragic
events last September strengthened the U.S. position in international
politics. Besides sympathy, the U.S.
received promises of far-reaching cooperation.
The Bush administration responded by softening its style and tone. Earlier, it had been criticized for
selfishness bordering on arrogance.
After the terrorist attacks, changes in U.S. policies--to include
changes not just in style, but in substance (to reflect a more internationalist
approach)--were widely expected.
However, it is no longer certain that these changes will take
place. Just before Christmas, the
United States announced it would disengage from the important ABM
Treaty.... Skeptics say that it is
fruitless to expect real change in U.S. politics. Bush is not planning a return to the Kyoto process and opposes
the international criminal court.
Washington continues to react negatively to current proposals for the
verification of biological weapons and the small-arms trade. The value of the UN may have increased in Bush's
eyes, but it is hard to believe that the president and his inner circle of
advisors would be willing to relinquish any real decision-making authority to
international and multinational organizations." KAZAKHSTAN: "In
Defense Of Order" Independent Express K commented
(1/8): "After the tragic events of
September 11, many Kazakhstanis came to view the United States in a different
way--with love, or even veneration. The
desire to forgive America for all its past sins has swept across the globe,
[but] essentially nothing has changed in America's overseas priorities. Just as before, it fancies itself the master
of everything under the sun and behaves accordingly. Neither George Bush, nor Richard Cheney, nor Colin Powell have
given a single reason...for it to renounce its global aspirations, as
demonstrated by its uncontrollable desire to control absolutely
everything." LITHUANIA:
"Year Marked By Horror And Mourning, But Also Hope" The main editorial in leading independent Lietuvos Rytas
reflected (12/27): "September 11,
2001, the date of the beginning of the new era, has been etched into the
memories of the majority of the civilized world for a long time, perhaps even
for a lifetime.... The first year of
the third millennium of history will be marked not only by horror and mourning
over the death of several thousand people under the ruins of the World Trade
Center, but also by a sign of hope.
Perhaps one can even say that [UBL]...not only horrifyingly demonstrated
on September 11th how unsafe the most powerful country in the world can be, but
also, he, against his own will, helped to pave the bridge for America and all
of humanity toward a safer world." THE NETHERLANDS: "The Necessity Of A Double Battle" Influential Haagsche Courant's editorial
read (12/31): "The world after
September 11 needs more than 'dead-or-alive' rhetoric.... Blair has best understood that. He sketched, shortly after the attacks, a
'new world order.'... The battle
against poverty, disease, civil strife and violations of human rights will take
more time than smoking out Tora Bora.
But if it does not happen, terrorists will always find free ports in
impoverished countries without state institutions such as Afghanistan and
Somalia. And solutions are sometimes
nearer than is apparent. This month a
scarcely noticed report appeared by international experts, composed under the
leadership of former Norwegian PM Gro Brundtland. If the rich countries would together, annually contribute $27
billion (0.1 percent of their GNP) to basic health care in the Third World,
they would annually save the lives of eight million people, and would be
supporting the development of the poorest countries. In comparison: The U.S.
Congress allocated, days after the attack, $40 billion for combating terrorism. It is a double battle, but only if it is
fought simultaneously will the world really be changed after September
11." "After September 11" Liberal Trouw's editorial held
(12/24): "The war in Afghanistan
has been fought, and the international coalition against terrorism is creaking
because the United States is being suspected of wanting to bomb other
countries. Furthermore the United
States, is being reproached, and not without reason, that in the area of international
agreements and treaties, they are dealing as opportunistically and arrogantly
with the world as they before September 11.
And finally, this American administration is doing much too little to
attempt to take the sting out of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, a conflict
that in whatever way contributes to the hate and jealously in the Arabic and
Muslim world with regard to everything which the U.S. stands for. Thus apparently nothing has changed since
the eleventh of September.... And that
is a pity, because terrorism is far from eradicated in this world, and every
momentum to deal with it and to deny it material and emotional base should be
grasped." NORWAY:
"The Road Ahead" Conservative, newspaper-of-record Aftenposten
commented (12/31): "September 11
has already become a red-letter date, even though we don't know what final
outcome the terror attacks will have on New York and Washington when history is
written.... The fight against terrorism
has shown what power the international community, with the United States behind
the wheel, is able to mobilize when the goal is clear and the will is
present. The surge of political and
military energy we now see is exceptional.
It is therefore tempting, at the turn of the year, to remind ourselves
that terrorism is not the only enemy in the world. Hunger, environmental damage and population explosion are among
the greatest dangers of mankind.... If
the events of September 11 lead to the world community's using its political energy
to fight (these other dangers), the date will go down in history as a red
letter date of great importance." PORTUGAL:
"Bush, A Year Later" Influential, center-left Público had this
piece by editor-in-chief JosT Manuel Fernandes (1/7): "Few will now doubt that the team assembled by Bush junior
has shown the ability, cohesion, competence and determination indispensable for
the creation of an extraordinary international coalition, as well as the
effective conduct of a distant war in the extraordinary conditions created by
the 11th of September.... On the
external front he said he would pursue an anti-missile defense system, and he's
doing it, it being notable how each passing day reduces the international opposition
(particularly from European partners and from Russia). Even when he followed paths I have
contested--as in denouncing the Kyoto Protocol--I have to admit that he has
been coherent and frontal: What he
said, he did, and in Portuguese and European politics one can rarely conjugate
those verbs together." "The War Continues" Deputy Editor-in-Chief Ant=nio Ribeiro Ferreira
judged respected moderate-left Diário de Notfcias (12/31): "The year 2001 was marked by the
beginning of the war against terrorism, which will certainly continue into 2002
for the good of the peace and security of populations in any part of the
world.... The bosses of al-Qaida and
of the defunct Afghan regime still have to be caught, but the continuation of
American military operations is a sign that these objectives will sooner or
later be reached.... In the end, those
imaginary enemies that some people were talking about following the September
11 attacks--in an attempt to escape their responsibilities and justify official
passiveness in the face of terror--had a name, an organization, and the means
and the support to massacre innocents....
The war against terrorism has also allowed a clear separation of the
waters in the Middle East. After years
and years of mystification, both the United States and the EU have come to
recognize the terrorist character of organizations that are the true obstacles
to peace in the region.... The war is,
in fact, being won.... The year 2002 will not be one of peace. That's a good sign for those who have always
been--clearly, and without complexes of any sort--in favor of the war against
terrorism." ROMANIA: "2002" In financial Curentul, political analyst
Andreea Enea commented on the future of U.S.-Russian relations (12/30): "It is a certainty that Russia and
America are shaking their hands in a different way than they have done it up
until now, and are reaching agreements at a different level.... 2002 will offer the same realities, but with
different meanings. It is the year of
NATO's expansion, which Russia has always wanted to be as restrained as
possible, and to be as far as possible from the Baltic States. This expansion means a reconfirmation of the
functionality of this collective security institution, which is the symbol of
American military supremacy. It is also
the year in which the United States will unilaterally withdraw from the ABM
Treaty." TURKEY: "Long Year For Uncle Sam" Yasemin Congar mused in mass appeal Milliyet
(12/31): “Come and let us rack our brains and recall the United States at the
end of 2000. Elections were on
everybody's minds and the word 'chad' was on everybody's lips.... The country
was suddenly divided.... But look at
the United States today. America is
talking jihad not chad, all eyes are on Tora Bora not Florida, the
Republican-Democrat argument has largely been replaced by an extraordinary
national unity in the belief that, in Bush's words, 'a new front of good has
been opened up against evil'; an America that has begun to rewrite not only its
own but the whole world's agenda with a terrifying nationalist rhetoric. Whether those that struck at this country on
its home turf...actually saw this day coming is unknown. However, just as with Pearl Harbor, the
United States has become the proverbial 'woken dragon.' It is a country that has the political
clout and the military technology to open front after front and wage war for
years, yes years, in the name of 'ridding the world of terrorism' and to do
exactly what it says it will do.… Today's America is one where the national
anthem is heard and sung more frequently than ever before, where everything
that can be painted...has been bedecked in red, white and blue; a country where
everybody says, 'God bless America.'... "For those of us who feel somehow linked to
the fate of the world, 2001 ends as we make plans for the New Year based on the
accounts of the last year with questions centered on the United States being
asked: Will terrorism in the Middle
East be uprooted? Will war be declared
on Iraq? Will the Arab-Muslim world be
able to make reform towards democracy and freedom? Could the United States be attacked again? Could things get so far out of hand that the
button for nuclear, chemical or biological weapons be pressed? We will find out in 2002 and let us hope
they favor respect for life. With
wishes that your worries decrease and your pleasures increase this year. “ "Islam Vs. Islam" Haluk Ulman observed in economic/political Dunya
(12/26): "The whole September 11
process should teach the Islamic world a lesson. The most important one by far is the fact that Muslims can only
stand on their own feet by being contemporary and not working for 'jihad.' Contemporary values leave no room for
dogma. The values of Islam, therefore,
should be re-evaluated in the light of secularism and rationalism.... Those states capable of achieving this can
gain prestige with the West. This is
the only way to get rid of an environment that can produce an Usama bin Laden. Otherwise Muslims will always be treated as
second-class by Westerners." MIDDLE EAST EGYPT:
"Islam And The West" Leading pro-government Al Ahram's senior
contributor El-Sayed Yassin judged (1/3):
"If a dialogue between Islam and the West must be conducted, then
both sides should exercise 'revelation of self.'... For example, Western orientalism from the start, developed
anti-Islamic trends.... Westerners
continue to believe that Islam is naturally violent.... On the other hand, contemporary Muslims
continue to believe that Western civilization is materialist and lacking of
spirituality. Extremist Islam considers
the West as infidel.... The frank
revelation of these main trends is the first step toward an objective image of
the other." "Media Assault" Leading pro-government Al Ahram and the
English-language Al Ahram Weekly's columnist Salama Ahmed Salama held
(1/3): "The [international] media
scene has been particularly discouraging in 2001, and in this respect Arab
countries have fared no better than the rest of the world. The Arab media under predictable pressures,
sought to appease American anger. It
fell into a morass of self-contradiction, verbally defending Islam and Muslims
against Western attacks, while announcing support for the American campaign
against terrorism.... In many cases,
newspapers have been banned in Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco and Yemen." "Who Kidnapped The Issue?" Leading pro-government Al Ahram's
columnist Salama Ahmed Salama remarked (12/31): "The Arab world has never suffered such horrible
setbacks--in all its issues--as in 2001. This started with the arrival of
President Bush...and the election of Sharon in Israel. Arabs have shown a flagrant inability to
make predictions about the new American administration.... Arab naivetT reached the point that some of
them even believed Bush's background in the oil industry and his father's old
relations...could make American policies more sympathetic to Arabs and less
biased toward Israel. But events have
proven the opposite to be the case....
The Arab world witnessed no change in either thinking or policies
according to the new changes. They have
failed to rearrange their ranks, reconcile belligerent parties, and emerge from
the tunnel of empty exaggerations to realistic, effective policies.... Naturally then, the Middle East reached an
impasse with the first American shock [on September 11]; Israel kidnapped the
Palestinian issue under the excuse of fighting terrorism." "Arabs And The West" Leading pro-government Al Ahram's
columnist Gamal Zayda noted (12/30): "The GCC is meeting as Arab
civilization confronts heavy challenges.
The Arab world is accused of exporting terrorism, clashing with the
Christian West, being incapable of coping with the liberal democratic world,
and providing the climate for religious fascism.... Gulf Arabs enjoy a false sense of security due to an
uninterrupted flow of oil to the industrial world, though recent days have
proven the West can sacrifice her closest allies.... Some people have not realized that most precepts crumbled after
September 11; the world and the West changed but Arabs have not.... Relations between the Gulf and the United
States are no longer what they were before September 11. Thus, some Arab countries suffered from
overwhelming attacks in the American media and by various political circles in
Washington. These challenges require a
broad dialogue in the Arab world to create a formula for agreement with the
modern world which allows us to be part of the new world agenda: i.e. applying
democracy, opening the way for freedom of expression.... The goal is to block this harsh attack on
the region by some extremist conservative powers in the American political
system which want to use the American military prowess to realize their purpose
and allow the terrorist Israeli prime minister to destroy the Palestinian
people." SAUDI ARABIA:
"America's Color Blindness" Dammam based, moderate Al-Yaum
editorialized (1/5): "Sept. 11 caused America to become color blind. The colors it sees are either white (pro war
on terrorism) or black (pro terrorism).
All of the colors in between are ignored. One is either with it or against it. America is democratic within its borders and authoritarian
abroad. The United States did not
demand the support of other countries in its campaign for lack of military
power.... The coalition was necessary
to legitimize the attacks after terrorism hit at the heart of America.... Great Britain joined the coalition
voluntarily only because of tight relations between Washington and
London.... Nobody disputes America's
right to retaliate against its attackers.... Our disagreement is with
establishing permanent military bases in Afghanistan, in the heart of
Asia.... America aims at establishing a
base in every country that can provide a strategic location. America has not lost its ability to
distinguish between colors, but it is pretending to be color blind in order to
achieve its strategic objective of controlling the sources and the routes
leading to all of the oil fields in the world." "Bush's Eyelid and War" London based, pan-Arab Al-Hayat
editorialized (12/30): "President Bush says farewell to the year 2001 with
a big promise: 'The U.S. will not
blink an eye (shut an eyelid) until terrorism is defeated' so let us all blink
and rest our eyes knowing that Bush's success is certain. The consequences of this are something
else. Bin Laden, al-Qaida and all the
poor Arabs will get their share of the knife of terrorism. Bush has the right to enjoy his incomplete
victory in Afghanistan, and we have the right to say farewell to the events of
Sept. 11 with no regrets. The American
media gave us a clear lesson about souring
Arab-American relations. Is this
not racial discrimination? By claiming
that they are liberating the world, Americanizing it and globalizing it, aren't
they actually liberating it from its oil as well as its terrorists? The list of damages caused by the Sept. 11
attacks is not yet complete. Who knows
what else bin Laden has up his sleeve for his war against the American
economy? Who knows what kind of
'victory' awaits us in 2002 while Bush refrains from blinking?" "Bush's Benefits From The Sept. 11
Attacks" Jeddah-based, moderate Okaz editorialized
(12/23): "The hatred of the United States by many nations (including Arab
and Muslim countries) goes back to 1945 when WWII ended and the United States
became a superpower and a leader of... 'the new occupation.' The hatred grew with time, especially after
the increasingly negative effects of selfish American foreign policies which
are aimed at serving Americans' interest even if it was at the cost of other
nations. The more greedy Americans
became, the more the hatred increased.
The more the negative effects of American policies became understood
internationally, the more hatred even educated nations had for America. The negative American domination reached its
peak after the collapse of its major competitor, the former Soviet Union. But fate has punished those who wished for
USSR collapse and praised America out of ignorance. These people now say: 'Uncle Sam is not any better than the Red
Bear.'... Things got worse when George
W. Bush came to power, when the Republicans took over the Congress, and when
Sharon regained power in Israel. That
is when the American right wing ideologies took over. They came to power with the mentality of a warrior fighting the
Red Indians.... During the first eight
months in office Bush converted the American surplus generated by Clinton into
a deficit. In South Africa at the
international conference to fight racism, America took embarrassing positions
condemned by many observers including many Americans. At the same time Sharon came to destroy the concept of the peace
process between Arabs and Israelis. Perhaps all these events contributed to the
Sept. 11 attacks, but they gave Bush his political gain. It gave him a chance to exercise his
military domination and launch his missiles regardless of the effects of such
actions on innocent civilians.... It
is ironic that those who attacked America out of hatred and to destroy its
power, gave Bush increased popularity within his country. A benefit Bush would have never dreamed of
getting on his own." BAHRAIN: "The Twenty First Century Will See
Confrontation" Fawzia Rasheed stated in semi-independent Akhbar
Al-Khalij (1/5): "America is not aware that its war against terrorism
today will mark the beginning of its end because if the nations are silent now
they will not be in the long term. It
seems that the 21st century will be full of humans' search for freedom and
dignity and the only way to do that is confrontation." EAST ASIA CHINA:
"Developing A Constructive And Cooperative Sino-U.S.
Relationship" Ren Yujun and Wang Rujun wrote in official
Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao, 12/30): "During an exclusive interview with the
People's Daily, Chinese Ambassador to the U.S. Yang Jiechi said the
general trend of Sino-U.S. relations has been good this year.... Facts have proven that despite ups and downs
in the bilateral ties, the common interests between China and the United States
are more than differences.... Enhancing
high-level contacts and exchanges is very important. Developing a constructive and cooperative Sino-U.S. relationship
is the right choice for the two countries under the current circumstances, and
will be conducive to world peace and stability." "U.S. Unilateralism Goes Unchecked" Yan Feng wrote in the Xinhua Daily Telegraph
(Xinhua Meiri Dianxun, 12/25): "Since September 11, the Bush
administration has...softened some of its foreign policies. But obviously, it has not fundamentally
abandoned unilateralism.... Unilateralism is a concrete manifestation of the
U.S.' pursuit of power politics throughout the world, and goes against the main
trend of dialogue and cooperation. It
not only poses threats to world peace and security, but also will has an
unhealthy effect on U.S. national interests.
Given the fact that establishing a U.S.-led unipolar world is already a
fixed strategic goal of the United States....and that the Bush administration
has a strong military background, it is predictable that Bush will never
abandon unilateralism easily." "U.S.: Unilateralism
Plus Pragmatism" Shi Xiaohui wrote in official Communist Party People's
Daily (Renmin Ribao,12/24): "In short, the Bush
administration's diplomacy was characterized by strong unilateralism in the
earlier stage and more pragmatism at present...[but its] foreign policy after
the September 11 incident indicates that the U.S. goal to maintain its sole
superpower status remains unchanged.
Its position that America's interests take precedence over the interests
of any other countries has not changed, either." HONG KONG SAR:
"Bush's Reality Check Amid New Year Cheer" The independent, English-language South China
Morning Post's Washington correspondent Greg Torode said in an analysis
piece (1/7): "According to an
array of Washington insiders, do not be fooled. Many are happy [Bush] seems to be enjoying the moment--and
stellar approval ratings--because they warn that some extremely tough and
awkward decisions lie ahead. He may
indeed soon be forced to spend some reflective moments in front of the mirror,
contemplating far weightier matters than the merits of Texas
cheeseburgers. From every angle, his
new war on terrorism remains a work in progress, at best. The black and white issues that suit Bush's
leadership style so well are receding and the messy shades of grey are
returning.... Any future attack will
seriously damage the cloak of success that now shrouds Bush's early
efforts. The patter of the last week
cannot hide the potential for tough days ahead for a leader whom many were
calling shaky just months ago, before 19 terrorists hijacked four planes and
changed his world, our world, forever." "Taxing Tasks For The New Year" The independent, English-language South China
Morning Post remarked in an editorial (12/30): "There are now signs that economic recovery in the United
States may be close.... What is most
important as a new year approaches is that confidence is allowed to grow. Destabilizing factors must be attacked as
effectively and as energetically as war was waged in Afghanistan. The current headlong plunge into war by
India and Pakistan, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the restoration of
orderly governance in Afghanistan are examples of where the United States and
its allies must act vigorously. These
tasks are far more taxing than a simple military campaign against an inferior
enemy, but they are ultimately far more important in achieving a more
stable--and more prosperous--new year." JAPAN:
"Remedies For Recovery Of World Economy" Top-circulation, moderate Yomiuri
editorialized (1/4): "While the
world economy has become ever more fragile after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks
on the United States, the international economy should use every means to
prevent a global recession.... Shortly
after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, financial authorities in the United
States, Japan and Europe pumped funds into their financial markets to prevent
confusion in the markets. This
experience has taught us that major industrialized nations should further
promote monetary policy coordination.
Should anxiety over the future subside, the U.S. economy may start to
pick up in the second half of this year....
As the world's second-largest economy, Japan also needs to do its utmost
to revitalize its deteriorating economy." "Preserve International Coordination To
Create New World Order" Top-circulation, moderate Yomiuri
observed (1/3): "The most
significant sea-change brought by the Sept. 11 attacks is the advent of
concerted relationships between the United States, Russia and China.... There is no doubt that China, with its vast
market and rapid arms expansion, will emerge as an economic and military
superpower in the coming years.... How
to forge a stable strategic relationship with this gigantic elephant is the
most pressing agenda facing the United States and Japan. Regardless of this undertaking, we must
maintain international coordination against terrorism. We must make a long-lasting, concerted
approach to founding a new world order.
By building upon the fruits of the U.S.-initiated military campaign in
Afghanistan, we could see a final success in international efforts to crack
down on terrorism." "America Must Be Globalized" Liberal Asahi opined (1/1): "After
the Sept.11 terrorist attacks, we often hear the question: 'Has the world changed?' Some pose this question while hoping to
alter the world. As we are witnessing
the deepening globalization or 'Americanization of the globe,' more people
around the world are insisting that it must be the United States that should
become more globalized. The Bush
administration has made certain efforts to wage a war on terrorism while
coordinating with the international community.
However, the world will not move forward unless a fundamental change
occurs in the behavior of this superpower, which considers international
organizations and other states as mere tools for pursuing its national
interests. The ongoing stalemate over
issues related to the Kyoto Protocol and the [CTBT] clearly illustrate the need
for the United States to change its approach toward the rest of the
world." SINGAPORE:
"A Gentler America?" The pro-government Straits Times
contended (12/20): "Did Sept. 11
inaugurate a new era in American foreign policy, one less unilateralist and
more accommodating of international opinion?... If truth be told, rumors of a more internationalist America were
much exaggerated from the start.... If
anything, Afghanistan, confirming as it has America's overwhelming might, may
well dilute further the administration's already weak internationalism. No other power, or combination of powers,
could have achieved what the United States has achieved in Afghanistan, so
swiftly and economically. It has
demonstrated it is the only game in town.
Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan--all battles which it won with
ease--have, between them, erased America's Vietnam syndrome. But the other side of the coin of these easy
victories is that they may make the United States more willing to contemplate
the application of force, more accustomed to the idea that it can wield the big
stick. Its friends and allies all
benefit from a confident America, but they would feel better if that confidence
expressed itself in less unilateralist terms." PHILIPPINES:
"Twin Facts" Nationalist Carmen Guerrero Nakpil opined in the
independent Malaya (1/9):
"The new year serves up a paradox made up of twin facts. The first
is the total supremacy of America. It
is, beyond cavil today, the single, universal empire presiding over a world at
its feet. It is a dominion that is
larger, mightier, more encompassing and brilliant than the Roman, the Chinese,
the Spanish or the British empires ever were.... The other fact about the
United States is its vulnerability. Its
very greatness makes it most vulnerable.
A few hours on a recent morning in September devastated its economic and
military centers...leaving America's population disoriented and unnerved. Swamped by its belief and practice of human
rights, individual freedoms and democratic openness, the United States failed
to protect itself and its citizens. Its
foreign intelligence agencies, its immigration policies, fighter aircraft
deployment and, above all, its aviation security failed miserably and made
September 11 possible. The tragedy was
greater because it could have been avoided.
There had been plenty of warnings and alerts. U.S. terror experts, the
FBI and some in the CIA had knowledge of the intentions and operations of Bin
Laden. Even the Manila police had sent
in a report to the CIA in 1993, and several ship and embassy bombings and an
early attack at the basement of the World Trade Center in 1993 were clear
warnings. But international terrorism
just did not get the attention it deserved from the Clinton and the Bush
administrations." SOUTH KOREA:
“We Oppose Unilateral U.S. Militarism” Pro-government Hankyoreh Shinmun
editorialized (1/4): “According to a
Japanese newspaper, the U.S. will soon dispatch more than 100 soldiers of its
Special Forces to the Philippines in order to destroy Islamic rebel forces in
the country.... Given that Bush
recently declared that [2002] would be a ‘year of war'...the U.S. dispatch of
troops to the Philippines appears to be a foregone conclusion.... We cannot agree to such power-based U.S.
militarism because it could lead to the massive killings of innocent people and
turn the world into a place ruled by the law of the jungle.... The U.S. should figure out what is really
necessary to eradicate terrorism and what causes terrorists to explode in anger
and hatred. The saying that those who
rise by the sword will die by the sword does not apply to terrorists
alone." "The Need To Prevent 'A War Year' In
2002" Conservative Segye Ilbo editorialized
(12/31): “To our dismay, Bush has
declared that 2002 would be a ‘war year,’ while stressing the necessity to
prepare for possible additional terror attacks.… In a situation where rogue
states, such as Iraq, are being mentioned as the next targets in the war on
terrorism, we cannot help but pay special attention to the facts that the
United States still keeps North Korea on its list of countries sponsoring
terrorism and that U.S.-North Korea relations are getting worse over the
North’s nuclear and missile issues....
Few people can deny that the currently stalemated U.S. and North Korea
relations are caused by oppressive U.S. policy toward North Korea based on
Bush’s ambition for hegemony.... A
prolonged war against terrorism will only perpetuate bloody retaliation and
invite a clash of civilizations. We
urge the United States, as the world’s sole superpower, to show real leadership
to prevent a catastrophic end of humankind." TAIWAN:
"United States' Forward Deployment Strategy Turns Shaky" Journalist Sun Yang-ming noted in conservative,
pro-unification United Daily News (12/23): "After the September 11
incidents, Washington immediately discovered that the unilateralism, adopted
since the Bush administration took office, was inadequate in handling the new
type of terrorist attacks. Washington
thus had to return to the old practice of the Clinton administration, namely,
to reopen multilateral negotiations with each regional power. It is hoping to coordinate with the major
powers in each region to obtain their support for the United States' interests,
its security and anti-terrorism policy....
This seems to be the road that the United States must choose with regard
to its security in the future. In fact,
the U.S.' current anti-terrorism or Afghanistan policy, to a certain extent,
will force Washington to rely more and more on its allies [for] resources and
assistance." SOUTH ASIA PAKISTAN:
"The Year That Changed The World" Karachi-based independent Dawn said in
its editorial (12/31): "It was in
2001 that a new world order started emerging with stunning speed.... It confirmed the trend towards a unipolar
world.... The American power was
seemingly so invincible that many states fell in line and joined the so-called
world coalition while non-participants chose to remain discreetly quiet. Tragic though the enormous loss of life in
New York was (3,000 by final count), it hardly justified the devastation of
Afghanistan and the massive killing of the Afghans. A factor which certainly helped the Bush administration emerge
unscathed from its military adventure was the alienation that many, including
Muslim populations, had begun to feel towards the Islamic fundamentalists who
have been all too willing to resort to 'jihad' against those who are not on
their side. Hence there was relief all
around when the Taliban regime in Afghanistan collapsed like a house of
cards.... In the climate of instability
created by the American war in Afghanistan, the terrorist attack on the
parliament house in New Delhi...proved to be a spark in the tinderbox.... There are far too many imponderables in the
prevailing tense situation, the key one being the risk of a nuclear war. There
is also the factor of uncertainty of American policy. As such, South Asia has emerged as the most dangerous place on
earth.... Decades of mutual distrust
has blinded the leadership of India and Pakistan to a point where they turn to
Washington to have it pull their chestnuts out of the fire." "The Year 2001" An editorial in The Nation opined
(12/31): "The defining movement
came with the terrorist attack of September 11 on the U.S., when freedom
movements all over the world lost their legitimacy in the Western eyes. The cry of human rights died down in the din
of the so-called right of 'self-defense', allowed to some chosen states. As the rules of the game changed, so did the
rules of the war. These were developed by the U.S. in the war in Kosovo and
were used in the conquest of Afghanistan.
Back home, the fall of democracy and the fall of the economy, which had
brought a lot of pain to many, brought a reprieve out of the blue. The September 11 incident suddenly made
President Musharraf the darling of the West when he ditched his Afghan
policy.... While it provided him the
pretext to crack down on religious extremists, it may have also saved him from
an attack by India because of U.S. intervention." INDIA: "Greatest Tragedy Of Our Time" An unsigned editorial in Calcutta Bengali Ananda
Bazar Patrika mused (12/30): "Have we seen all the faces of the Satan
yet? Have we got his full identity? Does he possess the power of triggering
nuclear holocaust? Does he hold the weapon of bio-terrorism in his quiver? Does
he furtively walk towards the sudden future of cyber terrorism?... Nobody knows for certain when and where the
onslaught of panic might grip us. Usama bin Laden, alive or dead, President
Bush had announced. Now, in the post-Taliban era, Bush's prime concern remains
the same -- bin Laden, dead or alive. What else could have been a greater
tragedy than the fact that at the close of the first year of the new millennium
one has to remind the Satan!" WESTERN HEMISPHERE CANADA: "When Carrying A Big Stick, Americans
Should Talk Softly" Columnist George Jonas wrote in the
nationalistic Ottawa Citizen (1/8):
"It appears that if bin Laden has succeeded in one thing, it has
been to push the United States into an era of post-liberalism. The United States has begun to talk the talk
of a hyperpower, and has also been walking the walk in the last three
months. I don't mind the walk, but find
the talk vaguely disconcerting....
There's no question that the United States has the big battalions;
what's less certain...is that God is invariably on their side." “Learning Larger Lessons Of War On Terrorism” Haroon Siddiqui commented in the liberal Toronto
Star (12/23): “Whatever else it did or didn't do, Sept. 11 showed that
isolationism is not a viable option amid globalization, that the relationship
between action and reaction is quicker than we have been used to, and that we
can no longer afford to be selective about human rights and democracy.... It is also useful to recall that, following
Sept. 11, a huge effort was mounted to veer the public away from their most
instinctive query: Why did it happen?
Questions like that were initially dismissed as un-American (shades of
McCarthyism?) or as rationalizations for terrorism. Such absurd assertions have since been sidelined by a clear sense
that something has gone tragically wrong with American foreign policy to have
made so many so angry that they would applaud even Usama bin Laden.... The more contemporary American policy has
been to sustain oppressive military or monarchical regimes [in the Middle East],
not unlike what Washington used to do in Latin America. The policy has failed spectacularly. In Iran, it produced a revolution. In Algeria, it produced a brutal civil
war. In Saudi Arabia and Egypt, it
produced the Sept.11 hijackers.... It
will not be easy for America to change course overnight. But change it must. It is also not clear if it grasps the
dangers of aligning itself, as it has, with the likes of Putin, the butcher of
Chechnya, or Islam Karimov, dictator of Uzbekistan, who stands accused of gross
human rights violations. America has
already paid a heavy price for its poor choice of friends. Bin Laden was trained by the CIA..... Saddam Hussein enjoyed America's support
throughout his 10-year war against Iran.
Bush has provided exemplary leadership since Sept. 11. He now faces an
even bigger challenge: applying American ideals more evenly around the globe.” ARGENTINA: "Different Standards For Latin
America" Patricio Lombardi, business-financial Ambito
Financiero's contributor, wrote (12/28): "The U.S. strong response to
the regrettable September 11 attacks has demonstrated once again the Bush
administration's strong determination when it is time to make decisions. But,
unluckily, this standard of political behavior is not applied towards Latin
America.... Almost one year after the
new USG took office no Under Secretary for Hemispheric Affairs has been
appointed in the U.S. State Department. The position is vacant due to the lack
of confirmation of Ambassador Otto Reich.... The Argentine case is an example
of how the U.S. did not take precautions or give good advise to its loyal
ally.... Now Argentina needs to perform
deep political and judicial reform, but it needs its friends to be able to
implement serious economic and financial recipes which are valid for its people
and not to satisfy some international bureaucrats based in Washington." BRAZIL:
"September 11th" The lead editorial in liberal Folha de S.
Paulo observed (12/29): "As
expected, the catastrophic predictions about the 9/11 attacks did not come to
pass. The attacks certainly had terrible consequences. To estimate the reach of
the consequences is risky and requires some speculation. Even so, it can be said that the United
States has done well so far. Of course,
there's still the possibility of [it] getting involved in unpredictable
problems, especially if it insists on extending its military campaign against
terror to other countries, such as Somalia, Iraq, Yemen and Sudan. Even so, on balance Bush gets a favorable
grade. Now we must hope that he does
not let his war-time popularity go to his head and that he continues managing
the crisis with restraint." MEXICO: "Mexico, Alone Against Drug
Trafficking" Javier Ibarrola wrote in sensationalist Milenio
(12/27): "After September 11, the
U.S. has increasingly been convinced that all its efforts and resources should
be directed to fight terrorism.... Therefore, until further notice, the fight
against drug trafficking assumes a lower profile. Undoubtedly, drug trafficking is the paramount issue that binds
together Mexico and the U.S., even more than trade and cultural ties.... But U.S.' resources and intelligence have
been withdrawn from the border, and Mexico is practically alone in the war
against drug trafficking.... Drug
traffickers possess large economic resources which they can move in several
fronts.... In a recent interview with
the Financial Times, Oscar Rocha, a former U.S. anti-drug agent based in
Mexico, said that 'we only have three radars down South.... We are blind, we have no infrastructure, and
the agents we had have been sent elsewhere.'... Additionally, the over-surveillance within the U.S. has caused
number of drugs to remain in Mexico; thus there is an increase in domestic drug
consumption.... We should not forget
that Afghanistan produces 75 percent of the world's opium. But Mexico is doing its share to fight this
problem. While the U.S. is busy with
its war in Afghanistan, Mexico's armed forces do not rest in fighting
drugs. Their actions are not only to
prevent drugs from with circulating in Chicago, New York or Washington, but to
prevent their consumption by Mexican youngsters." "Mexican Shortsightedness" Denise Dresser stated in independent Reforma
(12/24): "It has become popular
not to take seriously the September 11 developments in the U.S. We have heard that 'the U.S. is
exaggerating,' that 'this is something of no concern to us,' or that 'some
government officials are too Americanized.'
Many feel that Mexico is not affected by global trends or local
recessions, by closed borders or by the drop in exports.... However, U.S.
policies after September 11 have no tolerance, but Mexico is not thinking about
how to reverse that situation." CHILE: "The U.S. Forgot Its Interest In
Latin America" Conservative, influential newspaper-of-record El
Mercurio piece by Pablo Soto said (12/12): "As 2001 approaches its
end, ties between the U.S. and Latin America show an unfavorable balance and
not very promising expectations....
President Bush's promise that this would be 'America's Century' ... was
postponed. The September 11 attacks
marked the breaking point ... This postponement of Latin America in favor of
U.S. interests occurs when the region is going through a moment of great
turbulence that threatens to get worse over the next months. Argentina is the most symptomatic example of
this...and some observers warn that Washington's sudden exit from the region
could have complicated effects in the future for the entire region." COLOMBIA: "Challenges of Foreign Policy" The lead editorial in top national El Tiempo
stated (1/5): "The first phase of
the global crusade against terrorism is about to be completed.... Having concluded the initial stage, the
world will focus on designing a broader, more comprehensive anti-terrorist
strategy in 2002, a scenario which will demand adjustments in Colombian foreign
policy.... Building on close relations fostered by the Pastrana government,
Colombia's only reasonable option is participation in the international
mainstream led by Washington....
Obligatory commitments to the [global] crusade against terror must
nonetheless allow for conducting useful peace talks with guerrilla groups, and
seeking resolution of Colombia's internal armed conflict. Similarly, international cooperation on peace
and human rights must follow principles and approaches aimed at distinguishing
between assistance and unilateral intervention. Colombian foreign policy...will
face other major challenges: the case presented by Nicaragua before the Hague
Tribunal [concerning sovereignty over San Andres and Providencia.] Complications with Venezuela resulting from
the deterioration of Chavez's political situation, as we saw in late 2001, will
create a noxious regional [political] environment.... Confusion created by Chavez' Bolivarian revolution and the eventual
repercussions of the Argentinean crisis ensure that the international community
will not view the region promisingly from an economic perspective. In the midst of a political campaign and
with a change of government ahead, Colombia ought more than ever to maintain
solidarity in its foreign policy. A divided country could be an easy target for
unwanted interventions as a result of the war against terrorists, truculent
actions by Nicaragua at the International Tribunal, and unhelpful ties between
Chavez and the guerrillas." "Bush A Phoenix In The White House" An essay in weekly El Tiempo, Washington
correspondent Sergio Gomez Maseri developed the theme of President Bush's
rising to the challenge of current events, observing that (12/31): "On
September 11, Bush's weaknesses were put to the test and, to the surprise of
many, he surpassed expectations.... To be sure, the president has ahead of him
serious challenges that will take the measure of his strengths and weaknesses
in coming months: reconstruction of Afghanistan, taking the war against
terrorism to other countries like Iraq and Somalia, leading his country out of
economic recession and fear occasioned by the [events of September 11], and
sustaining international solidarity while making decisions such as unilateral
withdrawal from the 1972 ABM Treaty.
But, we now have facing these daunting responsibilities not the weak and
inexperienced Governor of Texas, but a greatly matured president whose
prestige, command and credentials are no longer in doubt." "How Things Have Changed" A year-end essay by top national El Tiempo
columnist Daniel Samper Pizano reflected (12/30): "September 11 shook the
world's security, economy, and sense of tranquility...the biggest change being
the sense that everything had changed for forever. The U.S., Pakistan, and Afghanistan have been most affected. The former has suffered the psychological
effects of its vulnerability, but has also seen its president's [stature
transformed] from a cowboy who worried his allies into the leader of an
international coalition comprising old and potential enemies such as Germany,
Japan, China, Cuba, and Russia. Despite
enjoying support from 90 percent of his electorate, reaction has begun to
coalesce against Bush Administration policies that have curtailed civil rights
and [encouraged] ethnic discrimination." "The Personality Of 2001" The lead editorial in top-national El Tiempo
stated (12/30): "It has seldom
been so painfully easy to choose the person of the year as in the dramatic year
just past. The terror and the terrorism
embodied by Usama bin Laden decisively shaped a year that changed the course of
history. Terrorism is the common enemy.
The fight against it should be undertaken rationally and promptly, but without
violating democratic principles that the terrorists themselves are
attacking. In this respect, those who
equate all violence are as disturbing as those [who adhere to a double
standard.] We confront a concrete type of violence, not an abstraction. Only when terrorists [take stock of reality
and adopt political means] can we prevent a repetition of September 11. It's
clear that we haven't reached that point, either in the world at large or in
Colombia. The threat continues. But at the end of the day, civilization and
reason will win." COSTA RICA: "Fallen Towers" Carlos Cortes judged in most influential La
Nacion (1/2): "In 2001 not
just the Twin Towers fell...it is clear that the...Westernization of the
planet...failed.... The World Bank said
it in 2001: While children die of
starvation, what kind of security can the West expect? While misery, injustice and crime exist, we
cannot talk about humankity as a universal truth. What humanity has existed in Afghanistan for the last 30
years?... Winning peace is much more
than winning the war.... The West
cannot see itself as a fortified mall surrounded by barbarism.... The day that the major arms traffickers
decide to finish with poverty there will be a new year and peace for all the
world. "The Other War" Financial weekly El Financiero stated
(12/31): "Washington says its
strikes against Afghanistan are a response to September 11th, and that the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon attacks were caused by people sheltered in
Afghanistan. However, a critical analysis
shows Washington's reasons are false or, at least, make no sense.... (After
being elected, ) Bush organized his cabinet.
The vice-president is a petroleum executive and a former Defense
Secretary. The National Security
advisor is a member of the board of directors of an international petroleum
company and a recipient of a Russian scholarship. The Secretary of State is a man without diplomatic experience,
and a former Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Another (cabinet)
appointment is Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary. He was CEO of Searle Pharmaceuticals. He and Cheney were speakers at the May 2000 U.S./Russian Forum of
Business Leaders. The reader can deduce
that the actual 'coincidences' of Bush's cabinet consist of petroleum, the former
Soviet Union and military men. Who, if
not Washington, could insure pipelines, and at what price? Like Saramago would
say: 'The worst is that everything has been justified in the name of the
campaign against terrorism.'" DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: "New International
Order" Conservative El Caribe published an op/ed
by columnist Antonio Cabezas Estaban noting (1/7): "We must now take some distance from the trauma of September
11 and analyze it coldly. George Bush
(senior), behind the Iraqi expulsion from Kuwait in 1991, announced a new world
order of peace and cooperation domininated by the United States. In the '90s, we attended to a growing
disorder of the planet, in terms of globalization without a human face, local
wars, cultural tensions, and the negation by the United States to sign the
greenhouse gas reduction in Kyoto and recognize an international cut [in CO2
emissions].... It is true that the
United States has changed it priorities
since September 11, but not in the direction desired. 'We will increase military spending,' announced Donald Rumsfeld,
Secretary of Defense. The center of the
Arab problem will continue in Palestine, where Sharon fights for his rights
without the United States have the political will or the impartiality to favor
of a just and lasting peace. Seeing things this way, Latin America will
continue to debate how a conglomerate of nations that appears to not know
itself, remains unable to arrive at accords and honor them, dancing a tango
with bitter complaints that policies, nor democracy, nor the free market are
taking root. Latin America, together
with Africa, will pay the most for September 11." ECUADOR: "The FTAA And Dollarization" An opinion column by Washington Herrera in
leading centrist El Comercio (1/8): "The events of September 11 are
influencing U.S. foreign policy in such a way that relations from now on will
be based on what is convenient for the great power, considering the fact that,
no matter what, anti-American sentiment will not be diminished even if they do
show signs of being sensitive to developing nations.... The choice proposed
--one is either with or against the U.S.--will affect many actions within the
U.S.' main market under FTAA.... It
would be fair if the U.S. and Canada would immediately open their markets
without restrictions and if the southern countries would follow progressively
over the next ten years. But it seems
this is not going to happen because the process of granting preferential
treatment will be negotiated by market or product sectors, which will slow down
the negotiation as interests will intertwine in such a way that certain more
developed countries will obtain advantages similar to those accorded less
developed ones.... But what is fundamental is to know how we are going to enter
FTAA without a currency of our own because dollarization affects
competitiveness." ## |
This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State. Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein. ![]() |
![]() IIP Home | Issue Focus Home |