Asia Times: What's George W Bush up to?


	May 10, 2001	atimes.com

Editorials

What's George W Bush up to?

A couple of weeks ago the influential German weekly magazine Der Spiegel carried a title page cartoon showing George W with cowboy hat and cowboy boots treading on the globe, guns in both hands blazing. A popular Chinese magazine copied the cartoon, full page. The blissfully ignorant editors of Hong Kong's iMail tabloid reprinted that, marvelling at how far America's and Bush's image had sunk in China.

But never mind the iMail's ignorance of the origin of the cartoon. Clearly the caricature had captured widespread perceptions from Europe to East Asia of Bush's policy actions and attitudes in his first 100 days in office. He had unceremoniously torn up the Kyoto protocol on global warming, enraging environmentalists worldwide; had spooked much of Asia with his "whatever it takes" comment on the defense of Taiwan; and more recently - to much of the world's ire - announced an open-ended ballistic missile defense program that will de facto nullify the 1972 ABM Treaty, the holy grail of arms controllers. Bush the Texan cowboy, the dunce, the - in equal parts - arrogant and foolish exponent of America's sole superpower status and determination to keep it that way. And now those who deride him are gloating: The UN Economic and Social Council voted in secret balloting late last week to expel the US from the UN's Human Rights Commission and International Narcotics Control Board. Revenge is sweet - and never mind that such stalwarts of human rights protection as Sudan or Sierra Leone will now look after such matters.

Before the contemptuous European view of Bush the "little sheriff" with the "mug of the ugly American" (Der Spiegel) settles in and gains too much currency elsewhere, let's look at some facts behind the appearances. First, Bush is the president and speaks with that authority - and occasionally incoherently even when the words are written out for him. But behind him stands a team, an administration that defines and executes policy. One may question their policy direction, but Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, State Secretary Colin Powell, and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice - just to name the foreign policy and national security team - are no fools. Second, while the manner in which Bush has articulated (or tried to) his administration's policies has hardly been most politic or diplomatic, there surely have been no great surprises in substance.

The US Senate was never going to ratify the Kyoto protocol or anything like it. Bush might have left it at that. He didn't. He ripped up a useless piece of paper and mortally offended the German greenies and the like. Well, tough luck. What was less noted is that Bush also appointed an energy policy panel which recommended more nuclear energy development - which should please anyone worried about greenhouse gases. The panel did not recommend windmills - as well it shouldn't have.

Taiwan? Bush merely spelled out in unambiguous fashion what the US Taiwan Relations Act says. Should he have left things in the more comfortable realm of ambiguity? Perhaps so, but it's an arguable point.

Missile defense? It was one of Bush's key electoral platforms as was a general review of US strategic commitments and defense policy and technologies. He has now moved toward implementation. Did anyone expect he wouldn't?

None of this is to say that the policies put forward on energy and the environment, on Taiwan or defense will or should find everyone's approval. But it's disingenuous to find them shocking or surprising or what not. These policies are now on the table. They are clearly stated; some of them may be wrong. But they are not bumbling follies - and the way in which they have been stated was in deliberately blunt manner and distinction from the soft-headedness of the Clinton period.

The Bush administration's style will take some getting used to, but it would be wrong to stumble over the style and miss the substance. As was the case in the Reagan years and embodied in Reagan's policies, there is a strong body of opinion in the US that sees the country as "standing alone" and having to "go it alone". But that attitude is not therefore inflexible or the substance of policy therefore non-negotiable. Clearly defined positions provide a better basis for negotiations than vaguely stated ones and the outcomes are more reliable.

So, what IS Bush up to? Domestically, the top priority is to re-energize the US economy. His tax cut has passed the Congress in record time. It will show results. The next priority is energy policy: to get away as quickly as possible from a situation where California has more blackouts than Manila. An equal priority is education as a precondition of opportunity and advancement. Internationally, the Bush administration perceives an extended period of rapid change and uncertainty, a period in which clearly defined positions provide less chance for miscalculation and a strong defense is required for stability. The international positions and precepts are arguable and will be argued, but sneering at them superior European style contributes nothing to sensible policy debate.

We note that Chinese President Jiang Zemin in his keynote address at the Fortune Global Forum in Hong Kong on Tuesday, attended by a large number of American business leaders, made no reference to US-Chinese tensions, but focused on China's economic promise and business opportunities. He understands that mutually advantageous economic relations can drive the US-China relationship even as sharp disagreements in other areas persist.

((c)2001 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)

back to the top

©2001 Asia Times Online Co., Ltd.

Building B - 5th Floor, 102/1 Phra Arthit Road, Chanasangkhram, Bangkok 10200, Thailand