World Reaction
From Washington Post:
“America has missed a great chance to reunite with the world,” said Graham Allen, a member of the British Parliament from the ruling Labor Party. “I fear the tragedy for all of us is that if America doesn’t reach out to its friends, then its enemies will reach out to America.”
Political leaders in a handful of countries such as Russia, Italy, Britain and Israel were enthused by the result, analysts said. But the large numbers of people across the world who had dismissed the Bush administration as a one-term aberration that had come to office illegitimately were stunned to see the president win.
“It will confirm those who feel there’s a difference in basic values between the U.S. and Europe,” said Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform here. “Although we have many common interests and values, when you get to things like religion, gun control and the death penalty, we just live on a different planet.”
Poll after poll taken abroad showed sizable majorities opposed to Bush in virtually every country except Israel and Russia in a U.S. election that the world watched more closely than any in recent memory.
In France, the center of opposition to the war in Iraq, Bush’s victory shocked many analysts. “The rest of the world has to face reality,” said Philippe Labro, a novelist and journalist who specializes in American issues. “We have the same president in power, the same team and probably the same policies. Both the U.S. and the rest of the world have to realize that we need each other, because if we don’t, we’re all in trouble.”
French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier, discussing U.S.-French relations, told reporters that he looked forward to “putting our differences in the past, and to future cooperation.” Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany, whose government also opposed the Iraq war, sent a letter of congratulation to Bush, saying he looked forward to further cooperation on such issues as terrorism, climate change and the environment. “These challenges can only be tackled through joint effort,” Schroeder wrote.
The U.S. election process raised many eyebrows abroad. Francois Heisbourg, director of the Paris-based Foundation for Strategic Research, called it “totally bizarre” and “outdated.” Le Monde newspaper expressed dismay in an editorial. “What an example for a democracy to give to the world, electors voting late into the night in Ohio, waiting for votes, faulty voting machines, these unending recounts!” it wrote.
President Vladimir Putin of Russia welcomed the president’s victory. “I’m convinced international terrorism set the goal of preventing Bush from being reelected,” Putin said at a news conference in Moscow. The result of the ballot, he said, showed “the American people haven’t let themselves be intimidated by terrorists and have made a decision that was appropriate.”
“The Kremlin believes that a Republican administration will pay less attention to Chechnya, democratic freedoms, civil rights in Russia,” said Alexei Makarkin, an analyst with the Center for Political Technologies in Moscow. “This is very convenient for the Kremlin.”
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, who has been an enthusiastic Bush ally on Iraq and who was on an official visit to Moscow on Wednesday, said “the continuation of Bush in American politics makes things easier for us.”
British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose support for Bush has weakened his popularity, sent his congratulations. But Blair pledged in Parliament earlier in the day to press his American partner to revive efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a means of helping defeat international terrorism.
Officials in Israel welcomed the Bush victory. Zalman Shoval, an adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and a former ambassador to the United States, said that the way the United States views “the dangers of the civilized world, support for Israel is almost a foregone conclusion, because they see us as part of the good guys.”
2 thoughts on “World Reaction”
this is interesting
http://backseatphilosopher.blogspot.com/2004/11/to-my-fellow-democrats.html
Hi Anonymous! I checked out your link: Here’s my response.
Argument:
Whatever the UN was, might have been, or should be, it now isn’t. Genocidal tyrannies are on the Human Rights commision. Saddam Hussein funneled over 1.7 billion dollars to various decision makers and world leaders to weaken his sanctions program. One out of every three votes is about Israel. Until the UN is significantly reformed, you shouldn’t take its decisions seriously.
Response: We have worked with the UN to put world opinion behind policy decisions. There are problems with the UN, and it shouldn’t be our only recourse, but it is a significant sourse of pressure on other countries and should not be disgarded.
ARGUMENT:
If we view 1000 or even 10,000 dead soldiers as unacceptable, we will never be able to fight a real war again.
RESPONSE: That’s not the issue, really. The issue is whether those kinds of deaths are recognized, whether they are for a just war and a just cause and a specific set of goals. Incidentally, the civilian deaths are now over 100,000 – most of them women and children.
ARGUMENT:
Proportional response with no preemption allows the other side to set the pace of the battle.
RESPONSE:
No one is arguing for no preemption, only over the terms of when preemptive measures are justified and necessary.
ARGUMENT:
Throughout history, governments have had a strong interest in promoting long-term child-rearing heterosexual relationships. That is why governments create a legal definition of Marriage and provide lots of benefits to heterosexual couples who enter into it. This has been true for States throughout history independent of the religious beliefs of the populace. Worrying about changing that definition, even to the point of deciding against a change, is not automatically sexism or bigotry.
RESPONSE: The definition change is coming from the side of folks who are insecure about the status of marriage (and they should be), which is protected by the state for the sake of children and for no other reason. The ban on gay unions not only illegally discriminates, but also prohibits jduges from hearing cases, prevents a loved one to visit in the hospital, and may even affect issues of insurance across all unconventional families.
ARGUMENT:
If you never are willing to draw a line where human life starts, there will be no line.
RESPONSE:
Would that be so terrible? That judgment is one that every person makes for themselves. Just as values are not specific to any party, but rather different values may be, and ultimately values and integrity are qualities of an individual more than a group, I feel taht the complicated and controversial issue of abortion is not one that can be decided now. It’s a tough one, it really is – but public discussion hasn’t yet come to consensus, and outside that, it should be a person’s decision and choice. They can answer before their God on that, not the US government.
ARGUMENT:
Just because it says something in the Bible doesn’t mean there are no ancillary arguments supporting it. And just because someone uses the Bible as a source of their morality doesn’t mean that any particular view of theirs is wrong. Actually, stuff that’s lasted for thousands of years is more likely to be useful than stuff that was dreamed up in a French philosophy book.
RESPONSE:
Nice to get in an anti-intellectual French bashing here – really cool. But I agree that using the Bible doesn’t necessarily make the argument wrong. I guess I would rather see more of the Sermon on the Mount, or an ethics of compassion, taking care of the least among us, and so on. Is there still actually a christian message in this fanatical judging going on? I think Jesus might think some of these folks are jerks. Just my opinion.