World rates the debate: WORLD VIEWS: After first debate, foreign press gives kudos for Kerry, boos for Bush; Australia, U.S. last 'refuseniks' after Russia signs Kyoto Protocol; and more.
Edward M. Gomez, special to SF Gate
Thursday, October 7, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who won?" Libération asked after last week's first debate between presidential candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry. For the French daily and many overseas media, Kerry, looking "confident and solid," clearly trounced Bush in the televised event, which attracted more than 60 million viewers in the United States (Reuters) and was also seen in other countries.
"First blood to Kerry in TV debate," declared The Guardian of the Democratic candidate's "forceful performance," which "occasionally [left] the president scowling and at a loss for words." Bush "seemed to lose track of his point between sentences and ... to struggle to fill his allotted time for each response," the U.K. paper noted.
The Financial Times remarked that Bush "at times appeared irritated by ... Kerry's criticisms" as his rival "made a biting and tightly argued challenge to ... Bush's leadership in the war on terror" (subscription required). It also pointed out that Bush made some of his signature "verbal gaffes," as when, for example, he "said the enemy in Iraq is fighting 'vociferously.'"
Overall, the tone of most foreign coverage of the debate was neither snide nor vengeful. Even though Bush is widely unpopular abroad, most foreign media did not seem to take pleasure in having to describe the unmistakably weak, even embarrassing character of his performance. Germany's Süeddeutsche Zeitung found that Bush had acted "on the defensive" from the start of the debate; a report by the paper's Washington-based correspondent sounded impatient with Bush's misuse of words and with his tiresome repetition of a handful of rehearsed catchphrases. Similarly, a news analyst for Canada's La Presse (Montreal) noted that "the president of the United States barely contained his impatience, grimacing and blinking his eyes whenever his opponent spoke. Communication specialists will tell you, body language [of that sort] never lies."
For news analyst Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff (Die Zeit, Hamburg), the debate showed America "the worst of George Bush since he became president" and, by contrast, "the best of John Kerry since he became a candidate." Kerry, he wrote, appeared "clear, intelligent [and] focused." Kleine-Brockhoff wondered why it had taken Bush's Democratic challenger so long to show his strengths. "Why now, for the first time? Why does Kerry have to stand with his back against the wall before he shows what he can do? Why has he gone easy on the president up till now?"
In Kerry last Thursday night, Die Zeit's reporter concluded, Americans "saw a winner." So did the United Kingdom's Independent. Its editorial, headlined "The Democrats can afford to raise a cheer" (subscription required), proclaimed, "Supporters of John Kerry, ourselves included, can take a deep sigh of relief." Kerry, it concluded, had "successfully yanked the electoral agenda onto what he called the 'mess' in Iraq and the small matter of President Bush's judgment, and he scored some telling points." But recognizing that the contest for the White House remains neck and neck, the paper cautioned, "Euphoria, though, would be premature."
Mexican columnist Eduardo Valle echoed that sense of nervous anticipation. Kerry "won the debate," he wrote. "But the election?" The Mexican commentator noted that Kerry had "exploited Bush's obvious ... weaknesses," such as his "international isolation, his errors with the truth and his irresponsibility as a leader." For Valle, Kerry vividly exposed "Bush's open wound: the fact that almost nobody respects the president of the United States." (El Universal)
Jose Carreno Carlon, another Mexican columnist, observed indirectly that, although foreign policy was the theme of the first Bush-Kerry debate, neither candidate mentioned Latin America. Nevertheless, he suggested, countries around the world have huge stakes in the outcome of the U.S. election. (La Crónica de Hoy) Likewise, commentator Nathan Guttman noted in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, "Israel was mentioned in seven words by the president and in five by Kerry ...." However, he added, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians "was not mentioned at all, ... [nor] was there any presentation of a vision to settle the conflict or even [to] make a general promise to advance peace." Guttman admitted, "America's biggest foreign problem is Iraq, and nobody is left with any patience for the old Middle East, which has exhausted all ... American presidents."
Other foreign observers expected to hear more, too. Eagerly anticipating tomorrow's Bush-Kerry encounter in St. Louis, Toronto Star columnist Linda McQuaig wrote, "As for the next debate, bring it on."
* * * *
Now that Russian President Vladimir Putin's cabinet has endorsed the Kyoto Protocol on curbing global warming and sent it to the Duma (Russia's parliament) to be approved (Interfax), the pressure is on two big, energy-guzzling, pollution-generating holdouts -- the United States and Australia -- to sign on, too. Or maybe not.
"The U.S. position on the Kyoto Protocol has not changed," a U.S. State Department spokesman said, emphasizing the Bush administration's rejection of the international agreement, which requires signatory nations to cut emissions of greenhouse gases by 2008-2012 to levels below those of 1990. To achieve such goals, The Australian noted, "they will have to cut the burning of oil, coal and gas, the carbon-bearing sources that sparked the Industrial Revolution and remain the foundation for economic life today. Those changes [will] carry an economic cost to consumers, a threat to vested interests and a challenge to lifestyles. Kyoto has run into a fierce crossfire from the oil lobby and from conservatives such as U.S. President George W. Bush."
The United States, which "by itself accounts for a quarter of global carbon pollution, walked away from Kyoto in 2001, saying the pact was too costly and unfair because developing countries were not bound to make specific pollution cuts." (The Australian)
sfgate.com
|
