Inaugural speech greeted with skepticism abroad
Mon Jan 24, 8:27 AM ET Top Stories - USATODAY.com
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
Foreign governments and commentators are reacting with alarm, skepticism and defiance to President Bush (news - web sites)'s inaugural address, in which he promised to draw sharp distinctions between nations based on "oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right."
From the steps of the Capitol last Thursday, Bush called ending tyranny "an urgent requirement" and vowed to make clear to other countries "that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people."
Republicans denied that Bush had signaled a major shift in U.S. policy. On Friday, Bush's father, former president George Bush (news - web sites), said the inaugural address was meant to clarify existing policies - not set a new, militaristic course. But elsewhere, commentators characterized the speech as evangelical or militaristic. Others scoffed at what they called a gulf between Bush's rhetoric and the practical demands of thwarting terrorism and nuclear proliferation.
In Iran, Intelligence Minister Ali Younessi told the country's official news agency: "We are eagerly looking for the Americans' commandos to come to Iran since they are chicks which would rapidly be picked up by our eagles."
Iran's ambassador to France, Sadegh Kharrazi, was less belligerent but equally critical. "Mr. Bush's language has really complicated the situation," he said. "After 9/11, everyone in Iran was supporting the United States. We cooperated fully in Afghanistan (news - web sites). I don't understand this negative ... language."
In Baghdad, Shehab Al-Timimi, head of the Iraqi Journalists Union, said Bush's call "deviates from the right of people to self-determination."
Lebanon's Daily Star said people in the Middle East were "unimpressed, or moved to frustration or even anger" by Bush's words. It urged Arab governments to engage him or risk seeing "U.S. forces toppling statues in ... Tehran and Damascus and who knows where else."
In Cuba, radio commentator Eduardo Dimas warned: "Any country which does not please the U.S. is in danger."
Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, asked how Bush would achieve his goals. Is the United States going to "take down evil empires by force, or are we going to have a more nuanced policy" of trade engagement and other measured steps? Biden asked Sunday on ABC.
Writing in The Guardian of Britain, commentator David Aaronovitch called Bush's aim of spreading democracy superior to "the dismal prospect" of doing nothing. But he said Bush needs to pursue the goal with less arrogance and more accountability. He said Bush "seems to have terrified a good portion of the world."
Bush's remarks unsettled Latin America, said Michael Shifter, of the non-partisan Inter-American Dialogue think tank in Washington, D.C. "If Iraq (news - web sites) is a prelude of what is to come, then Latin Americans ... are understandably quite nervous and worried," he said. "They also expect the vision to be applied selectively, only when it suits and bolsters U.S. interests."
The Taipei Times said U.S.-Taiwanese relations illustrate how U.S. self-interest - the need to maintain good relations with China - stands in the way of Bush's vision. The newspaper cited U.S. unease at Taiwan's plans, as it strives for full independence from China, to write a constitution and hold referendums. "If it is so important to help oppressed peoples leave tyranny behind, isn't it even more important to help free people resist subjection to tyranny?" it wrote.
In China, the Communist People's Daily said Bush's speech showed "being morally conceited and militarily aggressive" are elements of U.S. nationalism. Zhang Yebai, a U.S. expert at the Chinese Academy for Social Sciences, said "following through on his intentions would be difficult," given the need to act with other nations against security threats in North Korea (news - web sites).
The Age of Melbourne, Australia, described Bush's speech as "bulging with the fervor of evangelical politics" and said "the gap between the world of his rhetoric and global reality is now so wide as to be alarming."
Sen. Bill Nelson (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla., called Bush's aims impractical. "Saudi Arabia, are we going to insist that they become a democracy?" he asked Sunday on CNN. "Do you want (a) ... radical Islamic government sitting on top of all of that oil?"
Retired Pakistani general Mirza Aslam said the United States prefers the convenience of dealing with autocrats in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. "He doesn't mean" his words, Aslam said. "That is very clear." |
