[Media-watch] {VIRUS?} America's battle to regain respect - Financial Times - 31/05/2004

[Julie-ann Davies]

Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed
Warning: (site=ftcompos=.sty).
Warning: Please read the "VirusWarning.txt" attachment(s) for more information.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1084907917551&p=1012571727085

      America's battle to regain respect

      Published: May 30 2004 18:49 | Last Updated: May 30 2004 18:49


We have reached a turning-point in international politics as well as in
Iraq. President George W. Bush is widely seen to have gambled on Iraq and
lost. The impact of that loss goes well beyond Iraq. The US has not been
defeated in battle and is unlikely to be so but it can no longer impose its
will on Iraq because it lacks the moral authority to do so.


The "resistance" in any of its many guises is too divided to win and half-
decent outcomes may yet emerge. The point is only that the future of Iraq
increasingly depends on the variable quality of local leaders in the
country, their ability to understand the consequences of allowing violence
to become the first arbiter of their differences, the role that the United
Nations chooses to play in helping to secure a transition from coalition
occupation - and the readiness of the Americans to accept that they have
lost the initiative. If he is to have any chance of success, Ayad Allawi,
would-be prime minister, will need to demonstrate his distance from the
coalition.

This was not inevitable. The arrogance and hubris with which the Bush
administration embarked on this war in the first place used up much moral
capital. Nonetheless this might have been replenished by the overthrow of
the Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which could have been presented as a noble
cause. The negative views of carping members of the UN Security Council
would have counted for little if the US-led coalition had established that
it was truly the liberator, acting on behalf of the Iraqi people.
Unfortunately, while much of the opprobrium heaped upon the Bush
administration in the past was unfair, it now seems to be well deserved.
Policy since April 2003 has been crudely and inconsistently improvised and
troops have behaved as occupiers. They have insisted on taking on local
militias and then been obliged to draw back. The alienation of US-led forces
from the Iraqi people, starkly illustrated by the pictures of US personnel
abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, began almost from the moment
of Saddam Hussein's overthrow and then gathered pace until it reached crisis
point in April.

The chaos and violence unfolding in Iraq have consequences that are
beginning to affect the entire international position of the US. Its friends
are dumbfounded and its enemies almost overwhelmed by the propaganda bounty
that has been handed to them.

Consider the two remaining members of the original "axis of evil" introduced
by Mr Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address: Iran and North Korea.
Both are more advanced in their nuclear programmes than Iraq was. Any claims
made by US officials are now almost certain to be disbelieved - even if they
are true - and Washington's ability to maintain pressure on these regimes to
comply with their treaty obligations has been eroded.

With "pre-emption fatigue" setting in, US military threats can be more
easily discounted. China is now crucial in managing the capricious North
Koreans, while the Americans are currently contemplating moving troops away
from the Korean peninsula in order to fill gaps in Iraq.

Because the US has long refused to establish economic or diplomatic ties
with Iran, only the Europeans seem to have any sort of leverage over Tehran.
The British are determined to draw in the Iranians as a potentially calming
influence on the Shia Muslim population in southern Iraq. American
objections, quite strong in the past, are growing fainter.

Support for Ariel Sharon has backfired as it has associated the US more than
ever with ruthless Israeli policies while turning out to be insufficient to
secure him backing from his Likud party for a modest withdrawal plan; and as
he blusters about, clueless in Gaza, Washington seems to have nothing useful
to say.

As evidence of how bad things have become for the image of the Bush
administration, note that even Michael Howard, leader of the British
Conservative party, can see political advantage in chiding Tony Blair for
not disagreeing more openly with Washington. Already in Spain and
potentially soon in Australia and Italy, as well as Britain, guilt by
association with US policy has become a real electoral liability. With the
potential members of "coalitions of the willing" in decline, the Americans
must return to the multilateral institutions they once scorned, where they
find that past behaviour continues to undermine their influence.

So a vacuum has opened up at the heart of world politics where US leadership
ought to be found. It would be nice to think it could be filled by an
assertion of European power but that is unlikely. There is not only a lack
of common purpose in Europe but also an absence of real clout. The current
uncertainties over the future of the European Union's constitution and the
European Commission highlight the problem. Relations are still fragile
between Britain and France, the two countries that, if they worked together,
might be able to lead.

European leaders know that in many areas little can be achieved
internationally without US support and that as the risk of a robust American
imperialism declines, that of an introverted isolationism grows. They can
draw comfort from the thought that multilateralism is back in vogue and that
the disclosure and investigation of the Abu Ghraib scandal demonstrate the
vitality of US democracy. It is by no means clear, however, that the extent
of the problem is fully appreciated within the US. Until recently there was
reason to suppose that, with a fresh team, Mr Bush might be able to regain
some of the moral authority he had lost. No longer. John Kerry has
identified what he calls a "powerful yearning around the world for an
America that listens and leads again - an America that is respected, and not
just feared". Neither the power of that yearning nor the difficulty of
regaining respect should be underestimated.

Lawrence Freedman is professor of war studies and vice-principal (research)
at King's College London




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 43 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.stir.ac.uk/pipermail/media-watch/attachments/20040531/2a94c4ca/attachment.gif
-------------- next part --------------
This is a message from the MailScanner E-Mail Virus Protection Service
                   at The University of Stirling
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The original e-mail attachment "site=ftcompos=.sty"
is on the list of unacceptable attachments for this site and has been
replaced by this warning message.

Due to limitations placed on us by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers
Act 2000, we were unable to keep a copy of the original attachment.

At Mon May 31 08:59:37 2004 the virus scanner said:
   Very long filenames are good signs of attacks against Microsoft e-mail packages (site=ftcompos=.sty)

-- 
Postmaster

Mailscanner thanks transtec Computers for their support