Kerry Vs Bush, As Seen From Abroad
Tom Fenton, in his fourth decade with CBS News, has been the network's Senior European Correspondent since 1979. He comments on international events from his "Listening Post" in London, and other parts of the world as well.
Every four years the rest of the world watches while Americans vote for the candidate who will become what we used to call the Leader of the Free World and now the Leader of the World. Period.
It is a time of frustration for America's allies and enemies. They wish they had a say in the election. Usually, foreign governments hope a first term President will be re-elected, because they have learned to like him or at least gotten used to him. This year is different.
If the Germans or the French could vote in our election, at least 90 per cent would go for Kerry. And the same is probably true for most of the rest of Europe. In the Middle East and the Muslim world, President Bush is even less popular.
Mr. Bush is the most disliked American president abroad in living memory, perhaps in all of American history. I won't go into the reasons why. I simply note that what goes down well in Texas doesn't sit well in the most of the rest of the world.
So what if the world gets its wish? Would Spaniards and Egyptians and Brits be happy with a Kerry Administration? Not entirely.
There are already voices on this side of the Atlantic pointing out that a Kerry Administration foreign policy might not be all that different from the Bush foreign policy.
The tone might be different, of course. Speakers at the Democrat convention denounced President Bush for pursuing an arrogant and reckless foreign policy. One of the themes of the Kerry campaign is that he would "regain the respect" of the rest of the world.
We have heard something like that before. Four years ago, Mr. Bush promised a "humble" foreign policy.
Foreigners know campaign promises are just that, but they are at least hoping for a change of direction in American foreign policy. Commentators here note that it would more likely be a slight adjustment in course rather than a 180-degree turn.
Kerry campaign advisors say his administration would appoint a senior envoy - perhaps former President Clinton - to revive the Middle East peace process, and invite the Europeans to take a greater part in the process. But they concede that once the Israelis and Palestinians got down to serious bargaining, the Europeans would no longer have a major role because the Israelis trust only the Americans in matters of national security.
On Iraq - the biggest bone of contention between America and Europe, Senator Kerry suggests he might appoint a European as high commissioner to oversee reconstruction contracts. In return, he would try to persuade the French and the rest of "old Europe" to contribute troops. That is where things might get sticky, even if President Kerry could phrase his request in flawless French.
Similar realities would have to be faced in other parts of the world. North Korea's nukes will not be sweet-talked away. At some point, a Kerry Administration would have to get tough.
But to get back to my original point that foreigners are frustrated because they can't decide this election. There is one who does seem to feel he has a vote. Osama Bin Laden and his al Qaeda commandoes have been threatening to pull off a spectacular terrorist attack on America prior to the election. In a close race, that might be enough to tip the scales - as it did in the recent Spanish election.
The question is which candidate would it help? Some of the smartest observers seem to feel that a last minute terrorist attack would have the opposite effect of the Madrid train bombs and would help ensure a Bush victory.
Why would Bin Laden want more of the same from Washington? Because, say these observers, the war in Iraq has been a recruiting ground for al Qaeda supporters. And anything that furthers Bin Laden's grand plan for a clash of civilizations between Islam and the infidels is worth supporting. Even a Bush re-election.
By Tom Fenton
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. Every four years the rest of the world watches while Americans vote for the candidate who will become what we used to call the Leader of the Free World and now the Leader of the World. Period.
It is a time of frustration for America's allies and enemies. They wish they had a say in the election. Usually, foreign governments hope a first term President will be re-elected, because they have learned to like him or at least gotten used to him. This year is different.
If the Germans or the French could vote in our election, at least 90 per cent would go for Kerry. And the same is probably true for most of the rest of Europe. In the Middle East and the Muslim world, President Bush is even less popular.
Mr. Bush is the most disliked American president abroad in living memory, perhaps in all of American history. I won't go into the reasons why. I simply note that what goes down well in Texas doesn't sit well in the most of the rest of the world.
So what if the world gets its wish? Would Spaniards and Egyptians and Brits be happy with a Kerry Administration? Not entirely.
There are already voices on this side of the Atlantic pointing out that a Kerry Administration foreign policy might not be all that different from the Bush foreign policy.
The tone might be different, of course. Speakers at the Democrat convention denounced President Bush for pursuing an arrogant and reckless foreign policy. One of the themes of the Kerry campaign is that he would "regain the respect" of the rest of the world.
We have heard something like that before. Four years ago, Mr. Bush promised a "humble" foreign policy.
Foreigners know campaign promises are just that, but they are at least hoping for a change of direction in American foreign policy. Commentators here note that it would more likely be a slight adjustment in course rather than a 180-degree turn.
Kerry campaign advisors say his administration would appoint a senior envoy - perhaps former President Clinton - to revive the Middle East peace process, and invite the Europeans to take a greater part in the process. But they concede that once the Israelis and Palestinians got down to serious bargaining, the Europeans would no longer have a major role because the Israelis trust only the Americans in matters of national security.
On Iraq - the biggest bone of contention between America and Europe, Senator Kerry suggests he might appoint a European as high commissioner to oversee reconstruction contracts. In return, he would try to persuade the French and the rest of "old Europe" to contribute troops. That is where things might get sticky, even if President Kerry could phrase his request in flawless French.
Similar realities would have to be faced in other parts of the world. North Korea's nukes will not be sweet-talked away. At some point, a Kerry Administration would have to get tough.
But to get back to my original point that foreigners are frustrated because they can't decide this election. There is one who does seem to feel he has a vote. Osama Bin Laden and his al Qaeda commandoes have been threatening to pull off a spectacular terrorist attack on America prior to the election. In a close race, that might be enough to tip the scales - as it did in the recent Spanish election.
The question is which candidate would it help? Some of the smartest observers seem to feel that a last minute terrorist attack would have the opposite effect of the Madrid train bombs and would help ensure a Bush victory.
Why would Bin Laden want more of the same from Washington? Because, say these observers, the war in Iraq has been a recruiting ground for al Qaeda supporters. And anything that furthers Bin Laden's grand plan for a clash of civilizations between Islam and the infidels is worth supporting. Even a Bush re-election.
By Tom Fenton
