Troubled Trans-Atlantic Relations
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.
If you are disturbed by the level of debate in the Presidential campaign, just look at what this election is doing to trans-Atlantic relations. The British are so rattled by the possibility of four more years of President Bush that the Guardian, the country's leading left wing newspaper, asked readers to write and give advice to undecided voters in Ohio. You can imagine how that went down in the Buckeye State.
One Ohioan sent the paper this email: "Hey, England, Scotland and Wales, mind your own business. We don't need weenie-spined Limies meddling in our presidential election. If it wasn't for America, you'd all be speaking German."
There are not a lot of Bush supporters in Britain. Indeed, the best that the Spectator, a decidedly right wing British weekly, could say about Mr. Bush was that a President Kerry might not be that much better. And to make sure everyone got the point, it went on to say, "Those of us who were fiercely critical of Bill Clinton's cynicism in office have been obliged to recognize that it is preferable for the world to be in the hands of s pragmatist than those of a true believer."
The magazine began its cover story with the statement that "most British people seem to hate George W. Bush." The writer of the article, Max Hastings, clearly shares that feeling. He went on to attack the President's "incompetence" in the war on terror: "Bush's crude one-fits-all view of terror, coupling the Chechin rebels with the Palestinian militants, the Iraqi insurgents with the perpetrators of 9/11, causes foreigners to respond with disbelief and alarm."
Most British politicians see President Bush as "brash, ignorant and recklessly simplistic," and opinion polls show that is the mainstream view. Only 11 percent of the British would welcome a Republican victory. A majority say they would be "unhappy" or "miserable" if Mr. Bush is reelected.
Nevertheless, the President does have one important friend in Britain. Most observers believe Prime Minister Tony Blair would be embarrassed and politically damaged if Mr. Bush is defeated. Senator Kerry may be closer to the British leader ideologically, but Bush and Blair have been bound together by the war. Their success or failure as statesmen and politicians will be defined by whether Iraq is a success or failure. Although he cannot take sides publicly, Mr. Blair must be quietly praying for a Republican victory. That's probably why -- against the will of his Labor Party -- he agreed to send the troops to Baghdad that the United States says are needed to help make Iraq safe for elections in January. President Bush does not have many friends like that in the world beyond our shores.
There are a few notable exceptions, however. One is Russia's President Putin, who for reasons of his own, said the defeat of President Bush "could lead to the spread of terrorism to other parts of the world." Mr. Putin believes that by giving (verbal) backing to President Bush in Iraq, he will have a free hand to deal as he likes with the Chechin rebels at home.
The other, somewhat surprising exception, is Iran. Or at least Mr. Hasan Rowhani, the head of Iran's Supreme Security Council, who can be presumed to speak for at least one major faction of that country's government. For reasons that involve both internal politics and the ongoing political struggle in neighboring Iraq -- and which are too complicated to explain here -- Mr. Rowhani told the state-run television, "We haven't seen anything good from Democrats. We do not desire to see Democrats take over."
You are not likely to see that quote in any of the current political attack ads on American television.
By Tom Fenton
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. If you are disturbed by the level of debate in the Presidential campaign, just look at what this election is doing to trans-Atlantic relations. The British are so rattled by the possibility of four more years of President Bush that the Guardian, the country's leading left wing newspaper, asked readers to write and give advice to undecided voters in Ohio. You can imagine how that went down in the Buckeye State.
One Ohioan sent the paper this email: "Hey, England, Scotland and Wales, mind your own business. We don't need weenie-spined Limies meddling in our presidential election. If it wasn't for America, you'd all be speaking German."
There are not a lot of Bush supporters in Britain. Indeed, the best that the Spectator, a decidedly right wing British weekly, could say about Mr. Bush was that a President Kerry might not be that much better. And to make sure everyone got the point, it went on to say, "Those of us who were fiercely critical of Bill Clinton's cynicism in office have been obliged to recognize that it is preferable for the world to be in the hands of s pragmatist than those of a true believer."
The magazine began its cover story with the statement that "most British people seem to hate George W. Bush." The writer of the article, Max Hastings, clearly shares that feeling. He went on to attack the President's "incompetence" in the war on terror: "Bush's crude one-fits-all view of terror, coupling the Chechin rebels with the Palestinian militants, the Iraqi insurgents with the perpetrators of 9/11, causes foreigners to respond with disbelief and alarm."
Most British politicians see President Bush as "brash, ignorant and recklessly simplistic," and opinion polls show that is the mainstream view. Only 11 percent of the British would welcome a Republican victory. A majority say they would be "unhappy" or "miserable" if Mr. Bush is reelected.
Nevertheless, the President does have one important friend in Britain. Most observers believe Prime Minister Tony Blair would be embarrassed and politically damaged if Mr. Bush is defeated. Senator Kerry may be closer to the British leader ideologically, but Bush and Blair have been bound together by the war. Their success or failure as statesmen and politicians will be defined by whether Iraq is a success or failure. Although he cannot take sides publicly, Mr. Blair must be quietly praying for a Republican victory. That's probably why -- against the will of his Labor Party -- he agreed to send the troops to Baghdad that the United States says are needed to help make Iraq safe for elections in January. President Bush does not have many friends like that in the world beyond our shores.
There are a few notable exceptions, however. One is Russia's President Putin, who for reasons of his own, said the defeat of President Bush "could lead to the spread of terrorism to other parts of the world." Mr. Putin believes that by giving (verbal) backing to President Bush in Iraq, he will have a free hand to deal as he likes with the Chechin rebels at home.
The other, somewhat surprising exception, is Iran. Or at least Mr. Hasan Rowhani, the head of Iran's Supreme Security Council, who can be presumed to speak for at least one major faction of that country's government. For reasons that involve both internal politics and the ongoing political struggle in neighboring Iraq -- and which are too complicated to explain here -- Mr. Rowhani told the state-run television, "We haven't seen anything good from Democrats. We do not desire to see Democrats take over."
You are not likely to see that quote in any of the current political attack ads on American television.
By Tom Fenton
