Around
the World -
Bush's good points
By
Jonathan
Power
TFF Associate
since 1991
July 6th, 2004
LONDON - There
is a tendency these days - and I share it - that urges
one on to hit George Bush whilst he is down. But before
he goes permit me a word in his favor - or, more
accurately, his regime. Briefly put, the world is more at
peace than when he came to power. The big powers have
never been so relaxed with each other since the late part
of the nineteenth century and early years of the
twentieth and the number of small wars - ethnic disputes,
tribal punch ups and territorial disputes - has been
going down every year.
Through all the vicissitudes of
Iraq the Bush Administration has managed to keep
relations with Russia at their calmest and most fruitful
since before the Revolution. Despite the earlier tensions
over abrogating the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, Bush
appears to have won the trust of President Vladimir Putin
that he is not up to a clever game to overcome Russia's
defenses against a surprise nuclear attack.
Neither has U.S. oil-politik in the
Caspian region proved as malevolent as was first
surmised. Bush has leant over backwards - too far - to be
understanding about Chechnya. There are great gaps in
Bush's Russian policies - a casual pace on nuclear
disarmament and a lack of funds for making safe Russia's
old nukes and plutonium stockpiles which could do more
for nuclear proliferation than anything he has tried to
do with Iraq, Iran and North Korea - but, still, this
lack of antagonism in the central relationship is
remarkable.
With China, after a rocky start,
one gets the same sense of cooperative peace. Without
turning a hair China voted for the recent UN resolution
empowering U.S. peacekeeping in Iraq. Washington has
prevailed upon Taiwan not to rock the boat and seems to
accept that China has no great extra-territorial
ambitions, outside of Taiwan, Tibet and mineral riches of
the South China sea, all of which it has decided to
manage and live with without overt conflict.
Bush has handled the Turks with
adroitness. Surprised at their last minute refusal to
disallow passage of U.S. troops to northern Iraq at the
onset of the war, Bush kept his mouth shut and has now
become Turkey's main cheerleader for its admittance to
the European Union.
With Iran he has been right to keep
the pressure on the Europeans to be more assertive in
persuading it to be honest about its nuclear bomb
program. Unlike Bill Clinton he has taken Russia's
commercial interests in Iran's nuclear power program much
more into account. And it could well be he will have the
success there that he has had in Libya where he has
persuaded Muammar al-Qaddafi to cease bomb research. At
last too Bush seems ready to compromise with North Korea,
a nuclear fait accompli.
In contrast, in the Middle East
progress all on fronts has been incremental when not
counterproductive. Very slowly Washington has positioned
itself as a critic of authoritarian regimes, even though
they are still in realpolitik wanted on the U.S.'s side.
With Israel he has turned back the clock and consequently
taken a beating especially from the Europeans for being
unblinkingly pro Ariel Sharon. But Europe, especially
Britain and Germany, seem to forget they created this
problem and they should look more to themselves and less
to the U.S. to sort it out.
With most of the Indian
sub-continent the future has never looked so promising
since the British left in 1947. I had no brief for the
need to go to war in Afghanistan and I remain convinced
the "war on terrorism" be better left to police work than
military action but there can be some hope, despite the
shortcomings in aid promised to Afghanistan, that the
country now has some chance of escaping from the worst of
warlordism and poverty. India and Pakistan look as if
both sides are moving towards making peace over Kashmir.
India is on the path to becoming a big economic power,
even more than China, but it will not be hostile either
to the U.S. or China. The U.S., albeit belatedly, has
decided unambiguously to be India's friend.
With the UN, despite early
animosity, the U.S. has ended up supporting peacekeeping
operations in a sustained way, far more than Clinton ever
did - five operations in Africa in just the last year.
And it has taken on the chin the recent vote in the
Security Council not to acquiesce to the U.S. desire for
its troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere to be
absolved from possible prosecution by the International
Criminal Court.
If Bush loses in November he will
be leaving the world - Iraq and Israel/Palestine apart -
a better place than he found it. Who to thank? Colin
Powell or the left side of Bush's own brain? The
historians will have to tell us, since the press has
conspicuously failed to keep us informed.
Copyright © 2004 By
JONATHAN POWER
I can be reached by
phone +44 7785 351172 and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
Follow this
link to read about - and order - Jonathan Power's book
written for the
40th Anniversary of
Amnesty International
"Like
Water on Stone - The Story of Amnesty
International"
Här kan
du läsa om - och köpa - Jonathan Powers bok
på svenska
"Som
Droppen Urholkar
Stenen"
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
 
|