Foreign Policy

America's Image Slips, But Allies Share US Concerns Over Iran, Hamas
Advanced Search
Economy
Environment
Gender
Avian Flu
Globalization The Pew Global Attitudes Project has released results of its annual
global public-opinion polls for 2006, and results show increasingly SARS
Health
Labor negative views toward the US. For its most recent release, the project
conducted 16,710 interviews in 15 countries. The most significant
Politics reason for the slip in US popularity, in most cases, is the conflict in
Science & Iraq. Many respondents ranked this conflict – along with the current Chinese (Simplified)
Technology governments of Iran and North Korea and the Palestinian-Israeli French
Security & conflict – as a “great danger” to world peace. The US and its allies do Spanish
Terrorism agree about opposing Iran’s development of nuclear weapon, while Urdu
Society & Culture citizens of Muslim nations reported mixed opinions. The survey reveals Vietnamese
Trade intense awareness about avian flu, while concern about global warming
is mixed – ranging from 19 and 20 percent reporting great concern in
the US and China, respectively, to 66 percent in Japan and 65 percent
in India. The US war on terror draws majority support from two
Forums
Global countries – Russia and India. Finally, the survey reveals a global
malaise regarding citizen satisfaction with conditions in their respective Newsletter
Africa
nations. Only in China did the survey show a majority of citizens
Americas reporting increased satisfaction, 81 percent, up from 72 percent in
Asia-Pacific 2005. – YaleGlobal
Central Asia Globalization: When Cure Is Worse Than
Europe Malady
Richard Hornik
Middle East 27 June 2006
South Asia
China’s Portuguese Connection
Loro Horta,Ian Storey
America's Image Slips, But Allies Share US Concerns Over Iran, Hamas 22 June 2006
What is
Globalization? No global warming alarm in the US, China Why Dollar Hegemony Is Unhealthy
History of Thomas I. Palley
Globalization 20 June 2006
Academic Papers Pew Research Center , 15 June 2006
Book Reviews Outsourcing of Indian Education
Book Excerpts Pratap Bhanu Mehta
Related Web Sites 15 June 2006
America's global image has
again slipped and support for the war on terrorism has declined even
How Good Is American Intelligence on
among close U.S. allies like Japan. The war in Iraq is a continuing drag
Iran’s Bomb?
on opinions of the United States, not only in predominantly Muslim
Mission Statement Graham Allison
countries but in Europe and Asia as well. And despite growing concern
Contributing 13 June 2006
over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the U.S. presence in Iraq is cited at least
Publications as often as Iran - and in many countries much more often - as a
Privacy Policy danger to world peace. more articles...
Contact Us
A year ago, anti-Americanism had shown some signs of abating, in part
because of the positive feelings generated by U.S. aid for tsunami
victims in Indonesia and elsewhere. But favorable opinions of the Flash Presentations
United States have fallen in most of the 15 countries surveyed. Only Video Clips
about a quarter of the Spanish public (23%) expresses positive views of Slide Show Presentations
the U.S., down from 41% last year; America's image also has declined
significantly in India (from 71% to 56%) and Indonesia (from 38% to
30%).
Yet the survey shows that Americans and the publics of major U.S.
allies share common concerns, not only over the possible nuclear threat
posed by Iran but also over the recent victory by the Hamas Party in
Palestinian elections. In contrast, the predominantly Muslim populations
surveyed generally are less worried about both of these developments.
Nearly half of Americans (46%) view

the current government in Iran as a
"great danger" to stability in the Middle East and to world peace, up
from 26% in 2003. Concern over Iran also has risen sharply in Western
Europe, especially Germany. Currently 51% of Germans see Iran as a
great danger to world peace, compared with just 18% three years ago.
file:///C|/Users/Choppy/Desktop/attachments_2012_02_24/America's%20Image%20Slips,%20But%20Allies%20Share%20US%20Concerns%20Over%20Iran,%20Hamas.htm[2/24/2012 6:50:42 PM]

Opposition to Iran developing nuclear weapons is nearly unanimous in

Germany, Japan, France, and Great Britain, as well as in the U.S.
Opinion in predominantly Muslim countries varies widely: solid
majorities in Turkey (61%) and Indonesia (59%) oppose Iran acquiring
nuclear weapons, but people in Egypt and Jordan are divided, and most
Pakistanis (52%) favor Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. In addition,
more people in major industrialized nations than in Muslim countries
believe that Iran wants a nuclear program to develop weapons, not
nuclear energy.
Divisions between the West and Muslim nations in opinions of the

Hamas Party's victory are even wider. Fully 71% of Germans and 69%
of the French feel the Hamas triumph will be bad for the Palestinian
people, among those who are aware of the issue. Somewhat fewer
Americans (50%) express this view, although just 20% think the Hamas
triumph will be a good thing for the Palestinians. Among major U.S.
allies, only the British are divided on Hamas' election - 34% say it will
be bad, while 32% take a positive view.
By contrast, large majorities in Pakistan

(87%), Egypt (76%), Jordan (68%), and
Indonesia (61%) feel that the Hamas Party victory will be good for the
Palestinian people, among those who had heard about the election. In
addition, the Muslim publics surveyed generally feel the Hamas triumph
will increase chances of a fair settlement of the Mideast conflict - a view
that is roundly rejected in the West.
The latest survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, conducted

among nearly 17,000 people in the United States and 14 other nations
from March 31-May 14, finds that the U.S.-led war on terror draws
majority support in just two countries - India and Russia. In India,
support for the U.S.-led war on terror has increased significantly over
the past year - from 52% to 65% - even though opinions of the U.S.
have grown more negative over that period.
But in most other countries, support for the war on terror is either flat
or has declined. In Japan, barely a quarter of respondents (26%) now
favor the U.S.-led war on terror, down from 61% in the summer of
2002. Only about four-in-ten Indonesians (39%) back the war on
terror, compared with 50% a year ago. And in Spain, the site of a
devastating terrorist attack two years ago, four times as many people
oppose the war on terror as support it (76% vs. 19%).
The survey shows that the Iraq war continues to exact a toll on
America's overall image and on support for the struggle against
terrorism. Majorities in 10 of 14 foreign countries surveyed say that the
war in Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place. In Great
Britain, America's most important ally in Iraq, 60% say the war has
made the world more dangerous, while just half that number (30%)
feel it has made the world safer.
Moreover, even as concerns

about Iran have increased,
somewhat more Britons believe that the U.S. military presence in Iraq
represents a great danger to stability in the Middle East and world
peace than say that about the current government in Iran (by 41%-
34%). In Spain, fully 56% say the U.S. military presence in Iraq is a
great danger to the stability of the Middle East and world peace; just
38% regard the current government in Iran in the same way. Among
America's traditional allies, Germany is the only country where more
people say Iran is a great danger than offer the same view of the U.S.
military presence in Iraq (by 51%-40%).
Opinions about threats to global peace also reflect regional concerns.

While solid majorities in Jordan and Egypt see America's presence in
Iraq as a great danger, even higher percentages in these countries view
the Israel-Palestinian conflict as a great danger to regional stability and
world peace. The Japanese are particularly concerned about North
Korea - 46% say the government there represents a great danger to
world peace. Those concerns are not shared nearly as much in China,
which borders North Korea; just 11% of Chinese feel that the current
government in Pyongyang poses a great danger to Asian stability and
world peace.
The survey finds sizable gaps in public attentiveness to major issues

and events. In this regard, the extraordinarily high level of

attentiveness to bird flu disease is significant. More than 90% of the
publics in 14 of 15 countries polled say they have heard of the disease;
the only exception is Pakistan, where 82% say they are aware of the
disease.
But attentiveness to other widely covered issues and events varies

widely. There is nearly universal awareness of global warming in major
industrialized countries; in addition, 80% of Russians and 78% of
Chinese say they have heard of global warming. Yet global warming
has drawn scant attention in Muslim countries, with the exception of
Turkey (75%). And in India, just 57% say they have heard of global
warming.
Reports about U.S. prison abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have
attracted broad attention in Western Europe and Japan - more
attention, in fact, than in the United States. Roughly three-quarters of
Americans (76%) say they have heard of the prison abuses, compared
with about 90% or more in the four Western European countries and
Japan.
Among predominantly Muslim

countries, large majorities in Egypt
(80%), Jordan (79%), and Turkey (68%) say they have heard of the
reports of prison abuse. But in Indonesia, Pakistan, and among Muslims
in Nigeria, most people have not heard of this issue. Moreover, just
38% of Chinese and 23% of Indians say they are aware of the prison
abuse story.
While there is extensive interest in bird flu, public alarm over the
spread of the disease has been mostly limited to Asia. Nearly two-thirds
of Indonesians (65%) say they are very worried that they themselves
or a family member will be exposed to the bird flu; bird flu worries also
are extensive in India (57% very worried), Nigeria (57%), and Russia
(56%). But the disease has generated far less concern in Western
Europe and the United States. Only about one-in-ten Americans (13%)
say they are very worried about the bird flu; similar levels of concern
are evident in France (13%), Germany (10%), and Great Britain (9%).
There also is a substantial gap in concern over global warming - roughly

two-thirds of Japanese (66%) and Indians (65%) say they personally
worry a great deal about global warming. Roughly half of the
populations of Spain (51%) and France (46%) also express great
concern over global warming, based on those who have heard about
the issue.
But there is no evidence of alarm over

global warming in either the United
States or China - the two largest producers of greenhouse gases. Just
19% of Americans and 20% of the Chinese who have heard of the
issue say they worry a lot about global warming - the lowest
percentages in the 15 countries surveyed. Moreover, nearly half of
Americans (47%) and somewhat fewer Chinese (37%) express little or
no concern about the problem.
The survey finds the most publics surveyed are dissatisfied with
national conditions. But China is a notable exception - 81% of Chinese
say they are satisfied with the way things are going in their country, up
from 72% in 2005. Majorities in only two other countries - Egypt (55%)
and Jordan (53%) - express satisfaction with national conditions.
Only about three-in-ten Americans (29%) say they are satisfied with
the way things are going in the U.S., down from 39% last year and
50% in 2003. Levels of national satisfaction in France have followed a
similar downward trajectory - from 44% in 2003 to just 20% today.
Public discontent is even higher in Nigeria, which has been wracked by
internal strife. Just 7% of Nigerians have a positive view of the state of
the nation, compared with 93% who express a negative opinion.
Other Major Findings
There has been a marked change in views of the Middle East conflict in
both Germany and France. In both countries, increasing numbers
sympathize with Israel; Germans now side with Israel over the
Palestinians by about two-to-one (37%-18%).

German Chancellor Angela Merkel is enormously popular in France as

well as in Germany. Fully 80% of the French express at least some
confidence in Merkel.
Positive views of the American people - along with the U.S. - have
declined in Spain. Just 37% of the Spanish feel favorably toward
Americans, down from 55% last year.
Turks are increasingly turning away from the war on terror. More than
three-quarters of Turks (77%) oppose the U.S.-led war on terror, up
from 56% in 2004.
Negative views of France have increased over the past year, especially
in Muslim countries. In Turkey, 61% feel unfavorably toward France, up
from 51% last year.
About the Pew Global Attitudes Project
The Pew Global Attitudes Project is a series of worldwide public opinion

surveys encompassing a broad array of subjects ranging from people's
assessments of their own lives to their views about the current state of
the world and important issues of the day. The Pew Global Attitudes
Project is co-chaired by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K.
Albright, currently principal, the Albright Group LLC, and by former
Senator John C. Danforth, currently partner, Bryan Cave LLP. The
project is directed by Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research
Center, a nonpartisan "fact tank" in Washington, DC, that provides
information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and
the world. The Pew Global Attitudes Project is principally funded by The
Pew Charitable Trusts.
Since its inception in 2001, the project has released 13 major reports,
as well as numerous commentaries and other releases, on topics
including attitudes towards the U.S. and American foreign policy,
globalization, democratization, and terrorism.
Pew Global Attitudes Project team members include Mary McIntosh,

president of Princeton Survey Research Associates International, and
Bruce Stokes, an international economics columnist at the National
Journal. Contributors to the report and to the Pew Global Attitudes
Project include Richard Wike, Carroll Doherty, Paul Taylor, Michael
Dimock, Elizabeth Mueller Gross, Jodie T. Allen, and others of the Pew
Research Center. For this survey, the Pew Global Attitudes Project team
consulted with survey and policy experts, regional and academic
experts, and policymakers. Their expertise provided tremendous
guidance in shaping the survey.
Following each release, the project also produces a series of in-depth

analyses on specific topics covered in the survey, which will be found at
pewglobal.org. The data are also made available on our website within
two years of publication.
Source:
Pew Research Center
Rights:
COPYRIGHT PEW RESEARCH CENTER
Related Articles:
What the Bush Victory Means for East Asia
The Righteous War
Don’t Forget Those Other 27,000 Nukes
Cracks in the System
YaleGlobal Online © 2006 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization

Backgrounders | Research | Economist.com
go
Friday July 14th 2006 denotes premium content | Log in | Free registration | Help
Printable page Israel hits Beirut

India's politics E-mail this airport again
May 15th 2006 (CNN) Fri 12:44 GMT
From Economist.com
Israel pounds Lebanon
as world scrambles to
avoid all-out war
(USA Today) Fri 12:32
India has two major political parties: the Bharatiya Janata Party GMT
(BJP) and Congress (short for Indian National Congress). The
Israeli planes, ships hit
former, built around the concept of Hindutva or Hindu nationalism, Beirut airport again
gained power in 1999 but lost to Congress in the 2004 general (CNN) Fri 12:16 GMT
election and has since been rife with internal power struggles. The
latter was created by Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of Israel attacks Beirut
airport again
an independent India, and has been in power for most of Indian (International Herald
history. Congress’s current leader, Sonia Gandhi, took over the Tribune) Fri 11:38 GMT
party in 1998; her husband Rajiv, Nehru's grandson and a former
prime minister himself, was assassinated in 1991. Israel blasts Beirut
airport for 2nd day
(USA Today) Fri 10:15
Outright parliamentary majorities are rare, so the larger parties GMT
Articles by subject
must form coalitions with the smaller regional parties that (often
Backgrounders
Surveys corruptly) dominate state governments. These parties bring their Israel bombs Beirut
airport again
Economics A-Z own goals to the table: communist parties from West Bengal and
(CNN) Fri 10:01 GMT
Style guide Kerala have objected repeatedly to the economic reforms of
Manmohan Singh, whom Ms Gandhi tapped to become prime more...
minister. Meanwhile, several of India's eastern states are battling
Maoist rebel armies. Provided by
Management Moreover Technologies
Reading
Business Education (See also our Country Briefing on India)
Executive Dialogue
more backgrounders...
Linked articles are premium content.
Full contents
Past issues
Free registration
Web subscriptions
Print subscriptions
Academic offers
Gift vouchers
Mobile editions
E-mail alerts
RSS feeds
file:///C|/Users/Choppy/Desktop/attachments_2012_02_24/Backgrounders%20_%20Research%20_%20Economist.com.htm[2/24/2012 6:51:48 PM]

Backgrounders | Research | Economist.com
Books, diaries and

more
Business Recruitment,
Tenders, Franchise
Opportunities,
Properties: click here
The Economist
Intelligence Unit
Economist
Conferences
The World In
Intelligent Life
CFO
Roll Call
European Voice
Economist Diaries and

Business Gifts
Economist.com
The Economist
Global Agenda
Contact us
Media Directory
Advertising info
Job opportunities
Media Directory
Staff Books
OPINION | WORLD | BUSINESS | FINANCE & ECONOMICS | SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

PEOPLE | BOOKS & ARTS | MARKETS & DATA | DIVERSIONS | PRINT EDITION
Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2006. All rights reserved.

Advertising info | Legal disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Help
file:///C|/Users/Choppy/Desktop/attachments_2012_02_24/Backgrounders%20_%20Research%20_%20Economist.com.htm[2/24/2012 6:51:48 PM]

BBC NEWS | Middle East | EU upbeat on Iran nuclear talks
Home
News
Sport
Radio
TV
Weather
Languages
UK version International version
About the versions|Low graphics|Help|Contact us

News Front Page Last Updated: Friday, 7 July 2006, 11:08 GMT 12:08 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
EU upbeat on Iran nuclear talks
Talks between the EU and Iran over IRAN NUCLEAR CRISIS
Africa Tehran's nuclear programme have
got off to a good start, an EU official
KEY STORIES
Americas
Asia-Pacific says. No result in Iran nuclear talks
Europe Iran rejects early nuclear reply
Foreign policy chief Javier Solana's
Middle East US presses Iran for nuclear
spokeswoman said the talks were the
South Asia basis for a positive second meeting,
reply
UK scheduled to take place on Tuesday. Bush warns Iran on nuclear
Business deal
She said Iran would give the meeting a Iran says its nuclear Iran 'will not bow to pressure'
Health "substantial response" to an incentives programme is for peaceful Iran seeks 'constructive' debate
Science/Nature package agreed by world powers in purposes
Technology June. ANALYSIS AND
Entertainment BACKGROUND
Earlier the UN nuclear watchdog chief said the world was "impatient" at Iran's
----------------- Final diplomacy?
Have Your Sayfailure so far to respond. The US offer of
In Pictures Mohamed ElBaradei said the earlier Tehran gave an anwer on the offer, the direct talks with
Country Profiles
better it would be for everyone. The package is aimed at persuading Iran to Iran is a major shift
In Depth halt uranium enrichment. but may not offer a solution
Programmes Q&A: Iran nuclear stand-off
RELATED BBC Iran 'serious'
Question of legality
SITES Mr Solana's spokeswoman said he had stressed the benefit to Iran of accepting Is Iran just boasting?
the package, in an informal dinner in Brussels late on Thursday with Iran's top Nightmare scenario
SPORT nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani. Timeline: US-Iran ties
WEATHER Iran's key nuclear sites
ON THIS "We want to create the conditions for
the start of negotiations as soon as Iran: Energy overview
DAY
EDITORS' possible... I have always said we are not CLICKABLE GUIDES
using the word 'deadlines'," Christina From atom to bomb
BLOG Gallach said, quoted by Reuters news
Who runs Iran
agency.
LANGUAGES HAVE YOUR SAY
file:///C|/...hments_2012_02_24/BBC%20NEWS%20_%20Middle%20East%20_%20EU%20upbeat%20on%20Iran%20nuclear%20talks.htm[2/24/2012 6:52:28 PM]

No further details of the meeting were Will talks help end Iran crisis?
Arabic released.
Persian IN DEPTH
Mr Larijani said his country was serious Mr Solana put the proposal to Inside Iran - special report
Pashto
about continuing negotiations. Iran in June
Turkish
French Formal talks had been due this week but Iran postponed the meeting, citing RELATED INTERNET
More security concerns. LINKS
IAEA
They will now be held on Tuesday in the presence of diplomats from the UK, Iranian presidency
US, France, Germany, Russia and China, the six countries which agreed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
package of measures aimed at persuading Teheran to suspend nuclear
Treaty
enrichment.
The BBC is not responsible for
'Playing for time' the content of external internet
sites
In Washington, a State Department spokesman told reporters on Thursday: "It's
high time that [Iran] provide an answer." TOP MIDDLE EAST
STORIES
Sean McCormack said foreign ministers of the six powers would meet next
Hezbollah leader vows 'open
Wednesday to discuss negative steps against Iran if it had not given a clear
answer, Reuters reported.
war'
Palestinians breach Gaza
Correspondents say Iran's announcement that it wanted to postpone the EU border
talks appeared to be linked to a visit to the European parliament by the leader Attack on Iraqi troops kills 12
of a controversial exiled Iranian opposition group. | News feeds
The BBC's Pam O'Toole says the postponement has stoked suspicions in some
Western countries that Iran, under threat of UN Security Council action if it
rejects the package, is playing for time. MOST POPULAR
STORIES NOW
Thursday's dinner was the first face to face meeting between Mr Larijani and
Mr Solana since early June, when Mr Solana presented Iran with the package MOST E-MAILED
of proposals.
MOST READ
Hezbollah leader vows

'open war'
Princes' 'sadness' at
E-mail this to a friend Printable version Diana photo
Chirac warns of
'African flood'
US faces dilemma in
Mid-East crisis
Jackson jury orders
joint awards
Most popular now, in detail
DON'T MISS
Pointing fingers Diplomatic maze The worst scandal
Why India is How do G8 leaders Fixing shame takes
hardening its untangle the Middle football to new low
position against East crisis? FROM BBC SPORT

Pakistan >>
Desktop tools
E-mail services
Mobiles/PDAs
BBC Copyright Notice

Back to top
Help
Privacy and Cookies Policy
News sources
About the BBC
Contact us

BBC NEWS | Programmes | BBC Parliament | International Organisations and the UK
Home
News
Sport
Radio
TV
Weather
Languages

News Front Page Last Updated: Monday, 22 November, 2004, 16:13 GMT
International Organisations and the UK
Unit 6D: International Politics and the UK
Africa Simon Lightfoot
Americas Lecturer in European Studies at Liverpool John Moores
Home
Asia-Pacific University writes for BBC Parliament
BBC Parliament
Europe
Despite a decline in its power during Listen to Radio 4
Middle East
the post-war period, the UK is a
South Asia
member of a number of major
UK WHAT'S ON IN
international organisations.
Business WESTMINSTER
Health This membership plays a role in Parliament at-a-glance guide
Science/Nature shaping foreign, defence and economic
SEARCH BBC
Technology policy in the UK, as well as clearly
having an impact upon its national PARLIAMENT:
Entertainment
sovereignty. The UK is one of the five How far does the authority of
-----------------
permanent members of the United the UN extend?
Have Your Say Nations (UN) Security Council, which
In Pictures means it has a veto over UN action.
About Parliamentary
Country Profiles programmes
In Depth The United Nations ALSO IN THIS SECTION: Contact Us
Programmes Unit 6D - International Politics FAQs
UN support for military action is seen
RELATED BBC as crucial by many for the action to and the UK Bill Tracker
SITES gain international legitimacy. This was International Events and the Keep pace with UK
very clear during the debate in 2002 UK legislation with BBC
SPORT about attacking Iraq. EU Membership and the UK Parliament
WEATHER European Integration and the
ON THIS Opinion polls suggest that many UK
Labour MPs and members of the public POLITICS STUDENT
DAY Reading list
would only support military action if it British academics
EDITORS' were backed up by a UN resolution. write about A-level
BLOG politics
This support for 'supranational' action is not just confined to military action.
file:///C|/...NEWS%20_%20Programmes%20_%20BBC%20Parliament%20_%20International%20Organisations%20and%20the%20UK.htm[2/24/2012 6:52:51 PM]

Many within the parties of the 'left' (Labour, Liberal Democrats and the UNIT 1
Greens) see the UN as the most appropriate lever to regulate industry, protect People and Politics
the environment and promote human rights.
UNIT 2
For example, the Kyoto Treaty on climate change was negotiated under the Governing the UK
auspices of the UN.
UNIT 3
Nato The Changing UK System
UNIT 4
The UK was a founder member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
(Nato), which was created at the start of the Cold War. UK Political Issues
UNIT 5
Nato is important in shaping UK defence policy as Article 5 states that an
5b) Other Ideological
attack on one member is an attack on all.
Traditions
However, to get a complete picture of the UK's foreign and defence policy, it is 5c) Governing the USA
also crucial to examine the commitments it has entered into as part of the 5d) Issues in International
European Union's (EU) Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). Politics
It is the future of the CFSP that causes most controversy in the UK, especially UNIT 6
as it is tied up with the debate about the future role of Nato. 6b) Ideological Development
in the UK
It is argued that Nato is now redundant since the collapse of its principal raison
6c) Comparative UK and US
d'être, the Soviet Union, and that, for example, a European force may be more
appropriate. Politics
6d) International Politics and
The UK however is keen for the defence link with the USA to remain and the UK
therefore only supports the development of an EU defence capability that does
not damage Nato.
The WTO
In economic terms, the UK is a member of the World Trade Organisation

(WTO), a body charged with promoting global free trade.
The WTO situation is complicated by the fact that on many trade issues the EU
has sole competence to negotiate for the fifteen member states.
The UK's economic power also means it is a member of the Group of 8

countries (G8), originally a grouping of the world's seven richest industrial
democracies.
The UK is also involved in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD) of industrialized countries, which seeks to promote co-
ordination of economic and social policies among members.
Finally, it is also a member of the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund (IMF), both of which are specialized agencies of the United Nations
Organization.
This shows that, via membership of international organisations, the UK

government voluntarily shares sovereignty in the crucial spheres of economic,
defence and foreign policy.
© Dr Simon Lightfoot 2004

Liverpool John Moores University
News Alerts

E-mail services
Mobiles/PDAs

Back to top
Help
News sources
About the BBC
Contact us
News Front Page | Africa | Americas | Asia-Pacific | Europe | Middle East | South Asia
UK | Business | Entertainment | Science/Nature | Technology | Health
Have Your Say | In Pictures | Week at a Glance | Country Profiles | In Depth | Programmes

BBC NEWS | South Asia | US and India seal nuclear accord
Home
News
Sport
Radio
TV
Weather
Languages

News Front Page Last Updated: Thursday, 2 March 2006, 17:43 GMT
US and India seal nuclear accord
The US and India have finalised a GEORGE BUSH IN SOUTH
Africa controversial nuclear deal after talks ASIA
Americas in Delhi between President George
W Bush and Indian PM Manmohan KEY STORIES
Asia-Pacific
Europe
Singh. Bush praises Pakistan terror
Middle East role
Energy-hungry India will get access to
South Asia US civil nuclear technology and open
US rethink on Iranian pipeline
UK its nuclear facilities to inspection. Bush hails partnership with
Business India
Health
Mr Bush, on his first visit to India, India courts more US
called the deal "historic". Watch the speeches
Science/Nature investment
Technology But he said it might be hard to get it through the US Congress, which must
US and India seal nuclear
Entertainment ratify it. India has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). accord
----------------- Pakistan bomb kills US
Have Your Say
The BBC's Sanjoy Majumder in Delhi It's a necessary diplomat
says the nuclear deal will end years of
agreement. It's one that will
In Pictures international isolation for India over its ANALYSIS
Country Profiles help both our peoples Two standards?
nuclear policy.
In Depth George W Bush Bush must convince
Programmes But critics say it sends the wrong US nurtures S Asia ties critics of the
RELATED BBC message to countries like Iran, whose Tour diary: 'Over the top' benefits of the
nuclear ambitions Washington In pictures: Bush in India
SITES nuclear deal with India.
opposes.
Pakistan debates US ties
SPORT Communist parties and Muslim groups are opposed to the visit and are leading Bush bonus?
WEATHER protests across India, but Mr Bush is being welcomed by many other Indians. Substance or style
ON THIS Hurdles facing nuclear deal
DAY Indian pledge
Money matters
EDITORS' Speaking at a news conference after the talks, President Bush said: "It's a US interests in region
BLOG necessary agreement. It's one that will help both our peoples. What is success for US and
India?
LANGUAGES "Congress has got to understand that it's in our economic interests that India
file:///C|/...hments_2012_02_24/BBC%20NEWS%20_%20South%20Asia%20_%20US%20and%20India%20seal%20nuclear%20accord.htm[2/24/2012 6:53:05 PM]

have a civilian nuclear power industry to help take the pressure off the global OPINIONS
Urdu demand for energy." Have your say on Bush tour
Hindi What students think of Bush
He also: visit
Bengali
Pashto said trade between the two countries was growing BACKGROUND
Nepali Pakistan press ponders Bush
promised to share information on terrorism and co-operate militarily
Tamil visit
Sinhala encouraged India and Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir dispute Tour diary - 'sleeping uneasily'
More Transcript: US-India
joined India in criticising the human rights situation in Burma agreement
Mr Bush pledged that his visit to Pakistan later in the week would go ahead, Islamabad - weddings off
despite a bomb blast that killed a US diplomat and at least three others near the Guide to mysterious India
US consulate in Karachi on Thursday. Nuclear deal gets mixed press
IN PICTURES
And he said "the US is looking forward NUCLEAR POWER IN
to eating Indian mangoes", under an President tries cricket
INDIA
agreement to expand trade in farm Bush in Islamabad
India has 14 reactors in
products. Bush in Delhi
commercial operation and nine
Anti-Bush rallies
Mr Singh said India had finalised a under construction
plan to separate its military and civilian Nuclear power supplies about BBC WORLD SERVICE
nuclear facilities, a move contingent on 3% of India's electricity BBC Hindi.com
the deal going through. By 2050, nuclear power is BBC Urdu.com
expected to provide 25% of the
"We have made history today," he
said, praising Mr Bush's personal country's electricity RELATED INTERNET
efforts to secure the accord. India has limited coal and LINKS:
uranium reserves Indian government
Under the agreement, India will Its huge thorium reserves - US state department
classify 14 of its 22 nuclear facilities as about 25% of the world's total The BBC is not responsible for
being for civilian use, and thus open to the content of external internet
- are expected to fuel its
inspection.
nuclear power programme sites
China was swift to stress that nuclear long-term
co-operation between India and the US Source: Uranium Information TOP SOUTH ASIA STORIES
"must conform with provisions of the Center Afghan suicide blasts kill eight
international non-proliferation regime".
Global nuclear powers
The director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed Indians arrive home from
ElBaradei, welcomed the deal, calling India "an important partner in the non- Lebanon
proliferation regime". 'Top Kashmir militant' arrested
France, which signed a similar deal of its own with India last month, said the | News feeds
accord would help fight climate change and non-proliferation efforts.
Those opposed to the deal, in the US Congress and elsewhere, disagree.
Many supporters of the NPT believe the deal ignores India's nuclear weapons
programme. In India, too, critics have alleged that the country's tradition of
non-alignment is being eroded as it forges closer ties with the US.
India's traditional rival, Pakistan, indicated that it wanted a similar agreement.
"Pakistan believes that we also have a claim, an expectation for international

cooperation under safeguards for nuclear power generation," Pakistani foreign
ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said.
Grand welcome
Earlier, Mr Bush inspected a ceremonial guard of honour at the imposing

colonial-era presidential palace in the heart of Delhi.

He followed that by a wreath-laying ceremony at Raj Ghat, the memorial to

Mahatma Gandhi, before his talks with Mr Singh.
Observers say the visit shows a HAVE YOUR SAY

growing bond between the two leaders.
There is a heavy security presence in

Delhi, with armed policemen on the
streets leading to the venue of the
summit.
Helicopters hovered overhead as the

presidential motorcade moved across
the city, accompanied by motorcycle
outriders. With the India-US
accord, the West has created
A session of the Indian parliament was
adjourned after left-wing MPs
a long-term ally and friend
organised a sit-in in protest against in the East
President Bush's visit. Arun Khanna, Indianapolis,
United States
About 30,000 people protested against
his trip in Calcutta, while several
Send us your comments
thousand rallied in Delhi, far fewer US-India 'seismic shift'
than had marched on Wednesday.
During his trip, President Bush will also visit the southern city of Hyderabad,
one of India's high-technology hubs, where there have also been protests.
News Alerts
E-mail services
Mobiles/PDAs

Back to top
Help
News sources
About the BBC
Contact us

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Q&A: Iran nuclear stand-off
Home TV Radio Talk Where I Live A-Z Index

News Front Page Last Updated: Wednesday, 28 June 2006, 12:54 GMT 13:54 UK
World E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Q&A: Iran nuclear stand-off
The United States offered on 31 May to join direct talks with Iran about IRAN NUCLEAR CRISIS
its controversial nuclear programme. On 1 June, the US, Russia, China
and three EU countries agreed on a package of incentives to encourage
KEY STORIES
Africa
Americas Iran to join the talks. The package was given to Iran on 6 June. BBC News No result in Iran nuclear talks
Asia-Pacific
website looks at the issues involved. Iran rejects early nuclear reply
Europe US presses Iran for nuclear
What is in the package?
Middle East reply
South Asia It has not been made public but is believed to include promises of support for Bush warns Iran on nuclear
UK civilian nuclear power in Iran with the provision of light water nuclear deal
England
reactors. According to media reports, there is also a crucial new offer which Iran 'will not bow to pressure'
might allow Iran the chance of carrying out limited enrichment by itself. Iran seeks 'constructive' debate
Northern Ireland
Scotland This would depend however on the IAEA being totally satified that Iran's ANALYSIS AND
Wales intentions were peaceful. BACKGROUND
Business Final diplomacy?
The US would also lift restrictions on the sale to Iran of US made aircraft
Politics parts. This would enable Iran to buy Boeing parts, and parts used by the
The US offer of
Health European Airbus but made in America, to upgrade its civilian airliners. US direct talks with
Education agricultural technology would also be made available. There would be support Iran is a major shift
Science/Nature for Iranian membership of the World Trade Organisation. but may not offer a solution
Technology Q&A: Iran nuclear stand-off
Entertainment Is there a condition for the talks?
Question of legality
----------------- Yes. Iran would have to suspend uranium enrichment first. Is Iran just boasting?
Have Your Say Nightmare scenario
Magazine What has the Iranian response been?
Timeline: US-Iran ties
In Pictures
Iran's negotiator Ali Larijani said there were "ambiguities" and that Iran would Iran's key nuclear sites
Country Profiles respond after studying the offer. Iran has indicated that it might reply towards Iran: Energy overview
In Depth the end of August.
Programmes CLICKABLE GUIDES
RELATED BBC Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has cast doubt on talks, From atom to bomb
SITES however, saying: "Negotiating with America does not have any benefit for us Who runs Iran
and we do not need such negotiations."
HAVE YOUR SAY
SPORT Is the offer to join talks a major shift of US policy? Will talks help end Iran crisis?
WEATHER
IN DEPTH
CBBC It is being interpreted as such because the US has largely avoided direct public
Inside Iran - special report
NEWSROUND talks with Iran since relations were broken off during the Islamic revolution in
ON THIS DAY 1979, in which US embassy hostages were held for a year. It is seen as a way
of Washington trying to get back the initiative in a diplomatic situation that RELATED INTERNET
EDITORS'
had got bogged down. Some see it as a shift towards diplomacy and away from LINKS
BLOG
military threats. IAEA
LANGUAGES Iranian presidency
Is this anything to do with the letter that Iran's President Ahmadinejad
sent to President Bush in May?
Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Arabic Treaty
Persian The letter - proposing "new solutions" but attacking US policy in a number of The BBC is not responsible for
Turkish areas - was dismissed by the US administration as containing "nothing new" the content of external internet
about the nuclear issue. sites
More
file:///C|/...ts_2012_02_24/BBC%20NEWS%20_%20World%20_%20Middle%20East%20_%20Q&A_%20Iran%20nuclear%20stand-off.htm[2/24/2012 6:53:22 PM]

Some think that the new US initiative will have been influenced by the letter, TOP MIDDLE EAST
in that Washington might think there are grounds worth exploring. Others STORIES
however conclude that the initiative grows out of an American feeling that
Hezbollah leader vows 'open
another diplomatic effort must be made before any consideration of military
action.
war'
Palestinians breach Gaza
Would sanctions be imposed if Iran refused to talk? border
Attack on Iraqi troops kills 12
The US and the EU would like to threaten sanctions through the Security
Council if Iran does not respond, but Russia and China are reluctant to go
down that path. If nothing can be agreed by all, then sanctions might be MOST POPULAR
threatened by the US and its allies. The US already imposes its own sanctions.
STORIES NOW
The Security Council earlier demanded that Iran suspend enrichment.
How did Iran respond? MOST E-MAILED
MOST READ
It refused to accept it. Nor has it followed the other demands - that it
reconsider plans for a heavy water reactor, implement and ratify a previous
Princes' 'sadness' at
agreement to allow extra inspections and generally cooperate more. Diana photo
Hezbollah leader vows
What has it done instead? 'open war'
It announced on 11 April that it had enriched uranium and is refusing to back
Nikki given boot by
Big Brother
down.
Teenager detained for
cat cruelty
That was the first time that Iran had announced that it had enriched uranium,
Sex offender flees
which is a key step in making both nuclear power and a nuclear bomb. before hearing
Therefore it is significant technically.
Iran says the enrichment is to 3.5% which is sufficient for nuclear power fuel Most popular now, in detail
and not high enough for a nuclear bomb, which requires enrichment to 80 or
90%.
What is Iran's position?
Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a country has the right to
enrich its own fuel for civil nuclear power, under IAEA inspection.
Iran says it is simply doing what it allowed to do. It argues that it needs
nuclear power and wants to control the whole process itself. It says it will not
use the technology to make a nuclear bomb.
Why is the West so worried?
Western powers fear that Iran secretly wants to develop either a nuclear bomb
or the ability to make one, even if it has not decided to build one right now. So
they want Iran to stop any enrichment. The same technology used for
producing fuel for nuclear power can be used for producing fuel for a nuclear
explosion.
The West says that Iran cannot be trusted because it hid an enrichment
programme for 18 years.
How soon could Iran build a bomb if it decided to do so?
Estimates from the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London vary
from between about three to five years up to about 15 years, depending on
Iran's abilities and intentions. But first it would have to take the decision to go
down that path. That would mean enriching uranium much more highly than it
says it has done so far.
Would the US attack Iran?

The US says it wants a peaceful solution. An attack would not only risk
Iranian retaliation, it would be hard to justify legally. The US is said to have
plans but it has plans for many contingencies and it has not taken a decision.
What is the background to this confrontation?
The IAEA reported in 2003 that Iran had hidden a uranium enrichment
programme for 18 years, and the current dispute dates back to then.
Western members of the IAEA called

on Iran to commit itself to stopping all
enrichment activities permanently, but it
has refused to do so and has now
abandoned a temporary ban as well. So
these countries want Iran reported to the
Security Council under the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) on the
grounds that its past behaviour broke the
treaty and it cannot now be trusted.
Iran says it is now in compliance with

the treaty and that it should be allowed,
under inspection, to enrich uranium for
peaceful purposes since the treaty Iran says its nuclear regime is
allows countries to do this. peaceful
Does Iran intend to build nuclear weapons?
Iran says its policy is "Yes" to enrichment but "No" to nuclear weapons. A
fatwa against nuclear weapons has been issued by the Supreme leader
Ayatollah Khamenei. The sceptics argue that Iran has no need to make its own
nuclear fuel as this can be provided by others, so they conclude that Iran must
be intending one day to make a bomb.
One other possibility is that Iran wants to develop the capability but has left a
decision on whether actually to build a nuclear weapon for the future.
Could Iran leave the NPT?
Yes. Article X gives a member state the right to declare that "extraordinary
events" have "jeopardised the supreme interests of the State." It can then give
three months notice to quit. That would leave it free to do what it wanted.
And, in fact, on 7 May, its parliament threatened to force the government to

withdraw if the standoff was not resolved "peacefully".
What about fears for regional conflict?
There are fears of a broader, possibly military, crisis. The US has said publicly
that it will not permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons. President Bush has said
that he wants diplomacy to solve this, but that nothing is ruled out.
There have been press reports that Israel, which bombed an Iraqi reactor in
1981, has begun the planning for a possible raid. But like the US, Israel says
that diplomacy is the priority.
Brazil has announced that it is now enriching uranium. Is there a double

standard?
Like Iran, Brazil has a right under the NPT to enrich uranium for nuclear
power fuel. It is doing so under IAEA inspection as is required. However, the
political background is quite different because Brazil is not seen as a threat and
its peaceful intentions are believed. Nevertheless, there will be those who do

see double standards here.
Do not existing nuclear powers have obligations to get rid of their weapons
under the NPT?
Article VI commits them to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective

measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to
nuclear disarmament." The nuclear powers claim they have done this by
reducing their warheads but critics say they have not really moved towards
nuclear disarmament.
Critics also argue that the US and UK have broken the treaty by transferring
nuclear technology from one to another. The US and UK say that this is not
affected by the NPT.
Does not Israel have a nuclear bomb?
Yes. Israel however is not a party to the NPT, so is not obliged to report to it.
Neither are India or Pakistan, both of which have developed nuclear weapons.
North Korea has left the treaty and has announced that it has acquired a
nuclear weapon capacity.
DON'T MISS
Diplomatic maze 10 things The worst scandal
How do G8 leaders In 1920s people Fixing shame takes
untangle the Middle added uranium ore football to new low
East crisis? to water jugs & FROM BBC SPORT
other snippets >>
Desktop tools
E-mail services
Mobiles/PDAs
Headlines for your site

Back to top
Help
News sources
About the BBC
Contact us

BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Bush and Singh in nuclear talks
Home TV Radio Talk Where I Live A-Z Index

News Front Page Last Updated: Monday, 17 July 2006, 06:57 GMT 07:57 UK
World E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Bush and Singh in nuclear talks
US President and Indian Prime SEE ALSO
Minister Manmohan Singh have held Bush hails partnership with
Africa talks to discuss a proposed landmark India
nuclear deal between the two
Americas 03 Mar 06 | South Asia
countries.
Asia-Pacific Atomic agency hails US-India
Europe The two leaders met on the sidelines of deal
Middle East the G8 summit in the Russian city of St 02 Mar 06 | South Asia
South Asia Petersburg. Hurdles ahead for landmark
UK nuclear deal
The controversial deal would give India Manmohan Singh and George
England 02 Mar 06 | South Asia
access to US nuclear technology. Bush have hailed a new
Northern Ireland US and India seal nuclear
partnership
Scotland It reverses US policy which had accord
Wales restricted nuclear co-operation since India tested a nuclear weapon in 1974. 02 Mar 06 | South Asia
Business
Politics
The agreement was finalised during US President George W Bush's visit to RELATED INTERNET
India in March. LINKS
Health
Education Indian government
The accord has been hailed as historic There are some concerns
Science/Nature by some, but critics say it will damage which worry us US state department
Technology non-proliferation efforts. The BBC is not responsible for
Manmohan Singh
Entertainment the content of external internet
A US Senate committee and a House of Representatives panel backed the deal sites
----------------- last month.
Have Your Say TOP SOUTH ASIA STORIES
Magazine Reports said Mr Singh sought Mr Bush's support for successful completion of Afghan suicide blasts kill eight
In Pictures the deal during the 40-minute meeting.
Country Profiles "There are some concerns which worry us and worry our parliament," Mr Indians arrive home from
In Depth Singh was quoted telling Mr Bush during the meeting by the Press Trust of Lebanon
Programmes India. 'Top Kashmir militant' arrested
RELATED BBC
SITES "We are a democracy and we are accountable to the parliament which
zealously keeps a watch on what we do and what we do not," the report quoted
SPORT him saying. MOST POPULAR
WEATHER Mr Bush was quoted telling Mr Singh that he was "optimistic" about the deal STORIES NOW
CBBC being passed.
NEWSROUND MOST E-MAILED
ON THIS DAY "It's an important piece of legislation. I'm optimistic we'll get that passed," the
MOST READ
EDITORS' Associated Press quoted him telling the Indian prime minister before the
meeting.
BLOG Red Baron heiress
killed parents
The final vote on the proposed
LANGUAGES Israel 'seizes'
agreement is not expected till the Hezbollah village
middle of July. Astronomers glimpse
Urdu exploded star
Hindi The proposed agreement reverses US
Reid plans border-
Bengali policy to restrict nuclear co-operation control force
with Delhi because it has not signed the Two die in plane crash
More
file:///C|/...2_24/BBC%20NEWS%20_%20World%20_%20South%20Asia%20_%20Bush%20and%20Singh%20in%20nuclear%20talks.htm[2/24/2012 6:53:48 PM]

nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), at airport

and has twice tested nuclear weapons in
1974 and 1998. Most popular now, in detail
Energy hungry India needs
Terrorism nuclear power
Under the deal, energy-hungry India will get access to US civil nuclear
technology and fuel, in return for opening its civilian nuclear facilities to
inspection.
But its nuclear weapons sites will remain off-limits.
Critics of the deal say it could boost India's nuclear arsenal and sends the
wrong message to countries like Iran, whose nuclear ambitions Washington
opposes.
Reports said Mr Singh would also raise India's concerns about rising terrorism
in South Asia in his meetings with world leaders in light of last week's train
blasts in the western city of Mumbai.
Mr Singh has said he would also raise the issue of "zero tolerance" on
terrorism.
"The international community must isolate and condemn terrorism wherever

they attack, whatever their cause and whichever country or group provides
them sustenance and support," the Press Trust Of India quoted him saying.
DON'T MISS
Menezes grief In pictures The Editors' blog
Tube death family UK protesters voice Do you blog about
return to Stockwell their opposition to BBC News? Do you
for one-year Israeli action realise we're
anniversary reading?
Desktop tools
E-mail services
Mobiles/PDAs
Headlines for your site

Back to top
Help
News sources
About the BBC
Contact us


Bush's attitude adjustment - Council on Foreign Relations
Home | FAQs | Contact | RSS | Podcast
Search cfr.org
Advanced Search
Council on Foreign Relations - A Nonpartisan Resource for Information and Analysis
By Region
By Issue
By Publication Type
The Think Tank
For The Media
For Educators
About CFR
Op-Ed
Related Materials
Flynn: Disturbing Lack of Attention Paid to America’s Security Vulnerabilities

Interview
December 21, 2005
The Impact of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
By Lionel Beehner, Staff Writer
Backgrounder
June 29, 2006
A Battle Cry for Democrats
By James M. Lindsay, Vice President and Director of Studies, Maurice R. Greenberg Chair
Op-Ed
June 18, 2006
The dark stain of Guantanamo
By Julia E. Sweig, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director
for Latin America Studies
Op-Ed
June 8, 2006
Feldman: Guantanamo Detainees May be Difficult to Try, Depending on Hamdan Ruling
Interview
May 19, 2006
file:///C|/...oppy/Desktop/attachments_2012_02_24/Bush's%20attitude%20adjustment%20-%20Council%20on%20Foreign%20Relations.htm[2/24/2012 6:54:21 PM]

See Also
United States, International Law, Terrorism, Media and Public Opinion
Bush's attitude adjustment
Author:Michael Moran, Executive Editor
June 11, 2006

Star-Ledger of Newark
For more than three years now, America ’s reputation in the world has been in free-fall. The Bush
administration’s war on terror, coupled with the war in Iraq , has angered allies and hardened the hatred of old
foes. Now, though, it seems President Bush has begun to face publicly the issues most responsible for this
collapse.
The signs were subtle at first. Then came Bush’s televised news conference with Britain’s Prime Minister Tony
Blair late last month.
“Saying ‘Bring it on—kind of tough talk, you know—that sent the wrong signal to people,” Bush said contritely
that day. “I learned some lessons about expressing my self maybe in a little more sophisticated manner—you
know, ‘wanted dead or alive,’ that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted, and so
I learned from that. And I think the biggest mistake that’s happened so far, at least from our country’s
involvement in Iraq, is Abu Ghraib. We’ve been paying for that for a long period of time.”
Bush’s shift in tone was also evident on Thursday, when he reacted to the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the
al Qaeda leader in Iraq, with caution rather than flippant optimism. “We can expect the terrorists and insurgents
to carry on without him,” the president said.
This is a startling turn of events. For years, the administration has treated negative impressions of U.S.foreign
policy as a public relations issue. Now, in the past month, the administration appears to have comprehended the
depth of the problem. In the words of Karen Hughes, a longtime Bush adviser who is now, in effect, assistant
secretary of state for making-nice-to-the-world, “policy must match public diplomacy.”
View full text of article
New Task Forces
Russia’s Wrong Direction: What the United States Can and Should Do
Independent Task Force report on Russia says “partnership” between the two
countries is not a realistic short-term goal.
More Than Humanitarianism: A Strategic U.S. Approach Toward Africa
Independent Task Force report on

Africa finds that “a policy based on humanitarian concerns alone serves neither U.S. interests nor Africa’s.”
To learn more about Independent Task Forces at the Council, click here.
New Council Special Reports

U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation: A Strategy for Moving Forward
Council Special Report on U.S.-India nuclear deal argues that Congress should
formally endorse the deal’s basic framework, while delaying final approval until critical nonproliferation needs
are met.
Neglected Defense: Mobilizing the Private Sector to Support Homeland Security
Council Special Report on Homeland Security warns “the federal government is not
doing enough to harness the capabilities, assets, and goodwill of the private sector” to protect the homeland.
To see a complete list of Council Special Reports, click here.
May/June 2006
View this issue's table of contents

Subscribe

Publications Information
To order Council Books, Task Force Reports, Council Special Reports, and Critical Policy Choices, please call,
fax, or order online from our distributor, the Brookings Institution Press: phone +1-800-537-5487, fax +1-410-
516-6998.
For information on other reports that are not for sale, or for general publications information, please call +1-212-
434-9516 or email publications@cfr.org.
Permissions Requests
To request permission to reuse Council materials, please email publications@cfr.org or fax +1-212-434-9859.
Please include the complete information of the requested work—author, title, sections/pages to be copied or
reprinted, and number of copies to be made—along with a brief description of where and how you would like to
reuse the work.
You may also request permission for Council material through Copyright Clearance Center. For more
information, please click on the logo below.
By Region | By Issue | By Publication Type | The Think Tank | For The Media | For Educators | About CFR
Home | FAQ | Contact | RSS | Podcast
Copyright 2006 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.

If Power Shifts In 2008
Sign In | Register Now Print Edition | Subscribe
SEARCH: News | Search Archives
washingtonpost.com > Columns
Print This Article

E-Mail This Article

A Democrat Might Not Be as Different as You Would Think
By Robert Kagan
Sunday, May 28, 2006; Page B07
Could the United States be better off with a Democrat in the

RSS NEWS FEEDS White House in 2009? Here are a couple of reasons the answer
Top News might be yes, even if you're not a Democrat.
What is RSS? | All RSS
Feeds The Democrats need to take ownership of American foreign
TODAY IN SLATE
policy again, for their sake as well as the country's. Long
Arts & Life
stretches in opposition sometimes drive parties toward defeatism,
Why Can't We utopianism, isolationism or permutations of all three. What starts FEATURED ADVERTISER LINKS
All Just Get
Along?
off as legitimate attacks on the inevitable errors of the party in
Refinance Rates As Low As 2.9% - FREE QUOTES!
Reading the Humane Society power can veer off into a wholesale rejection of the opposition
of the United States'
suggestions for how to
party's own foreign policy principles. Republicans in the 1990s, $200,000 loan for $917/mo. Bad credit OK
prepare your pet fo... More after supporting an expansive internationalism under Ronald For College Graduates, Reduce Your Student Loans
Reagan and the first George Bush, drifted toward quasi- Barbra Streisand Tickets, Tim McGraw Tickets w/ Faith Hill,
isolationism against the Clinton administration's quasi- NASCAR Tickets, Eric Clapton Tickets
internationalism. During Woodrow Wilson's two terms, the ReNu, Celexa, Car Accident, Vioxx, Bextra
internationalist party of Theodore Roosevelt began transforming $145,000 Mortgage for Under $484/Month!
itself into the isolationist party of William Borah. During the
Promotional Pens, T-shirts, Custom Hats
Nixon-Ford years, the party of John F. Kennedy became the party
Cool Gadgets, Great Deals, Visit CircuitCity.com
of George McGovern.
Eight years of Bill Clinton

brought the Democrats mostly The Real Inconvenient Truth
out of their post-Vietnam » Robert J. Samuelson |
Global warming is an
trauma and revived liberal engineering problem, not a
interventionism. But the moral crusade. Until we
solve the problem, it's
George W. Bush years have hypocrisy to pretend we
driven many back. Buffeted can stop global warming.
between the administration's
Duresky: Forgotten Sacrifices in Iraq
failures and their party's left-
Ignatius: 'Trust Us' Isn't Enough
wing critics, the Clintonites Meyerson: The Rule of Law and the GOP
either disavowed what they
OPINIONS SECTION: Toles, Editorials
once believed or kept their
heads down. Lately they're
WHO'S BLOGGING?
starting to show signs of life
Read what bloggers are saying about this
and could still take the reins article.
again if the right Democrat G-Scobe: The Blog of Gregory
won in 2008. That wouldn't be Scoblete
such a bad thing. No one can The Dupont
claim any more that the old Robert Zarate dot com
file:///C|/Users/Choppy/Desktop/attachments_2012_02_24/If%20Power%20Shifts%20In%202008.html[2/24/2012 6:54:44 PM]

Full List of Blogs (54 links) »

Clinton foreign policy team is
less competent than the Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web
Republicans who succeeded it.
But what happens to these
Democrats if their standard- SAVE & SHARE
bearer loses in 2008?
Tag This Article
The case for electing a Saving options
Democrat is not only to save

the party's soul, though that's a
worthy task, but to pull the country together to face the difficult
times ahead. The last time the Democrats were in office, the
world seemed a comparatively manageable place. They have not
yet had to deal with the post-Sept. 11 world. Since the only post-
Sept. 11 foreign policy Americans know is Bush's, many believe -
- especially many Democrats -- that if only Bush weren't
president, the world would be manageable again. Allies could be
easily summoned for the struggle against al-Qaeda or to bring
pressure on Iran or to replace American troops in Iraq. Threats
could be addressed without force, through skillful diplomacy and
soft power. Maybe some of the threats would disappear.
This is fantasy. The next president, whether Democrat or

Republican, may work better with allies and may be more clever
in negotiating with adversaries. But the realities of the world are
what they are, and the imperatives of U.S. foreign policy are what
they are. The diffuse threats of the post-Cold War world simply
don't unite and energize our European allies as the Soviet Union
did, and even a dedicated "multilateralist" won't be able to get
them to spend more money on defense or stop buying oil from
Iran. A smarter negotiating strategy toward Iran might or might
not make a difference in stopping its weapons program. Soft
power will go only so far in dealing with problems such as North
Korea and Sudan.
In fact, the options open to any new administration are never as

broad as its supporters imagine, which is why, historically, there
is more continuity than discontinuity in American foreign policy.
If the Democrats did take office in 2009, their approach to the
post-Sept. 11 world would be marginally different but not
stunningly different from Bush's. And they would have to sell that
not stunningly different set of policies to their own constituents.
In this respect 2008 would be another 1952. The Republican Party

had been out of power for 20 years when Dwight Eisenhower
took office, through Munich, World War II and the first years of
the Cold War. Many Republicans imagined that everything that
went wrong in the world during those two decades was the fault
of Franklin Roosevelt and the Democrats. FDR "tricked" us into
war with Japan. Then he gave away Eastern Europe at Yalta.
Then Harry Truman adopted the disastrous strategy of
containment. These were the years when Joe McCarthy, Robert
Taft and anti-containment "realists" such as Walter Lippmann
flourished. But when Ike and the Republicans finally took over
management of the Cold War, years of railing against "cowardly
containment" gave way to broad if shaky acceptance.
The country could benefit from a similar passing of the baton in

the 2008 presidential election. At the end of the day, of course, a
president's personal qualities and worldview are usually more

important than the party she or he represents. The Democrats, like

the Republicans, could nominate a candidate no sensible person
would entrust with American foreign policy. For that matter, the
Republicans could nominate someone capable of winning broad
Democratic support, which would partly address the debilitating
national divide on foreign policy. But eventually America's post-
Sept. 11 foreign policy will probably be better if both parties have
a shot at shaping it.
Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for

International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German
Marshall Fund, writes a monthly column for The Post.
Print This Article E-Mail This Article
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
SEARCH: News Web
NEWS | OPINIONS | SPORTS | ARTS & LIVING Discussions | Photos & Video | City Guide CLASSIFIEDS | JOBS | CARS | REAL ESTATE
washingtonpost.com: Help | Contact Us | About Us | Advertise With Us | Site Index | Site Map | Make Us Your Homepage | mywashingtonpost.com | Work at washingtonpost.com
The Washington Post: Subscribe | Subscriber Services | Advertise | Electronic Edition | Online Photo Store | The Washington Post Store | About The Post | National Weekly
The Washington Post Company: Information and Other Post Co. Websites
© Copyright 1996-2012 The Washington Post Company | User Agreement and Privacy Policy | Rights and Permissions

U.S. News: Americans have never been eager to plant the flag on foreign soil. Is that attitude changing? (1/13/03)
usnewsclassroom.com
Cover Story 1/13/03
The new American empire?

Americans have an enduring aversion to planting the flag on foreign soil. Is
that attitude changing?
BY JAY TOLSON

It was not a move that President William McKinley would look back on with pride. His reluctant 1898
decision to declare war on Spain ended up humbling America's shaky opponent and bringing in new
territories from Puerto Rico to the Philippines. But for the first time in its history, the United States had
Weekly Teacher's joined those world powers that were intent on planting flags on foreign lands. Having often tried to justify
Guide the war to himself and others, the 25th president concluded, a year before his death, that it was the
greatest grief of his life.
Guide Archives
Classroom McKinley is not the only American troubled by seeing the nation's name used in conjunction with the
word empire. Today, with talk of regime change in Iraq, pre-emptive strikes against potential adversaries,
Resources
and democracy-promotion efforts in the Islamic world, many are wondering whether the world's only
Special Features superpower is succumbing to the imperial itch. Members of the Bush administration flatly reject the
Resource Kits notion. "The United States does not have territorial ambitions, or ambitions to control other people,"
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told U.S. News. Beyond all the talk, though, and even
Ways to Use U.S. beyond the nation's huge cultural and economic influence, looms America's unprecedented military pre-
News eminence, which has allowed it—as in the Gulf War, Kosovo, and Afghanistan—to subdue foes with
modest expenditures of treasure and little or no blood. Are we witnessing a smart-bomb imperium?
Subscribe Now

New Subscriber To some, the imperialism question is not even a matter for debate. In publications ranging from the left-
Renewal wing Nation to Patrick Buchanan's newly launched American Conservative, critics charge that White
Digital Subscription House rhetoric is clear proof of imperial ambition. "The conservative movement has been hijacked and
turned into a globalist, interventionist, open borders ideology, which is not the conservative movement I
About Us grew up with," says Buchanan. And from the left, Jonathan Schell and John Hamilton declare that the
United States has arrived at an "imperial moment." But it is not the first time, they argue, the ominous
Contact Us
precedent being the "splendid little war" of 1898, the subject of former diplomat Warren Zimmermann's
Request a Sample timely new history, First Great Triumph: How Five Americans Made Their Country a World Power.

Copy
Certainly not all Americans are troubled by the administration's new assertiveness in global affairs. In
Customer Service addition to those in the influential neoconservative camp, including columnist Charles Krauthammer,
FAQ Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol, policy analyst Robert Kagan, and Deputy Secretary of Defense
Paul Wolfowitz, there are many others, both inside and outside the administration, who encourage and
applaud the boldness of President Bush's grand strategy. Indeed, a good number of liberal intellectuals
in the past decade came to believe in the need for humanitarian intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo, and
Rankings and as a result they now find themselves supporting—or at least drawn to—the notion of regime change in
Guides Iraq and other parts of the Middle East.

USNews.com Other supporters are even less equivocal. Yale University historian John Lewis Gaddis argues that the
Bush White House is far more coherent in its foreign-policy statements than was President Clinton's,
though he is quick to acknowledge that the single greatest cause of this clarity is the rude shock of 9/11.
"When we are attacked," he says, "it tends to give rise to new strategies."

Yet others say that it is precisely Washington's unbalanced preoccupation with 9/11 and the war against
terrorism that has muddied its strategic vision. For example, the University of Chicago's John
Mearsheimer holds that efforts to achieve Pax Americana, whether for altruistic or selfish reasons, will
file:///C|/Users/Choppy/Desktop/attachments_2012_02_24/The%20New%20American%20Empire%20by%20Jay%20Tolson.htm[2/24/2012 6:55:07 PM]

only weaken the United States in the great-power competition that will inevitably resume. Similarly,
Charles Kupchan, who teaches international relations at Georgetown University and who served on
Clinton's National Security Council, argues in his new book, The End of the American Era, that America
is squandering this rare "unipolar moment" by rattling its saber and appearing to go it alone in pursuit of
its international objectives. What it should be doing, says Kupchan, is just the opposite: shoring up
alliances, working through international organizations, building a global regime of agreements and laws
governing everything from trade to environmental policies. That alone will guarantee the persistence of
an orderly, open world when other powers, namely a unified Europe, come to rival American power.

Empire, schmempire. Others scoff at even the notion of imperial ambition, pointing to the role of the
American public that must support and foot the bill for any grand foreign-policy schemes. Boston College
sociologist Alan Wolfe, for example, argues that Americans ultimately will resist an American empire, "not
because we are humanitarians and internationalists but because we are stingy with our government and
lack genuine interest in the rest of the world."

So many views, so little consensus. But in fact it's always been this way in American politics. Whenever
forced to deal with the larger world, Americans unfailingly consult their most cherished political ideals for
guiding principles. Yet their readings of those ideals yield varying and sometimes conflicting conclusions.
As University of Pennsylvania historian Walter McDougall writes in his book Promised Land, Crusader
State, "confusion and discord have been the norm in American foreign relations not because we lack
principles to guide us, but because we have canonized so many diplomatic principles since 1776 that we
are pulled every which way at once."

Whether or not this is an "imperial moment," it is certainly a moment of reckoning. And at the heart of
the discussion is the Bush Doctrine. Laid out last September and elaborated in subsequent speeches
and directives, the doctrine raises fundamental foreign-policy questions: Does this strategy represent a
fundamental break with the basic principles of the American diplomatic tradition? Or is it instead a
creative application of those principles to the challenge of being the sole superpower in the world?
Answers are murky because the world today is largely compatible with America's values, but it also
contains—as the demolition of the World Trade Center showed—shadowy insurgencies and rogue states
violently opposed to Pax Americana. And in either case, are the wordsempireand imperialism accurate in
describing what America is up to?

McDougall describes two overarching visions of American foreign policy that vie for dominance today.
The first, which dominated in the 19th century, is the vision of America as Promised Land. Modest and
restrained, it embraces four broad principles: In addition to an aversion to entangling alliances, the
Monroe Doctrine, and the notion of Manifest Destiny, this vision emphasized American exceptionalism in
the world at large.

However, at the turn of the last century, there emerged an alternative—and, in McDougall's mind, less
prudent—vision: America as Crusader State. It found expression in the ideas of progressive imperialism,
liberal internationalism, containment, and assorted programs of foreign aid and development.

Foreign policy ideas rise and fall in popularity, come back to life, and commingle with others over time.
But the recurring debates over American grand strategy—including the Bush Doctrine—can all be
connected to the eight strands that McDougall identifies:

Exceptionalism. Americans have never been more unanimous than the founders were in their belief that
America had a special place in the world. Even such rivals as Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson
—who disagreed about almost everything else—could concur that America was the "City on the Hill" and
that its people were blessed with civil and religious liberty. They also shared the conviction that their
nation might one day grow into what Jefferson called an "empire for liberty." But it would not do so by
force. Even such a visionary as Thomas Paine believed America would spread its values only by
example. Perhaps the fullest elaboration of the policy implications of this conviction came in John Quincy
Adams's Fourth of July speech in 1821: "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion only of her own."

Unilateralism. The Founding Fathers were equally committed to unilateralism, a principled wariness
about any obligations to other nations. The phrase "no entangling alliances" came from Jefferson's
inaugural address, but the idea was first articulated in George Washington's farewell message: "It is our

true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world . . . ," Washington
declared, adding that the nation could prudently enter "temporary alliances for extraordinary
emergencies." But extraordinary really had to be extraordinary. Indeed, when James Madison took the
nation to war against Britain in 1812, he resisted the temptation to ally with France, which was then also
fighting England.

The American system. Americans were understandably wary of European encroachments in the
Americas. This concern for U.S. interests in the New Hemisphere gave rise to the principle of the
American system, originating in James Monroe's address to Congress in 1823. The Monroe Doctrine, as
it later came to be called, issued a clear and simple warning: no new colonies in the Americas.
European powers, contending with independence movements in many of their Latin American colonies,
generally heeded Monroe's warning. That was fortunate, because there is little proof that Americans
would have put up much of a fight if Europeans had encroached. John Quincy Adams applauded the
independence movement in South America but made it clear that "it is our true policy and duty to take
no part in the contest." Monroe's was, in short, a modest and flexible doctrine, though it came to be
seen as a warrant for the more aggressive notion of Manifest Destiny.

Expansionism. The 19th-century journalist John O'Sullivan coined the phrase "manifest destiny" in an
1839 article. It conveyed the belief in the divinely conferred right of the republic to expand westward and
bring more of the continent into "the great experiment of Liberty and federated self-government." But
Americans had been acting upon that conviction much earlier, starting with their insistence that Britain
cede all lands east of the Mississippi at the end of the Revolutionary War. The Northwest Ordinance of
1787 and Jefferson's 1803 Louisiana Purchase confirmed that expansionist ambition. President James
Polk saw Manifest Destiny as clear justification of the war he provoked with Mexico (1846-48). That
struggle secured favorable borders for the new state of Texas and wrested California and much of the
southwest from a defeated Mexico, but it also elicited an unprecedented wave of criticism from Ralph
Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and other writers of the day. The spread of slavery into the new
territories was certainly a great concern, but another was the conviction that imperial acquisitions
violated the spirit of the nation's republican ideals.

Progressive imperialism. Had those luminaries lived until 1898, they would have seen their worst fears
confirmed. In seizing foreign lands, McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, and other progressive imperialists
proved to be unique in American history. But in their blend of self-interested pragmatism and idealism,
these men, Zimmermann says, "set the course for American foreign policy for a century." The little-
remembered naval officer and writer Alfred Mahan gave strategic shape to the progressives' vision. He
firmly believed that island outposts in the Caribbean and the Pacific and a canal through Central
America were essential to linking the two coasts of the continental nation and to establishing and
protecting sea lanes for the emerging world power. With them, America could project its muscle abroad
and become an even more confident player in the markets of the world. But just as important to this
religious moralist, command of the seas would allow Western—and particularly Christian—civilization to
extend its influence to "ancient and different civilizations." Roosevelt expressed the soaring idealism of
his cohort with characteristically muscular prose: "Our chief usefulness to humanity rests on our
combining power with high purpose."

Liberal internationalism. President Woodrow Wilson carried idealism a step further by breaking with
George Washington's prime dictum against entangling alliances. He announced in a 1916 address that
the "United States is willing to become a partner in any feasible association of nations formed in order to
realize these objects [peace, national self-determination] and make them safe against violation . . . ." The
story of his failure to bring the United States into the League of Nations is well known: Unyielding self-
righteousness and arrogance prevented him from compromising with key Republican politicians, including
Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge, who did not want to limit U.S. sovereignty. Insisting that only Congress could
send the U.S. military into war, Lodge and others proposed modifications to the charter. Wilson's
disastrous refusal to bend would later serve as a cautionary lesson to Franklin Roosevelt. Working with
politicians from both parties, FDR saw to it that the United Nations charter included a mechanism for
limiting the will of the majority: the Security Council, any of whose permanent members could veto a war
resolution. Roosevelt succeeded where Wilson had failed by tempering idealism with realism,
unilateralism with multilateralism.

Containment. The post-World War II reality soon compelled American statesmen and politicians to think
beyond the vision of benign multilateral cooperation. Joseph Stalin made it clear in a 1946 speech that

there could be no real cooperation between capitalist and communist nations. In the same year, Winston
Churchill warned about an "iron curtain" descending across Europe, while diplomat George F. Kennan
sent in his famous "long telegram," which warned of the Kremlin's "neurotic view of world affairs" and its
determination to destroy "our traditional way of life" to secure Soviet supremacy. Kennan's later article
for Foreign Affairs, signed "X," called for "firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive
tendencies." Other warnings and Soviet actions led to the Truman Doctrine of 1947. Thanks to his
masterful salesmanship, Harry Truman managed, as Kupchan writes, "to galvanize the support of the
public behind economic aid, re-armament, and the formation of the alliance network needed to contain
communism." In 1950, Kennan's successor as head of the State Department's policy planning staff, Paul
Nitze, called for a massive buildup of U.S. military might. With the Korean War underway, Congress
responded by quadrupling the defense budget. Containment would undergo many modifications until the
collapse of the Soviet empire, as it continues to do today in American policies against rogue states and
terrorists.

Global meliorism. McDougall's ungainly phrase encompasses a range of policies, all connected with
doing good works abroad and generally making the world a better place to live. Such policies had been
occasionally implemented even before the middle of the 20th century. For instance, the Herbert Hoover-
directed War Food and American Relief administrations brought necessities to Belgium and other
European nations during and after World War I. But foreign aid and development efforts took off as
World War II ended, with Roosevelt championing the creation of the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund to help pay for postwar reconstruction. After the war, Truman's $13 billion Marshall Plan
spurred Europe's miraculous economic recovery and created the momentum for its growing integration.
Just as important, the plan served as a model of what aid and democracy building might achieve. Critics,
including Henry Kissinger, voiced their skepticism that big government-to-government aid would lead
other nations to democracy, but assistance became an arm of the struggle against communism. The
huge but ultimately failed experiment in "nation-building" in Vietnam dealt a stinging, though not fatal,
blow to the confidence of the meliorists. In varying degrees, Washington supported improvement efforts
up to and through the end of the Cold War. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, there was a growing faith
that the spread of free markets and democracy would occur almost inevitably. The odd rogue state would
have to be restrained, as the first President Bush made clear in the Gulf War; and military muscle might
be needed to back humanitarian interventions when ethnic conflict flared, as President Clinton showed in
Bosnia and Kosovo. Otherwise, it was believed, the road to a new world order needed little
maintenance. "We clearly have it within our means . . . to lift billions and billions of people around the
world into the global middle class," Clinton declared in 1998.

But that "end of history" confidence came close to collapsing with the twin towers on September 11. The
"what did we do wrong?" crowd pointed to America's excessive and inflammatory influence in the world
—or to its failure to use it in the right way, as in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Others
charged that we had become the world's single superpower without any vision of what to do with our
might.

A handful of foreign-policy experts have no qualms about using the "E" word in the current debate.
Gaddis, for example, says: "We are now even more so an empire, definitely an empire, but we now also
have a role." That role did not become immediately clear, in his view, until after 9/11. There was some
undiplomatic stumbling when some in the administration behaved, he says, "like sullen teenagers" and
used language imprecisely, as in the "axis of evil." But things changed last September, Gaddis contends,
with Bush's U.N. speech on Iraq and the presentation of his National Security Strategy—the core
document of the Bush Doctrine— to Congress.

One thing remarkable about that security statement, as many have noted, was that its authors—the
president himself, Rice, and other contributors from inside and outside government—took it very
seriously. "It's important as a reflection of where we are," says Richard Haass, head of the policy
planning staff at the State Department. "The president read the document line by line," says University
of Virginia historian Philip Zelikow, who contributed ideas to the doctrine. "He took personal ownership of
it." That has not been the case with most such documents ever since they were mandated by Congress
in 1986. According to some insiders, many of them were bottom-up documents that bore little
resemblance to the thinking of key administration officials, let alone that of the president. They were
usually perfunctory laundry lists that were produced late and were sometimes obsolete by the time they
arrived. What concentrated the minds of the Bush team, Rice contends, "was the long-standing call for
the United States to develop a comprehensive strategy that finally spoke to the challenges of the post-

Cold War era." And precisely because Bush's security strategy was developed in response to a specific
threat, claims one of its champions, Joshua Muravchik, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise
Institute, it "could be said to bear some resemblance to America's last grand strategy, 'containment,'
which likewise developed more in practice than in abstraction."

Perhaps inevitably, the element of the doctrine that was seized upon by the media and other
commentators was the one that dealt most specifically with the threat represented by the events of 9/11:
pre-emption. Administration critics fixed on it as proof of arrogant, high-handed, even lawless
unilateralism. The nuanced development of the principle in the security strategy suggests that it is none
of those. Its contention is that international law has long recognized that "nations need not suffer an
attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent
danger of attack." What must be done, says the doctrine, is to "adapt the concept of imminent threat" to
the capabilities of today's most likely adversaries: not other great powers but rogue states and terrorists,
who conceal their weapons, deliver them covertly, and target civilian noncombatants. But the doctrine
also clarifies that the United States will not always use force, that it will improve intelligence gathering to
establish proof, and that it will consult with allies. "The reason for our actions will be clear, the force
measured, and the cause just," the doctrine asserts.

More ambitious than pre-emption is the sometimes overlooked assertion that the United States will
remain powerful enough to keep potential adversaries from a military buildup that would surpass or equal
the power of the United States. Reflecting the thinking of Wolfowitz, who proposed elevating the same
principle to doctrine after the Gulf War in the first Bush administration, the idea goes beyond pre-
emption to something like prevention. Critics charge that this effectively cancels the doctrines of
containment and deterrence, though the Bush Doctrine says that it does not. And in the current flare-up
of tensions with North Korea, Secretary of State Colin Powell has indicated that the United States will
rely on containment. The notion of prevention does, however, tie in with the doctrine's assertion that the
age of great-power rivalries is over: It is a warning against any unfriendly would-be rival to America's
unipolar supremacy.

Some critics argue that the Bush Doctrine is naive in suggesting that the age of great power rivalries is
over, but on this point Rice is unyielding: "I think it is hard to make an argument that the future we face
includes the kind of great power rivalries that we saw from the 17th century to the 20th century, which
led to war and efforts to redraw the map. It's a wonderful academic debate, but I would have to say that
if you look where the threats are—the spread of weapons of mass destruction, irresponsible states, the
threat of extremism—the great powers have a great deal of common interest in confronting those
trends."

But does the assertion of American pre-eminence represent the abandonment of multilateralism? Again,
the doctrine would suggest not. It is replete with affirmations of the importance of the United Nations, the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and other alliances. But this multilateralism is definitely of the FDR
variety and not of the Woodrow Wilson strain: It embraces cooperation without the loss of sovereignty. It
will not sign on to all international agreements or wait for international bodies to take action on urgent
matters, such as the threat of Iraq. Indeed, says a senior administration official, "Iraq is now an example
of what happens when the United States puts something on the agenda and then brings the rest of the
world to that position by, in this case, reinvigorating the most important multilateral institution, which is
the [U.N.] Security Council."

In addition to identifying the key threats of our time, the strategic means of responding to them, and the
importance of great-power cooperation, the Bush Doctrine contains another central element that until
recently received little attention: a commitment to extending peace by "encouraging free and open
societies on every continent." The Bush team knew that this salient point would be overshadowed by
debates over preemption and charges of naked unilateralism. Some members even resisted bringing up
the preemption principle for that reason. But in recent weeks, with Haass speaking in public forums on
democracy promotion in the Islamic world and Powell talking about development projects in the Middle
East, this aspect of the doctrine is beginning to receive more attention. And, of course, more criticism as
well. Some say that it smacks of the "goo-goo idealism" of Wilson; others, that it chauvinistically asserts
the universality of liberal values. Indeed, in an age given over to value relativism, the latter may be the
most radical aspect of the doctrine. As Haass affirmed in his recent address to the Council on Foreign
Relations, the administration does not view the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness as "just lifestyles America thinks it ought to export." Nor is this simply posturing. Haass

concedes that the United States had for too long turned a blind eye on Middle Eastern regimes that have
suppressed those rights. While that might have been justifiable as geopolitical jockeying during the Cold
War, he says, it no longer is.

Finally, though, is imperialist the right word for describing the objectives set out in the Bush Doctrine? Is
empire the right word for America? Even though a historian like Gaddis finds it apt, others are deeply
troubled by the usage, including Bush himself. "We have no territorial ambitions," he said in a speech
last Veterans Day. "We don't seek an empire."

Many scholars object to the word for sound historical reasons. "In an empire, you control other nations,
you write their laws, and so on," says Zelikow. "Even in the case of an informal empire, such as Britain
over Afghanistan, you have something completely different from what the United States is doing."

Zelikow explains that a special vocabulary of empire began to develop around the time of the Boer War
at the turn of the last century. It was adapted by the defeated nations of World War I to describe the
victors. Marxists of the Russian and Chinese persuasion perfected the word's vagueness in order to
paint all capitalist powers as imperialists. "Over the last generation," Zelikow says, "people have come to
describe any nation with influence over another as an em-pire. It doesn't tell you anything, but it brings a
lot of bag- gage with it."

A country that produces nearly a third of the world's gross domestic product and whose military spending
tops that of the next 20 countries combined is capable, obviously, of exerting wide influence through
both soft power (including everything from MTV to McDonald's) and hard military muscle. But so far, the
United States has seldom—with the exception of 1898—demonstrated that it wants to directly dominate
the internal affairs of other nations. This does not mean that America has not engaged in some heavy-
handed meddling with other nations' governments: Throughout the Cold War, for instance, Washington
helped bring about "regime change" in Iran, South Vietnam, Chile, and other nations as part of its larger
strategy to contain and roll back the communist tide. In the years between the fall of the Soviet empire
and September 11, a period that columnist Krauthammer first dubbed the "unipolar moment," Americans
demonstrated that they had little idea of what to do with their massive power, apart from marveling at it
while the "new economy" soared skyward. At most, under Clinton and Bush before him, the United
States acted like the benign but barely attentive custodian of globalism. Now, however, it knows that
peace, prosperity, and the spread of human rights are not automatically guaranteed. Their survival will
require the expenditure of American will and might. But Americans will have to decide in the long run
whether they want to extend the unipolar moment into what Krauthammer recently proposed as the
"unipolar era."

Overly ambitious? Rice throws the question right back: "Was it overly ambitious of the United States to
believe that democracy could be fostered in Japan and that peace could finally be brought between
Germany and France? It succeeded because it proceeded from values that Americans understood.
Truman and his team understood that America could not afford to leave a vacuum in the world." The
question, of course, is can it now?

Copyright © 2006 U.S.News & World Report, L.P. All rights reserved. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of
our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
Subscribe | Terms & Conditions | Privacy | Contact U.S. News Classroom

TIME Magazine Archive Article -- India Awakens -- Jun. 26, 2006
Home | Archive | Ask the Archivist

My Account | Feedback
Articles Covers ARCHIVE

Search See All FEATURES
Covers
Search Archive
Tips Homepage:
Best of the
Search Jan archive
Jan 11 1923
1923 through Dec
Dec 31
31 2006
2006
From: Feb 2 1924
Collections:
FDR
World The Holocaust
India Awakens Space Travel
Fueled by high-octane growth, the world's largest Albert Einstein
democracy is becoming a global power. Why the world Collections Index
will never be the same
Browse by
By MICHAEL ELLIOTT
Subject:
Cover subjects A -
ALSO IN THIS Z
ISSUE Browse by
Jun. 26, 2006 Jun. 26, 2006 Issue:
Even if you have never gone to Click covers to see
India--never wrapped your food in contents
a piping-hot naan or had your Cover Galleries:
eyeballs singed by a Bollywood Browse by topic or
spectacular--there is a good year
chance you encounter some piece
Search Tips:
of it every day of your life. It
Find the articles
might be the place you call Table of Contents » you want
(although you don't know it) if
your luggage is lost on a Photos and Graphics ADVERTISEMENT
connecting flight, or the guys to »
whom your company has
outsourced its data processing. Cover
Every night, young radiologists in Bombay's Boom
Bangalore read CT scans e-mailed Hooray for
to them by emergency-room Bollywood
doctors in the U.S. Few modern My Lost World
Americans are surprised to find How to Ride the
that their dentist or lawyer is of Elephant
file:///C|/...attachments_2012_02_24/TIME%20Magazine%20Archive%20Article%20--%20India%20Awakens%20--%20Jun.%2026,%202006.html[2/24/2012 6:55:25 PM]

Indian origin, or are shocked to

hear how vital Indians have been to California's high-tech
industry. In ways big and small, Indians are changing the
world.
That's possible because India--the second most populous

nation in the world, and projected to be by 2015 the
most populous--is itself being transformed. Writers like to
attach catchy tags to nations, which is why you have
read plenty about the rise of Asian tigers and the Chinese
dragon. Now here comes the elephant. India's economy is
growing more than 8% a year, and the country is
modernizing so fast that old friends are bewildered by the
changes that occurred between visits. The economic
boom is taking place at a time when the U.S. and India
are forging new ties. During the cold war, relations
between New Delhi and Washington were frosty at best,
as India cozied up to the Soviet Union and successive
U.S. Administrations armed and supported India's
regional rival, Pakistan. But in a breathtaking shift, the
Bush Administration in 2004 declared India a strategic
partner and proposed a bilateral deal (presently stalled in
Congress) to share nuclear know-how. After decades
when it hardly registered in the political or public
consciousness, India is on the U.S. mental map.
Among policymakers in Washington, the new approach

can be explained simply: India is the un-China. One
Asian giant is run by a Communist Party that increasingly
appeals to nationalism as a way of legitimating its power.
The other is the largest democracy the world has ever
seen. The U.S. will always have to deal with China, but it
has learned that doing so is never easy: China bristles
too much with old resentments at the hands of the West.
India is no pushover either (try suggesting in New Delhi
that outsiders might usefully broker a deal with Pakistan
about Kashmir, the disputed territory over which the two
countries have fought three wars), but democrats are
easier to talk to than communist apparatchiks. Making
friends with India is a good way for the U.S. to hedge its
Asia bet.
Democracy aside, there is a second way in which India is

the un-China--and it's not to India's credit. In most
measures of modernization, China is way ahead. Last
year per capita income in India was $3,300; in China it
was $6,800. Prosperity and progress haven't touched
many of the nearly 650,000 villages where more than
two-thirds of India's population lives. Backbreaking,
empty-stomach poverty, which China has been tackling
successfully for decades, is still all too common in India.
Education for women--the key driver of China's rise to
become the workshop of the world--lags terribly in India.

The nation has more people with HIV/AIDS than any

other in the world, but until recently the Indian
government was in a disgraceful state of denial about the
epidemic. Transportation networks and electrical grids,
which are crucial to industrial development and job
creation, are so dilapidated that it will take many years to
modernize them.
Yet the litany of India's comparative shortcomings omits

a fundamental truth: China started first. China's key
economic reforms took shape in the late 1970s, India's
not until the early 1990s. But India is younger and freer
than China. Many of its companies are already innovative
world beaters. India is playing catch-up, for sure, but it
has the skills, the people and the sort of hustle and
dynamism that Americans respect, to do so. It deserves
the new notice it has got in the U.S. We're all about to
discover: this elephant can dance.
ARCHIVE PICKS
Time Archive Citation Guide

Because the TIME articles in our electronic archive do not
have the original page numbers and many don't even
give the author's name, students and researchers
frequently ask how to cite the articles properly
Archive Collections
Hand-picked covers and excerpts from TIME's best
articles on topics from modern art and Harry Potter to
World War II and heart disease
History of TIME
TIME was first published on March 3, 1923 as a
newsmagazine which summarized and organized the
news so that "busy men" could stay informed
World War II Archive

TIME's war correspondents included John Hersey, Robert
Sherrod and James Agee. Read their reports from the
front
9/11: The First Year

Highlights from TIME's coverage of the September 11,
2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the
year that followed
Ask the Archivist: Research Your Family History

Find out if members of your family have been mentioned
in TIME

Copyright © 2012 Time Inc. All rights reserved.

Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Subscribe | Customer Service | Help | Site Map | Search | Contact Us

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Reprints & Permissions | Press Releases | Media Kit

War Bedevils American Image - Council on Foreign Relations
Home | FAQs | Contact | RSS | Podcast
Search cfr.org
Advanced Search
Council on Foreign Relations - A Nonpartisan Resource for Information and Analysis
By Region
By Issue
By Publication Type
The Think Tank
For The Media
For Educators
About CFR
Daily Analysis
War Bedevils American Image
Anti-American
sentiment at a rally in
Syria. (Photo: AP)
June 14, 2006

Prepared by:Robert McMahon
file:///C|/...sktop/attachments_2012_02_24/War%20Bedevils%20American%20Image%20-%20Council%20on%20Foreign%20Relations.html[2/24/2012 6:55:58 PM]

It has been one year since Karen Hughes was named to run the U.S. public diplomacy apparatus and only nine
months that she has actually been on the job. So, it's not fair to hold up the latest Pew Global Attitudes survey as
any sort of report card. Still, the poll's findings of a continuing decline in views about the United States must be
discouraging after the high-profile steps Hughes and other officials have taken to explain and promote U.S.
policies.
Hughes recently told a CFR meeting that the Bush administration is increasingly adapting policy to serve public
diplomacy considerations. She told RFE/RL journalists this month the role of U.S. public diplomacy is to go
beyond asserting U.S. positions to engaging in a "conversation with the world." CFR's Michael Moran notes
President Bush's recent shift in tone has been an acknowledgment of the need to adjust the administration's
posture (Star-Ledger). But U.S. efforts continue to be bedeviled by bad luck, missteps, and the Iraq war. The
administration enjoyed a rare double dose of good news from Iraq last week with the killing of an insurgent
leader and the completion of Iraq's government. But soon after came reports of three suicides at the Guantanamo
Bay detention facility. A senior U.S. public diplomacy official called it a "PR move" (BBC), prompting a quick
correction from a State Department spokesman that "we would not say it was a PR stunt" (MSNBC).
U.S. public diplomacy efforts, now budgeted at more than $1 billion (PDF), are part of the U.S. Secretary of
State's "transformational diplomacy" initiative aimed at shifting the unwieldy foreign policy system to confront
present-day challenges. That includes moving diplomats out of cushy Western posts closer to important
developing world stations in Asia and Africa. It also involves trying to organize U.S. foreign aid more
effectively (PDF).
But public diplomacy is about communication and that is where most of the U.S. spending is directed. There
continues to be discussion about whether the country's main broadcasting effort in Iran should be the music-
based approach of Radio Farda, profiled recently by the Washington Post. Hughes says the station fosters
important dialogue with Iranians. Meanwhile, cultural critic Martha Bayles expresses concern about the export of
low-brow popular culture from the United States and the impact it's having on the country's image (Wilson
Quarterly). But CFR Senior Fellow Julia Sweig, whose new book assesses the rise of anti-American sentiment,
tells CFR.org's Bernard Gwertzman, it is improved policies, more than communication, that will improve
America's image, such as closing down the Guantanamo Bay prison facility.
Another challenge is the current backlash in some states against U.S. democracy promotion policy, which is at
the heart of the country's public diplomacy efforts. Thomas Carothers, an expert on democracy building at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this month that
resistance to U.S. democracy-promotion activities in developing and post-communist countries is at an all-time
high.
Today's Stories
North Korea Missile Tests Draw World's Ire
Updated 4:25 PM EDT
Violence Plagues Middle East
Updated 2:25 PM EDT
Mexico’s Presidential Wrangle
Updated 4:26 PM EDT

The Media and the Terror War
Updated 9:45 AM EDT
Inspiring Terror
Updated 10:37 AM EDT
A Tale of Two Iraqi Cities
Updated 12:14 AM EDT
Most Popular
North Korea Missile Tests Draw World's Ire
Updated 7/5/2006
The Media and the Terror War
Updated 7/5/2006
Mexico Chooses A President
Updated 7/2/2006
Inspiring Terror
Updated 7/5/2006
Mexico’s Presidential Wrangle
Updated 7/5/2006
Related Materials
Generating Momentum for a New Era in U.S.-Turkey Relations
Council Special Report
Challenges for a Postelection Mexico
Council Special Report
America's message to Muslim world
Op-Ed
Building a New Era in U.S.-Turkey Relations

Op-Ed
Challenges For A Postelection Mexico: Issues For U.S. Policy
Transcript
New Task Forces
Russia’s Wrong Direction: What the United States Can and Should Do
Independent Task Force report on Russia says “partnership” between the two
countries is not a realistic short-term goal.
More Than Humanitarianism: A Strategic U.S. Approach Toward Africa
Independent Task Force report on

Africa finds that “a policy based on humanitarian concerns alone serves neither U.S. interests nor Africa’s.”
To learn more about Independent Task Forces at the Council, click here.
New Council Special Reports
U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation: A Strategy for Moving Forward
Council Special Report on U.S.-India nuclear deal argues that Congress should
formally endorse the deal’s basic framework, while delaying final approval until critical nonproliferation needs
are met.
Neglected Defense: Mobilizing the Private Sector to Support Homeland Security
Council Special Report on Homeland Security warns “the federal government is not
doing enough to harness the capabilities, assets, and goodwill of the private sector” to protect the homeland.
To see a complete list of Council Special Reports, click here.
May/June 2006
View this issue's table of contents

Subscribe

Publications Information
To order Council Books, Task Force Reports, Council Special Reports, and Critical Policy Choices, please call,
fax, or order online from our distributor, the Brookings Institution Press: phone +1-800-537-5487, fax +1-410-
516-6998.

For information on other reports that are not for sale, or for general publications information, please call +1-212-
434-9516 or email publications@cfr.org.
Permissions Requests
To request permission to reuse Council materials, please email publications@cfr.org or fax +1-212-434-9859.
Please include the complete information of the requested work—author, title, sections/pages to be copied or
reprinted, and number of copies to be made—along with a brief description of where and how you would like to
reuse the work.
You may also request permission for Council material through Copyright Clearance Center. For more
information, please click on the logo below.
By Region | By Issue | By Publication Type | The Think Tank | For The Media | For Educators | About CFR
Home | FAQ | Contact | RSS | Podcast
Copyright 2006 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.

Foreign Policy

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Foreign Policy

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

America's Image Slips, But Allies Share US Concerns Over Iran, Hamas

Nearly half of Americans (46%) view

file:///C|/Users/Choppy/Desktop/attachments_2012_02_24/America's%20Image%20Slips,%20But%20Allies%20Share%20US%20Concerns%20Over%20Iran,%20Hamas.htm[2/24/2012 6:50:42 PM]

Opposition to Iran developing nuclear weapons is nearly unanimous in

Divisions between the West and Muslim nations in opinions of the

By contrast, large majorities in Pakistan

The latest survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, conducted

Moreover, even as concerns

Opinions about threats to global peace also reflect regional concerns.

The survey finds sizable gaps in public attentiveness to major issues

file:///C|/Users/Choppy/Desktop/attachments_2012_02_24/America's%20Image%20Slips,%20But%20Allies%20Share%20US%20Concerns%20Over%20Iran,%20Hamas.htm[2/24/2012 6:50:42 PM]

and events. In this regard, the extraordinarily high level of

But attentiveness to other widely covered issues and events varies

Among predominantly Muslim

There also is a substantial gap in concern over global warming - roughly

But there is no evidence of alarm over

Other Major Findings

file:///C|/Users/Choppy/Desktop/attachments_2012_02_24/America's%20Image%20Slips,%20But%20Allies%20Share%20US%20Concerns%20Over%20Iran,%20Hamas.htm[2/24/2012 6:50:42 PM]

German Chancellor Angela Merkel is enormously popular in France as

About the Pew Global Attitudes Project

The Pew Global Attitudes Project is a series of worldwide public opinion

Pew Global Attitudes Project team members include Mary McIntosh,

Following each release, the project also produces a series of in-depth

YaleGlobal Online © 2006 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization

file:///C|/Users/Choppy/Desktop/attachments_2012_02_24/America's%20Image%20Slips,%20But%20Allies%20Share%20US%20Concerns%20Over%20Iran,%20Hamas.htm[2/24/2012 6:50:42 PM]

Friday July 14th 2006 denotes premium content | Log in | Free registration | Help

Printable page Israel hits Beirut

file:///C|/Users/Choppy/Desktop/attachments_2012_02_24/Backgrounders%20_%20Research%20_%20Economist.com.htm[2/24/2012 6:51:48 PM]

Books, diaries and

Economist Diaries and

OPINION | WORLD | BUSINESS | FINANCE & ECONOMICS | SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2006. All rights reserved.

file:///C|/Users/Choppy/Desktop/attachments_2012_02_24/Backgrounders%20_%20Research%20_%20Economist.com.htm[2/24/2012 6:51:48 PM]

UK version International version

About the versions|Low graphics|Help|Contact us

file:///C|/...hments_2012_02_24/BBC%20NEWS%20_%20Middle%20East%20_%20EU%20upbeat%20on%20Iran%20nuclear%20talks.htm[2/24/2012 6:52:28 PM]

Hezbollah leader vows

Most popular now, in detail

file:///C|/...hments_2012_02_24/BBC%20NEWS%20_%20Middle%20East%20_%20EU%20upbeat%20on%20Iran%20nuclear%20talks.htm[2/24/2012 6:52:28 PM]

BBC Copyright Notice

file:///C|/...hments_2012_02_24/BBC%20NEWS%20_%20Middle%20East%20_%20EU%20upbeat%20on%20Iran%20nuclear%20talks.htm[2/24/2012 6:52:28 PM]

UK version International version

About the versions|Low graphics|Help|Contact us

file:///C|/...NEWS%20_%20Programmes%20_%20BBC%20Parliament%20_%20International%20Organisations%20and%20the%20UK.htm[2/24/2012 6:52:51 PM]

In economic terms, the UK is a member of the World Trade Organisation

The UK's economic power also means it is a member of the Group of 8

The UK is also involved in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

This shows that, via membership of international organisations, the UK

© Dr Simon Lightfoot 2004

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

file:///C|/...NEWS%20_%20Programmes%20_%20BBC%20Parliament%20_%20International%20Organisations%20and%20the%20UK.htm[2/24/2012 6:52:51 PM]

BBC Copyright Notice

file:///C|/...NEWS%20_%20Programmes%20_%20BBC%20Parliament%20_%20International%20Organisations%20and%20the%20UK.htm[2/24/2012 6:52:51 PM]

UK version International version

About the versions|Low graphics|Help|Contact us

file:///C|/...hments_2012_02_24/BBC%20NEWS%20_%20South%20Asia%20_%20US%20and%20India%20seal%20nuclear%20accord.htm[2/24/2012 6:53:05 PM]

Those opposed to the deal, in the US Congress and elsewhere, disagree.

India's traditional rival, Pakistan, indicated that it wanted a similar agreement.

"Pakistan believes that we also have a claim, an expectation for international

Earlier, Mr Bush inspected a ceremonial guard of honour at the imposing

file:///C|/...hments_2012_02_24/BBC%20NEWS%20_%20South%20Asia%20_%20US%20and%20India%20seal%20nuclear%20accord.htm[2/24/2012 6:53:05 PM]

He followed that by a wreath-laying ceremony at Raj Ghat, the memorial to

Observers say the visit shows a HAVE YOUR SAY

There is a heavy security presence in