Iraq opposition poll
I’m fresh back from work at the Herald, where I spent the evening reading AP, Reuters, and New York Times cables. I went through over 1,000 cables, probably a third of which dealt in some way or another with Iraq. The Pope spoke against the war, Britain said it’s likely to propose another UN resolution on Iraq, Germany and Russia said they saw no need for a new resolution, Bush said time is running out, Blix said Iraq seems to be cooperating more but is running out of time, three Iraqi scientists were interviewed, etc. There were few other notable stories internationally – although let me not forget Eminem’s camaro being sold on eBay. A mere five to ten cables dealt with North Korea – more than usual since Rumsfeld and Bush both sounded off on the subject today.
As you probably already know, one of the big Iraq stories these days is France’s opposition to any armed conflict, and the growing possibility of the French using their veto power in the security council. A French official visiting India, hearing of Bush’s comment that the “Game is over” for Iraq, responded: “Mr. Bush, it’s not a game, and it’s not over.”
We all know the French oppose the war, but France’s citizenry is not the most opposed to military action against Iraq. That honor belongs to the Argentines, where 83% say they would not support such action under any circumstance. Only 60% of French say that (they’re number 10 in the world). This is according to a Gallup pole published on Monday.
Summarizing the results of the poll, the newpaper La Nacion lists in a neat paragraph some of the reasons people worldwide might oppose the US action, quoting Argentina’s ambassador to the US as saying that that it might be “some of the unilateral decisions made by the US.” La Nacion elaborates:
With specific regard to Argentine opposition, La Nacion quoted political analyst Rosendo Fraga as saying that Argentina has historically felt the need to check Washington’s hegemony. “This attitude is evident from Argentina’s neutrality in the two world wars,” said Fraga.
As you probably already know, one of the big Iraq stories these days is France’s opposition to any armed conflict, and the growing possibility of the French using their veto power in the security council. A French official visiting India, hearing of Bush’s comment that the “Game is over” for Iraq, responded: “Mr. Bush, it’s not a game, and it’s not over.”
We all know the French oppose the war, but France’s citizenry is not the most opposed to military action against Iraq. That honor belongs to the Argentines, where 83% say they would not support such action under any circumstance. Only 60% of French say that (they’re number 10 in the world). This is according to a Gallup pole published on Monday.
Summarizing the results of the poll, the newpaper La Nacion lists in a neat paragraph some of the reasons people worldwide might oppose the US action, quoting Argentina’s ambassador to the US as saying that that it might be “some of the unilateral decisions made by the US.” La Nacion elaborates:
Refusal of the Kyoto Protocol, for example, on the emissions of gaseous pollutants. The abandonment of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty (ABM) settled on by Russia and the US in 1972. And the refusal to join in the soon-to-be-created World Penal Court. These were some of the decisions that most irritated Europeans – even after the US survived the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and there was an upsurge of good feelings toward the US throughout the world.
With specific regard to Argentine opposition, La Nacion quoted political analyst Rosendo Fraga as saying that Argentina has historically felt the need to check Washington’s hegemony. “This attitude is evident from Argentina’s neutrality in the two world wars,” said Fraga.
previously there was Diccionario
afterwards you have Differences
The political science department at Swarthmore College held a panel discussion before the 1996 presidential elections. A student asked a question I’d long had on my mind: “do you think Bill Clinton, deep down inside, is much further left-wing than his official positions suggest?”
The faculty’s answer was probably not, and even if so it would be irrelevant since his actions were what mattered. But somehow, throughout the Clinton years, I found myself wanting to believe he was a secret radical.
Since Bush has come into power, Colin Powell has become a similar object of wishful thinking on my part, and I don’t think I’m alone. I don’t see him as a radical, of course, but as (at worst) a moderate or perhaps even a Bloomberg Republican. When I’ve been concerned about the directions the Bush administration is taking, I’ve calmed myself by thinking that Powell was too wise and powerful to let Bush ride roughshod over the world, sniffing out oil or abortion clinics. As Thomas Friedman put it sometime in mid-2002, I watched “Colin Powell’s eyebrows,” believing they showed his skepticism about the administration’s actions.
In the last few weeks, I’ve been asking “what’s happened to Powell”?
I wonder, though, if I wasn’t taken in by an intelligent tactical move on the part of the Bush administration. Perhaps Powell was a hawk from the start, but realized (along with the administration) that he had to serve as the link to the rest of the world. So he feigned dovish-ness for a few months, until the left wing had put him on a pedestal. Then, at veritably the last minute, he dispensed with peaceful pretences and become the administration’s spokesperson. He thus took away the left’s leader and replaced him with a war advocate, hoping to deflate the peace movement. [submitted on 19 Feb 03]