World Opinion Roundup

In World Opinion Roundup, washingtonpost.com Staff Writer Jefferson Morley conducts a freewheeling tour of the best of Internet news sites from Afghanistan to Beijing to Mexico City to Paris to Zimbabwe.

Read today's column: When Is Espionage a Story? (Post, March 2)

Roundup brings the diversity of global online media to your screen, presenting today's news and views from journalists, pundits and commentators from every continent. We'll talk about America in the eyes of the world, compare journalistic practices, analyze politics and perspectives, examine the nature of news and debate styles of journalism.

Morley was online Tuesday, March 2 at 1 p.m. ET, to examine how the world sees the news of the day.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

________________________________________________

Jefferson Morley: Hello everybody. Today brings news of a horrific string of terror attacks on Shiite worshippers in Iraq and Pakistan, as well as the aftermath of the fall of Haitian president Jean-Betrande Aristide. This comes on top of my column today about international coverage of spying on the United Nations during the runup to the war in Iraq.
I will try to get to as many as possible.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Scores Die in Multiple Blasts at Iraqi Shiite Shrines (Post, March 2)

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: U.S. Assembles Peacekeeping Coalition in Haiti (Post, March 2)

_______________________

Olney, Md.: Why is race an issue whenever Aristide is mentioned? I see Maxine Waters screaming about racism and I'm left in awe trying to figure out what she is even referring to.

Jefferson Morley: Race is an issue because Aristide says that the U.S. didn't help him because he is black. Maxine Waters agrees, saying that the United States would have sought to block the overthrow of a democratically elected president of a country who wasn't black. Its a hard claim to assess because there's been no love lost between Aristide, a leader of the poor in Haiti, and U.S. policymakers in Washington who don't spend much time thinking about the poor in Haiti. To charge that what has happened in Haiti is the result of racism, strike me as simplistic at best.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Using FOIA requests, independent researcher Jeremy Bigwood has obtained U.S. government documents that would seem to demonstrate that the National Endowment for Democracy -- whose funding is (according to its own Web site) "dependent on the continued support of the White House and Congress -through the State Department]" -- has been granting money to the Venezuelan organization, Sumate, in order to (as the obtained documents clearly state) "encourage participation in a referendum voting process" to recall President Hugo Chavez.

Links to those documents can be found here:
VENEZUELA FOIA.INFO

I can only imagine the blizzard of outrage and news coverage that would ensue from the government and media institutions like the Post if any foreign government were to fund the recall of an elected official in the U.S. Yet, the U.S. government seems to be doing this in Venezuela.

To me, after seeing these documents, Chavez's recent accusation of U.S. meddling in Venezuela's internal affairs doesn't seem misplaced. Can you comment on this?

Jefferson Morley: The heart of the question is what is interference in the politics of another country and what is support for democratic politics. Sumate acknowledges that it accepts U.S. money and seeks a recall. Chavez thinks the recall is illegitimate and the U.S. intervention is illegitimate. Americans would certainly reject foreign support for recall of an elected official here.And foreign governments are increasingly unwilling to accept one way dictates from the U.S. government. I read yesterday in the Chinese online press that China is now issuing an annual human rights report on the United States in response to the annual U.S. human rights report. Turnabout is fair play I suppose. The U.S. need not fear lectures on human rights from China or Hugo Chavez.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: I am always fascinated to try to learn how people in other countries get their news about the U.S. I often take a look at the BBC Web site and check out their "Americas" section.

It seems to me that much of the coverage of domestic U.S. news (U.S. politics, culture -- rather than U.S. foreign policy) has a somewhat glib tone to it. In other words, it's almost treated lightheartedly -- look what those crazy Americans are up to now ... look who the governor of Calif. is.

On the other side of the coin, some take a more apocalyptic tone (ex: D.C. sniper), but is still treated as if the U.S. is some strange, bizarre place. I hope I don't appear overly sensitive about this ... this tone (if it exists) might be correct.

Do you detect this? Is it a theme that is consistent across the world?

Jefferson Morley: Now you know how foreigners feel when they read about their countries in the U.S. press. The only time you read about Cuba is when they arrest dissenters. The only time you read about Central America is when there is a natural disaster. etc., etc. The only time you read about France is when they've done something anti-American. So what you are seeing in the foreign press is something that the U.S. press is itself often guilty of: glibness.

The other quality that you note -- that the U.S. appears as a strange bizarre place -- is because ... well. the United States is a strange bizarre place to many foreigners. I don't think the BBC reports on America this way. But some aspects of U.S. life are mind boggling to foreigners: the prevalence of handgun violence, the culture of consumption, the ignorance of foreign countries. These may seem like the norm to us but they are not the norm for everyone in the world.

That said, there is no monolithic view of the U.S. not in the entire world, not even within individual countries. In the French press, for example, the political discussions are often harshly critical of American policies. The cultural discussions about U.S. movies are rapturous.

In Lebanon, one of my favorites news sites, the Daily Star, is critical of U.S. policy in the Middle East at the same time that its editors insist the U.S. stay involved in the region. Another popular news site in Lebanon, Dar al Hayat, is harshly critical of the U.S. and generally incomprehending of how our political system works.

So while I think you maybe overly sensitive to unintended slights of the U.S., I think you should also look to see the range of diversity in the international online media.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Daily Star (Lebanon)

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Dah al Hayat (Lebanon)

_______________________

Portland, Maine: I'm told that spying at the U.N. is commonplace and was done throughout the Cold War, therefore, "it's no big deal." The trouble is, it seems like part of the unseemly haste by British/U.S. intelligence to make sure they get the "right" vote in the U.N. to authorize war.

Apparently, somebody forged documents related to a phony Uranium purchase in Niger. Who did that? Do we know?

Then, when you consider the sorry state of pre- war intelligence, you can't help but wonder whether we should have spent more time spying on Saddam Hussein (our supposed enemy) and less on Kofi Annan.

Jefferson Morley: Spying at the U.N. IS commonplace. I wouldn't say it's 'no big deal' because spying can give one side an advantage in the political maneuvering. It is plausible, though still not proven, that spying helped the U.S. and Britain head of the possibility of a compromise "second resolution" last spring that might have delayed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

We don't know who forged the documents about the phony uranium purchase in Iraq. There are suspicions that it came from a European intelligence agency but I don't think those suspicions have been publicly confirmed.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: How much news coverage did the world give the Iraqi agreeing to a new constitution? This is a major advancement. The Post had a good editorial about it today Iraq's Constitutional Accord (Post, March 2), but the headlines are dominated by Gay Marriage, the Oscars, bombings and the Democratic Primary. If one were to compare life in Iraq a year ago to life in Iraq now and looking future, one can see the great advancements the country has had thanks to the action by the Coalition. Is this view expressed throughout the international press? If not, what alternative world do they see?

Jefferson Morley: The belated Iraqi constitution got a fair amount of coverage in the foreign press. The tone of coverage was sometimes skeptical because of the obvious divisions in the country that render the effectiveness of the constitution questionable. Today's violent attacks certainly point up that reality.

For many foreign observers, Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein but worse off with the prospect of U.S. domination, especially of its oil resources. The most popular alternative to the U.S.-British occupation is a U.N. administration backed by multinational forces.

The U.S. government, after scorning the U.N. for its 'irrelevance' last spring, is now eager, some say desperate for U.N. help in stabilizing the situation in Iraq. As today's news shows, it may be too late.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: What a breath of fresh air Dr. Jeffrey Sachs was last night on Charlie Rose. I tell you, that is something not often seen or heard in the mainstream media. I am skeptical today reading Peter Slevin's comment, "It was when Powell saw that the opposition would not budge that U.S. policy shifted radically toward Aristide's ouster." Something smells here.

Jefferson Morley: I didn't see Jeffrey Sachs on Charlie Rose and don't know what he talked about. He publishes quite often in the international press.

The blow by blow account of how Aristide was ousted has yet to appear. What seems clear is that getting rid of Aristide was more important to the U.S. and to the opposition than preserving the formalities of the Haiti's democratic process.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: The Charlie Rose Show

_______________________

Nederland, Colo.: I heard Congresswoman Waters say she spoke to Aristide Monday morning, who said he did not resign, and he was kidnapped by U.S. Marines. Gen. Powell said such claims are "nonsense". One of the three people is lying -- isn't it very important to know who? What's the (non-U.S.) world opinion? Is that opinion not well informed about past U.S. support of Haitian dictators? Will it trust us now? Thank you.

Jefferson Morley: .I don't know that anybody is "lying" in the sense that they are saying something they now to be untrue. What Aristide sees as "a kidnapping" was to Powell "forceful persuasion." I don't doubt that both men are sincere in their belief. The question is what actually happened that led Aristide to get on that plane. That we don't know yet.

The French press is particularly well-informed about past U.S. support of Haitian dictators. The French press is also strongly supportive of international intervention to help Haiti, including the use of French troops.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: The Pakistani newspaper, The Daily Times, posted an article in its 3/2/04 online edition Daily Times about a speech by Alexandria congressman James P. Moran, Jr. It stated "'Baghdad neither possessed weapons of mass destruction nor was it abetting extremists,' said Mr Moran, adding it was because of the machinations of special interests that Iraq was attacked."

How reliable are Pakistani newspapers, and this one in particular?

Jefferson Morley: Pakistan has a lively online press. The Daily Times is not one of the country's leading news sources but it seems to be a quality news site.

The Nation and The News are probably the best Pakistan news sources. The newspaper Dawn is a reliable voice of the country's ruling establishment.

_______________________

Monterey, Calif.: Many of us in the United States feel that the upcoming November presidential election may be the most important in our lifetimes.

For me personally, the reckless and arrogant way Bush has treated the international community along with the manufactured aspects of the so called "global war on terrorism" are the most dangerous of his policies which must be immediately reversed.

How is the foreign press looking at the U.S. November election in this context? Do they tend to see a monolithic America, or are they aware that we are deeply divided too?

Jefferson Morley: It is difficult to generalize about what the "foreign" press thinks about anything. The "foreign press" is an entity which includes the leading newspapers of Europe which have been in business for more than a century and small Internet operations that have been covering the news for five years.

These news organizations have only just begun to cover the American presidential election. In general, President Bush is unpopular but his opponents are essentially unknown. The European press is especially are aware of divisions in America. In the Arab press President Bush's difficulties are celebrated.

_______________________

Farragut West, Washington, D.C.: Initially, it seemed that our allies who strongly opposed the war in Iraq were mostly angry at the Bush administration. Do you see this anger moving toward the American public? After all, they're the one's that voted for Bush.

Jefferson Morley: Well, if you recall the 2000 election, the plurality of the American people didn't vote for President Bush.

But you're question is an interesting one and it points to a fundamental division in the way foreigners view America. Many people view the U.S. government and the Bush administration as the problem and hold out hope for the American people. In this view, the government has been captured by special interests (larger corporations, pro-Israel groups). Others, and I would say this view is more common in Europe, blame the American people for allowing its government to wreak havoc in the world.

_______________________

Storm Lake, Iowa: The American press is giving very little play to claims that Aristide was forced out of his country by the United States. How is this claim being played internationally?

Jefferson Morley: Good question.

I just checked Le Monde, the French daily which is covering Haiti closely. They are giving no coverage to Aristide's claim. _______________________

washingtonpost.com: Le Monde

_______________________

Nederland, Colo.: You said Powell described our action as "forceful persuasion" to get Aristide out. Then how can Powell call the "kidnapped" description "nonsense"? It's just an impolitic word for the same thing! Is there a substantive distinction? Does the rest of the world not know we could have used our influence to stop the "rebels" if we chose to? Thank you.

Jefferson Morley: Because he thinks there's a difference between 'forceful persuasion" and "kidnapping."

Which there may well be. We don't know.

And yes, everybody in the world who knows anything about Haiti knows we could have used our influence to check the rebels.

_______________________

Jefferson Morley: That wraps up today's discussion.

Look for the next World Opinion Roundup on Thursday morning

Let's talk again next Tuesday at 1 p.m. ET. Send your questions anytime.

Hasta pronto, JEFF

_______________________