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 and Q&A on Haiti:

Kerry Ahead in International Online Caucus (Post, March 9)

After the Uprising in Haiti (Post, March 9)

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,

After seven quick weeks, the Democratic presidential primary campaign is essentially over. In those same weeks, the world press first began paying attention to domestic U.S. politics and the selection of a Democratic candidate to challenge President Bush. I watched as the world press took measure of Kerry and today's column is the result.

Comments and questions are welcome. And we can talk about anything else that's on your mind.

_______________________

Portland, Maine: From what I read, the President seems pretty unpopular overseas. It began with his statement that the Kyoto Treaty was "dead on arrival" and went downhill from there.

Do you think there will be an effort by other parts of the world to embarrass the President or to refuse to cooperate with him during this election year, to influence our election? To what extent do you think world leaders can or will do things to affect our election? Will they bother?

Jefferson Morley: President Bush's global unpopularity is striking. But I don't see other governments going out of their way to embarrass or refuse to cooperate with him. The ability of non-Americans to influence the 2004 election is almost non-existent, while the advantages of maintaining correct, if not cordial relations with Washington are many.

That doesn't mean that many governments and citizens of other countries don't hope Bush loses. They do. They're just not going to spite the most powerful leader in the world for no productive purpose.

_______________________

Greenbelt, Md.: Have you been able to gain a sense of why South Africa refused Aristide? Was the government simply unsympathetic, or was it unwilling to do the dirty work of the U.S. in this coup? The press in the U.S. is naturally not exploring this issue.

Jefferson Morley: There are several reasons being batted around in the South African press.

One objection to taking Aristide was that South Africa didn't want the reputation as the last refuge of deposed black dictators. There has been considerable debate over President Mbeki's accommodating handling of Robert Mugabe, the incompetent strongman of neighboring Zimbabwe who has impoverished his country while destroying its democratic process. (There are rumors, unconfirmed, that Mugabe has purchased a mansion in South Africa.)

Another objection, offered by the government, is that taking Aristide will lend legitimacy to his ouster. President Mbeki may well feel sympathy for Aristide. The South Africa president was the last chief of state to visit Haiti before Aristide's ouster.

My guess is that Mbeki sees no practical advantage or principled reason for taking in Aristide.

_______________________

Summerfield, N.C.: How does Mr. Bush's current international unpopularity compare with that of previous presidents? I would assume during the Vietnam war that the U.S. president would also have been unpopular internationally -- is Mr. Bush's unpopularity the worst?

Jefferson Morley: Bush's unpopularity must rival that of Presidents Johnson and Nixon in the late 1960s and early 1970s. But some differences must be noted. The Vietnam war was a far larger and bloodier conflict than the U.S. occupation of Iraq and the opposition to it was much vaster and more active than the opposition to the U.S. war in Iraq. That said, the level of disapproval of Bush policies, even in countries like Spain and Poland, whose leaders supported the Iraq war, are as high as anything seen during the Vietnam era.

Another difference is that 35 years ago, the United States had a powerful rival on the international scene, the Soviet Union, and it faced nationalist and socialist revolutions and rebellions in several countries. Today the U.S. has no serious rivals which I suspect contributes to resentment of Bush.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Why does it matter who other foreign leaders or populations of other countries want to see elected? Should we poll our enemies such North Korea and Iran and see who they would vote for and than have the American people vote the opposite? I never got my absentee ballot to vote for Putin in Russia or Chirac in France. Why should I listen to foreigners tell me who should be the American President? Did Lincoln have a lot support in Europe? Were FDR and JFK the people's choice in Egypt or India or Scotland? What is the connection? I'm sure a few people in other countries thought Reagan would be a bad President and since then have benefited from some of the economic achievements of the 1980's. There are two countries where I would care that is Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you have any information if the native population of those countries would vote for Bush, Kerry or Nader?

Jefferson Morley: Why does it matter? I suggest you pose that question to Colin Powell, or better yet, the families of the 500 plus U.S. servicemen killed in Iraq.

A year ago Powell was seeking to get the votes of six undecided countries in the U.N. Security Council. If he had found support for Bush's policies in those countries, then pro-U.S. countries with large armies (such as India and Pakistan and Turkey) might well have contributed tens of thousands of troops to serve in post-war Iraq. Those troops would have been taking casualties, not American families. If President Bush had more support, a lot of outstanding men and women from the U.S. forces would be alive today.

The rest of your rhetorical questions can be easily answered.

Yes, we should know what public opinion is in Iran. The young people there are very pro-American and very keen to get rid of the clerical dictatorship they know live under. Yes, we should seek to learn their political preferences and what they look for from the United States.

Nobody in France or Russia wants to see you an absentee ballot just as nobody in American wants to send absentee ballots to non-American citizens. What does make sense is for Americans to make an effort to understand how the rest of the world regards us.

No, Abraham Lincoln didn't have total support from Europe which made waging of war on the secessionist, slave-owning south more difficult.

Yes, JFK and FDR were immensely popular overseas and it made their ability to implement U.S. policy much, much easier. Go to Central America today and you will still find pictures of Kennedy on the kitchen walls of many people.

_______________________

Austin, Tex.: Where, in your view, is the best reporting/analysis about the U.S. from non-U.S. sources being produced? Best, of course, doesn't necessarily mean "pro-U.S."

I keep up with foreign newspaper coverage of the U.S. pretty carefully via the Web. (I have some language skills.) One would think the U.K. would be near the top, but I'm not that impressed, overall. The Guardian, for example, lapses into anti-American cliches. The Telegraph, on the other hand, is generally quite pro-U.S., but they tend to stick to upper-class, east/west coast perspectives. The things that get published in big newspapers in Spain and France, whether positive or negative, often seem just bizarre to this middle American.

Americans are constantly, and justifiably, slammed for not knowing about the rest of the world. But it seems to me that often, despite the quantity of coverage, people who read the foreign press on the U.S. would get a very odd idea of what's going on over here.

You comments?

Jefferson Morley: I doubt that any one foreign news source is going to satisfy you, just as I doubt that any one domestic news source would satisfy you.

My favorite online news sites include The Guardian (which is more opinionated than most American newspapers) and the Daily Telegraph and The Scotsman. (The last two are editorially conservative.) I like Le Monde. The Web site of the German broadcast network Deutsche Welle provides excellent English language coverage of continental Europe.

In the Middle East, Haaretz in Israel and the Daily Star in Lebanon stand out for the diversity of reporting and commentary.

India has many quality news sites including The Hindu, The Times of India and Newindpress.com. So does Pakistan. Try Dawn and The Nation.

Anybody want to recommend their own favorites?

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Interesting column and an important topic for the future of U.S. foreign relations, but does it matter when it comes to the election? Ultimately the American voters will decide the winner. While world opinion may factor in to a voters choice, it seems it would be only one facet within a broader framework of who they feel will be better at foreign relations. How could foreign individuals or organizations legally and tangibly affect the race for the White House?
Thank you.

Jefferson Morley: I never suggested that foreign opinion was going to influence the election, at least I never intended to leave that impression. Of course, American voters will decide. That doesn't mean that global public opinion doesn't matter. It does. When the Bush administration needed some institution to salvage its failed plans for turning over power in Iraq, it turned to the institution that enjoyed widespread legitimacy in international public opinion: the United Nations.

You are correct that foreign opinion will be a factor only to the extent that voters think it relevant to the competence of the candidate and the direction of the country. Outside of expressing their opinion, there is no legal or practical way for foreigners to influence the election here.

_______________________

Erie, Pa.: Mr. Morley,
I'm wondering why you didn't mention press reports (in Financial Times, for example) that say the leaders of our enemies (such as North Korea) are also pulling for John Kerry.

Jefferson Morley: I didn't mention that press report because I didn't see it.

I try to regularly look at KCNA, Korea Central News Agency, because of their bizarre but revealing take on the news.

What did the FT say about North Korea supporting Kerry?

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: Mr Morley --

You state that leaders outside the U.S. have "non-existent" influence over our election process, but don't you think the Iranian hostage crisis had a specific and detrimental influence to President Carter's re-election campaign in 1980?

Jefferson Morley: I was talking about actions intended to achieve an electoral outcome. Of course, if a country chooses to take warlike action against the United States it could have an effect on our election. But the Iranian students who took the hostages didn't intend to defeat Jimmy Carter, just inflict humiliation on the United States.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: What is the reaction in the Middle East over the current gay marriage controversy in the U.S.?

Jefferson Morley: The gay marriage controversy doesn't seem to strike a chord in the Middle Eastern press, perhaps because most societies do not have self-identified gay communities, much less gay political activism. Without equivalent local issues, the gay marriage controversy is covered mostly as distant American weirdness.

Besides the United States, the gay marriage controversy is probably hottest is Australia and Canada. In Africa, the controversy is broader, revolving mainly around issues involving gays and the Episcopal church.

_______________________

Germantown, Md.: You say "... pro-U.S. countries with large armies (such as India and Pakistan and Turkey) might well have contributed tens of thousands of troops to serve in post-war Iraq. Those troops would have been taking casualties, not American families."

So the troops from other countries can take casualties for our causes and that's fine? The lives of those troops is less valuable than the lives of our troops? At least Rockville, Md. was being more honest about his indifference to other countries.

Jefferson Morley: No, I'm not indifferent to other countries losses and no other countries shouldn't have to take casualties "for our causes." My point was that if global public opinion had been supportive of President Bush Iraq would have been everybody's cause. The awful burden of casualties would have been shared more broadly.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Is there a sense of which candidate is preferred among those who want the U.S. to adopt a less pro-Israel policy?

Jefferson Morley: In the Arab world, Bush is generally viewed with such fear and loathing that Kerry is regarded as a preferable alternative, regardless of how assiduously he courts pro-Israeli Jewish voters in the United States. The exception to this statement would be Kuwait where Bush enjoys some popularity, thanks to his father.

It would be interesting to know what Iraqis think of Bush's reelection. I have not seen any commentary in the translated Iraqi press.

_______________________

Wheaton, Md.: Doesn't the latest violence in the Gaza Strip prove that an Israeli withdrawal will only increase the violence? Why doesn't Israel wage an American-style full-scale war on the terrorists when they know it is the only real solution?

Jefferson Morley: No. The latest Israeli violence proves what everybody has known. That Israel can use its military superiority to annihilate almost any Palestinian opponent that it chooses; that the Palestinians will mount fierce, if ultimately ineffectual, resistance. And that both sides will retire to the sidelines, determined to do the same thing all over again.

Israel, in fact, has been waging "full scale" war on terrorists in the last three years and the number of Israelis killed by suicide bombers remains appallingly high. The leaders of the Israeli Defense Forces are deep in debate over whether continuing their aggressive strategy in the absence of creating conditions for an independent Palestinian state. If you read, Haaretz or Maariv, two leading Israeli newspapers, you will get a sense of how divided Israelis are on "the real solution."

_______________________

Nederland, Colo.: What's the non-U.S. consensus regarding our alleged "kidnapping" of Aristide? Which governments go along with our official rejection of that accusation? What do the populations of those governments think? Thank you.

Jefferson Morley: I wrote about this last week. See (France and U.S. Team Up in Haiti (Post, March 5)


Aristide's allegations got the most coverage in Latin America and the Caribbean. Its hard to know what the people in those regions think since no one has polled on the subject.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Bush is hardly a strong friend to Israel. If he really cared about Israel, he wouldn't insist on the charade of a roadmap for peace. There is no peace. Never was. Never will be. Building walls is not a short term option, it is the only option. We need to get the Palestinians out of Israel, and only then will there be peace. Since I know you don't see many international people/press figures saying this, I thought you better hear it from someone who has actually seen the filthy Palestinian terrorists close up. They are truly evil.

Jefferson Morley: Actually, most Palestinians don't live in Israel. They lived in the occupied territories. Removing them from their lands would be ethnic cleansing, akin to what Saddam Hussein tried with the Kurds, and in all probability a war crime.
While there are some in Israel who advocate this approach (under the euphemistic lable of "transfer") the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has not adopted it.

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif.: Despite George W. Bush's enormous unpopularity around the globe, it seemed to me that some pundits were equally suspicious of what a president Kerry might do as well. In particular you mention that some in the Arab world were accusing Kerry of modifying his position on the Mideast conflict and Iraq to please pro-Isreali forces. It makes me wonder if hostility towards Bush is less personally about him than the U.S. policies in general. Are the negative impressions about Bush as easily transferred to Kerry? I am wondering because the rabid Anti-Americanism that is evident around the world is a great concern to me.

Jefferson Morley: You observation is astute. There are two things going on here: the unpopularity of Bush which is pronounced and the unpopularity of U.S. policies, which often coupled with the hope that they might change. In the Middle Eastern press, U.S. policy is most unpopular and suspicion that Kerry will not fundamentally change is most widespread. In other regions, Kerry is viewed as a possible agent of change.

_______________________

Jefferson Morley: Our time is up.

Thanks for all the questions. Let's get together again. Next week, Tuesday at 1 pm.

_______________________