World Opinion Roundup: Is Bush Right?

News and Views From Around the World

In his weekly discussion, 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.

Is Bush Right? Readers talked to Jefferson Morley about whether recent events vindicate the president's foreign policy, Hezbollah's role in Lebanon and other developments in the changing Middle East.

Today's Column: Is Bush Right? President's Critics Reconsider Democracy's Prospects in the Middle East (washingtonpost.com, March 8)

Roundup brings the diversity of the 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.

Continue with your comments after the discussion: Message Board: Is Bush Right?

A transcript follows.

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: Hi. We'll be getting underway shortly.

Comments and queries with links to interesting/informative article will receive preferential treatment.

If you want to receive the World Opinion Roundup via email just send a message to jeff.morley@wpni.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. Your address will not be shared with any other party.

Alternatively, you can now book mark World Opinion Roundup by bookmarking washingtonpost.com/worldopinion. This will always link to the latest column.

We'll get started in a few minutes.

_______________________

Jefferson Morley: Before we get to questions, I want to open the discussion today by responding to a reader from Arlington, Va. who accuses me of "dishonesty" and "anti-Israel bias" in my last column. This reader, whose name I do not use because I have not asked his permission, also expressed skepticism that I would respond to his comments.

I want to assure him and everybody else that critical comments will get aired here and factual errors will be corrected in the column.

This reader complained about this passage from last Thursday's column.

"The Israeli Defense Forces, led by then defense minister Ariel Sharon, launched a surprise attack designed to install a friendly government in Beirut. Israel's bid to dominate the country collapsed amid fierce factional fighting and massacres that devastated Beirut and killed upwards of 10,000 civilians. In the ensuing chaos, the Syrian military moved in, effectively installed their own friendly government, and demanded the Lebanese go along."

This reader says that I am seeking to foster the impression that Syria is only in Lebanon because of the Israeli invasion when in fact Syrian troops had been in Lebanon since 1976.

This is correct. Syria had intervened in Lebanon long before Israel's invasion. I wasn't trying to hide this fact. I omitted it because I didn't think it was that important. My point, and the reader does not dispute it, is that Syria did not become the dominant power in Lebanon until after the Israeli invasion.

My "anti-Israel" bias, this reader goes, shows in the fact that I did not mention the reason for the Israeli invasion: to wipe out PLO bases in southern Lebanon. This is also true and I should have at least alluded to it. I didn't mention it because Israeli Defense Forces did not stop at the government-imposed limit of 40 kilometers inside Lebanon but went all the way to Beirut. At that point, the purpose of the invasion was not to get rid of PLO camps on the Lebanese borders but to install a friendly government in Lebanon. The reader does not dispute this point and it is not an "anti-Israeli" point of view. Many Israelis held this view too.

I want to thank this reader for his comments and criticism and assure all that their criticisms will be addressed here. I'm a liberal journalist. As a liberal I believe in the widest possible discussion and will do my best to make sure it happens here.

Now on to questions.

_______________________

San Diego, Calif.: Jefferson, has there really been a significant dent in anti-Aemrican world opinion from the first term ? Or is it simply that people are willing to concede that the idea of democratizing the Middle East may not be a Utopian ideal and may be worthwhile, but that the means used (war in Iraq) may still have been wrong or overdone?

Jefferson Morley: Yes, I don't sense in the favorable commentary that Bush has received in Europe in recent weeks, a backing away from the ideals of mulilateralism or support for the concept of preemptive and/or preventive war. What you are seeing is more acknowledgement that Bush's course has brought some visible benefits and there's no point in denying it.

I distinguish criticism of Bush from anti-Americanism which I think is more reactionary impulse to oppose whatever the U.S. favors. I was actually struck by how little critics of Bush's policy were denying those benefits. The commentary at Le Monde, the house organ of mulilateralism, on Iraq's elections was quite positive and not reflexively anti-American.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: What is your problem with Israel? It would be one thing if you subjected the Arabs to the same kind of scrutiny that you subject Israel to, but that is clearly not the case. If you don't believe me go back and read through the last six months of chats, if you are fair minded your anti-Israel bias should be rather obvious.

Jefferson Morley: Dear Chicago,

Please read the comments that open this column. Then please send me the excerpts from past columns that you believe qualify as "anti-Israel." I will respond to your comments here.

Believe it or not, I have read all my columns in the last six months and I have yet to find anything that I wrote tha qualifies as "anti-Israel."

_______________________

Quebec, Canada: That was a wonderful defense you gave to your Hezbullah heros last week. I didn't realize you were such a fan. Is there any group in the world that you DO consider to be terrorists?

Jefferson Morley: Excuse me, but I did not defend Hezbollah last week. Please send me the words that I wrote that constitute a defense of Hezbollah.

Hezbollah is a group that has engaged in terrorist actions. But I don't think it is useful to simply denounce Hezbollah is a "terrorist organization." It is also a political party with an extensive network of schools and clinics as well as elected parliamentary representatives, as well as a militia.

This is not me apologizing for terrorism and expressing an anti-Israeli point of view. It is the common belief across the Lebanese political spectrum. The leaders of the Lebanese opposition have been meeting constantly with Hezbollah over the last few weeks as part of their efforts to forge a more democratic future for that country. To say such discussions are inappropriate because Hezbollah is a terrorist organization is to say that Lebanese democratic politicians shouldn't act so democratically.

It is, in a word, absurd.

_______________________

Tempe, Ariz.: I can't wait to read what anti-Semitic garbage you have cooked up for this week.

Jefferson Morley: Examples please Tempe.

This is a fact-based discussion.

And now on to more a more substantive question.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Have any Lebanese freedom protestors mentioned developments in Israel as a turning point in sentiment against Syria?

The fact that Sharon is now willing to give up Gaza and curtail settlement in the West Bank seem to show that Israel has no expansionist goals in the region, so the Lebanese have less need for Syrian "protection."

Jefferson Morley: Suspicion and fear of Israel remains common in Lebanese politics.

But the notion that Lebanon has to be held hostage to Syria's desire to regain the Golan Heights from Israel is now defunct.

There is a very good article about this in Dar al-Hayat, a leading Lebanese news site. Here's the link.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: The Golan is Not Syria's Responsibility

_______________________

Escanaba, Mich.:

Regarding your column this morning, I'm sorry, but please give me a break. Bush is no Messiah. Iran was moving toward a Democracy long before Bush invaded Iraq. In fact, Bush's invasion perhaps even delayed it.

Lebanon is not moving toward a Democracy because of anything Bush did. The people are staging peaceful rallies after their opposition candidate was assassinated. One demonstrator said, "If we kill them, then we're no better than they are."

Hey, Democracy through PEACE! What a NOVEL idea!

Also, just because a columnist is from an anti-war country does not necessarily mean that columnist is anti-war.

Thank you for letting me have my say.

Jefferson Morley: I don't recall anyone saying that Bush is a messiah, merely that his policies contributed to positive developments in several Middle Eastern countries.

Yes, the Lebanese were protesting the assassination of Rafiq Hariri but Walid Jumblatt, the leader of that opposition and a man often characterized as "anti-American" said that he felt emboldened by the Iraqi elections.

The Canadian columnist whom I described as "anti-war" was opposed to the war. I did not describe him that way because he comes from a country where public opinion was opposed to the war.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.:
Of course, it would be nice if Bush were right and that, by invading Iraq and Afghanistan, we have unleashed a wellspring of democracy, peace, and freedom that will sweep across the Middle East like oil pouring out of the Exxon Valdez ...However, if we look at Afghanistan, which we invaded three years ago and is rated by the U.N. as about the fourth worst place in the world to live, and according to you (in a recent chat) is largely dominated by the same kind of narco-terror forces that ruled in the past, we might think that there is still some work to do. Now Iraq, the administration's signature success story, may very well be on the verge of civil war, not to mention some very unsavory oil-industry corruption that will, no doubt, be frowned upon by all the Halli-Bushies. I'm cautiously optimistic there as well. Do you have a prediction whether it would take days, or hours, for the administration to go back to supporting dictators if the free flow of Saudi Light was compromised in any way by the civil warfare that might accompany this burgeoning democratization?

Jefferson Morley: You are right that Afghanistan is hardly an inspiring example of democracy right now. It is the world's supplier of heroin and dominated by the same collection of warlords whom the Taliban, with considerable popular support, drove from power a decade ago.

Your question about what would Bush do if democratic forces in the Middle East attempt to defy American interests is very much to the point. Indeed, it is the question of U.S. policy in the Middle East for the foreseeable future.

President Bush said today that tyrants become fearful in the face of democracy. Those "tyrants" (in the case of Egypt and Saudi Arabia) are also reliable American allies who do not cross U.S. policymakers when it comes to oil and Israel. If they are replaced by more democratic but more anti-American governments, what will the U.S. do? Its a very good question.

_______________________

Toronto, Ontario, Canada: I'm just reading some of the comments you have been receiving. Wow, such vitriolic knee jerk reactions to rather mild critical analysis that is edging toward thoughtful (sorry for the apparent barb, but your work, although "liberal" by American standards", is hardly radical)-- nonetheless, I see the climate you are working in -- so keep up the good work, and tell your colleagues not to be so timid -- ask hard questions!

Jefferson Morley: Thanks Toronto. Questions from your fair city will receive preferential treatment in the future.

_______________________

Winnipeg, Canada: In your introduction you ask the question "was Bush right?" A lot of people are asking that question, because of some recent developments in the Middle East that can be viewed in a positive light.
A better question, though, would be were the positive outcomes of the past few years of adventure in the Middle East worth the costs? And could equal or better returns have resulted from different, less costly strategies?
To give an admittedly obscure example, the female sanitary napkin is a direct result of the First World War. So was the tank. That does not mean that the world was right to go to war then, or that the loss of millions of lives somehow justified the early introduction of a consumer product.
In Iraq, and in the Middle East generally, there is hope that a few less oppressive regimes might arise out of the ashes and ruined lives that are the legacy of the Iraq invasion. That's not an insignificant outcome, but neither are the tens of thousands of lives lost or permanently damaged, or the harm done to America's image in this region and throughout the world. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, the question I would like answered is has George Bush paid too much for his whistle?

Jefferson Morley: A very fair question.

Democratic developments in the Middle East do not erase the question of whether a war to eliminate non-existent weapons of mass destruction or the policy of torture as seen as Abu Ghraib are justifiable.

I might add that democratic movements in the Middle East are not likely to excuse such U.S. policy decisions.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I'm so sick of all these "anti-Israel" accusations. It seems that ANY criticism of Israel equates to "anti-Israel" or anti-Semitism. MANY people that write in here and that I know feel this way. It is tiresome and unwarranted.
Israel isn't entitled to any sort of shield from FACT-based reporting (positive or negative) just because you believe it occupies this special function in the world.
I follow your column on a regular basis and do not feel it is anti-Israel in the least. Just a word of support for you.

Jefferson Morley: If I could email you a kiss, I would.

Since that technology does not exist (yet), let me just say thank you.

_______________________

Detroit, Mich.: Why does France support Lebanesse freedom so strongly? Besides personal connections between Chirac and recently assassinated former Prime Minister of Lebanon, why are the relations so strong?

Jefferson Morley: A little history.

In the 19th and early 20th century, the Middle Eastern countries now known as Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq were part of the Ottoman Empire based in Turkey. That empire collapsed during World War II and France and Britain divided up the region. To oversimplify slightly, Britain gained control of Iraq and France took Lebanon.

So France has historical roots in Lebanon. The personal friendship between Chirac and Hariri was the natural outgrowth of the historical relationship between the two countries. Plus, French diplomacy in Lebanon is a way for the French government to exercise its influence on the international stage, something it likes to do.

_______________________

San Antonio, Tex.: "These dramas did not occur," Sorman says. "Either Bush is lucky, or it is too early to judge or Bush's analysis was not false."

So, Jeff, which is it? Is Bush lucky? Is it too early to judge? Is Bush's analysis correct?

I don't mean to play the pessimist, but where does it end, or looks like it ends, at this point? Is it truly not decided until the fat lady sings?

Jefferson Morley: Its not luck.

It's certainly too early too tell if Bush was right.

I don't think Bush's analysis is false.

The real question, raised earlier in this discussion, is what happens when democratic governments reject U.S. policies. We're already seeing this in Iraq. The new government has joined the International Criminal Court, which is anathema to the Bush administration.

This puts the Bush administration in an odd position. Every other country that has joined the ICC has been approached by the United States and offered a deal: sign a bilateral agreement with us giving Americans immunity from the ICC or else we'll cut your economic aid. Will the Bush administration punish the new Iraqi government for exercising its sovereign right? We shall see.

Another example: a top Shiite Iraqi told Le Monde today that there is no way the new government is going to allow the United States (or any other country) to have permanent military bases in Iraq. The Pentagon has been planning on having those bases. What will the Bush administration do when the Iraqi government formally says no?

Such questions will be the test of Bush's policy and analysis.

_______________________

Munich, Germany: "Branding" was a great article; it certainly puts a perspective on the current situation there.

I think that it still remains to be seen how things turn out in Lebanon. According to the Irish Times, (Requires Registration) the Mokhabarat, the Syrian Secret Police, weren't mentioned in Assad's speech regarding troop pullbacks. These are the people that would have been responsible for the assassination of Hariri, and they will be the people to sow the seeds (i.e., bombs) of discontent when Syrian troops have left the country.

Another Irish Times column, however, mentions that if Ghaddafi, Mubarak, Prince Saud and King Abdullah (Requires Registration) feel obliged to sign on -to democracy] rhetorically, then this is a big step towards Bush's vision.

Jefferson Morley: You are absolutely right. Lebanon's future is a big question. The Lebanese and the United States all tolerated Syria's presence in Lebanon for many years because it did effectively end that country's civil war.

The prospect of Syria's exit is raising fears that civil war could return. If that happens, Lebanon will not be a very good advertisement for democracy.

_______________________

Washington. D.C.: Just a comment. The U.S. government classifies Hezbollah as a terrorist organization through a long, fairly arduous process.

As a journalist whose word reaches many more people than the documents that publicize that judgment and explains the rationale, shouldn't you better explain why you do not think this is a good idea?

Jefferson Morley: This is a good point. Hezbollah is officially regarded as a terrorist organization.

Several European countries have a policy that is more nuanced or evasive depending on your point of view: They classify Hezbollah's military wing as a terrorist organization but not its political party or social network. The Bush administration is lobbying, apparently with some success, to get the Europeans to join them.

I don't have an opinion of whether the United States should classify them as a terrorist organization. I can say that many people in democratic Lebanese politics do not think that shunning Hezbollah as a "terrorist organization" is a good idea.

_______________________

St Brieuc, France: Hello,

Can I say first that I can hardly believe the way you are constantly accused of anti-Semitism, I find it truly shocking! (I am neither Arab nor French, by the way). Congratulations on how you deal with it.

My question is about the shooting of the Italian journalist -- an article in Libération (no longer as left-wing as it used to be, since the Rothschilds have bought part of it) has an Italian statement that the Americans were notified in advance. Given that the Italians are the biggest non-American force in Iraq after the British, aren't they owed the courtesy of an honest answer as to the circumstances of the incident? They are allies after all.

In French: Voici le récit des événements fait par le ministre italien des Affaires étrangères (Liberation, March 8)

Thanks

Jefferson Morley: A tip of the wine glass to you St. Brieuc.

A lot of people have been asking about the Italian journalist so we will move on to that issue.

The Italians are coming on strong on this one. The foreign minister is saying that the U.S. version of events and their version are not congruent ie, they want an explanation. I think they will get it, if only because Silvio Berlusconi has been such a loyal supporter of Bush.

But I don't think the Italians are going to achieve their goal of seeing the responsible soldiers punished.

_______________________

Hoboken, N.J.: Lots of questions here: What's your overall sense of the editorial reaction in the European press to the death of an Italian intelligence officer from U.S. fire at a highway checkpoint during the evacuation of Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena? Is the coverage widespread or just in Italy? Do you see long-term fallout for Italian-U.S. relations? And finally, I've seen Sgrena referred to as a reporter for a Communist newspaper. Does that mean she works for the Italian Communist Party, or is she considered an independent observer?

Jefferson Morley: I don't read Italian so I can't gauge what the Italian press is saying yet. The French, Spanish, and English language online media have mostly just been covering the emerging news story: the accusation of the journalist that she was deliberately targetted (a claim the Italian government says is baseless) and the very strong demands of the Italian foreign minister for an explanation and punishment of the soldiers responsible.

Any Italian readers out there who can give us a sense of Italian commentary on this issue?

_______________________

Salem, Ore.: The White House has "promised a full investigation" into the Sgrena incident. Since the W.H. dismissed the notion that U.S. troops deliberately fired on Sgrena's vehicle as "absurd", to what extent do you think an investigation will be carried out? Thanks.

Jefferson Morley: I think there will be an investigation. I doubt the results will satisfy the Italian government and Italian public opinion.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: It seems that "Could Bush Be Right?" sentiments from oversees are gaining some press over here. It seem the gist of the thought is that Bush's pushing of democracy in the Middle East must have been the right way to go. To my mind, though, Bush's advancement of U.S. involvement in the Middle East as "democratization" was only put forth when it became clear that Iraq did not have WMDs and had close to nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Am I wrong in this characterization?

Jefferson Morley: I think that democratization as the antidote to terror (and the best defense for Israel) was always the strategic thinking behind the invasion of Iraq.

But there was no way that parts of the Bush administration, much less the general public, would have supported an invasion on those grounds. As Paul Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair, the specter of Iraqi/al Qaeda weapons of mass destruction became the one argument that could bring together the domestic and bureaucratic support necessary for going to war. That's why the contradictory evidence was ignored.

When WMD and the al-Qaeda links weren't found, Bush and his administration reverted to the democracy argument.

So no, I think your characterization is on the mark.

_______________________

Davis, Calif.: Ok, if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq, there would not have been elections. Isn't it also true, though, that had Iraqis (such as Sistani) not chosen to use the electoral process to achieve their aims (which include the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq) the elections would not have the legitimacy they now do.

If Arafat had not died, there would not have been multi-party elections for a Palestinian leader. If the current President Assad's father was still alive, would we be witnessing the events we are in Lebanon today? I don't know but it seems to me a stretch to say that one factor has lead to the current apparent democratization of the Middle East.

Jefferson Morley: You are absolutely correct that the Bush administration never intended to have these types of elections--that they were the work of Sistani. The Bush administration deserves credit in my view for acquiescing to Sistani's electoral vision--not that they had any good alternatives.

The important point is that the Bush administration never intended to have the Shiite dominated government that is coming to power. How the U.S. treats a democratic, and possibly anti-U.S. and pro-Iranian Iraq, is the key question of the second Bush administration.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: I am of Lebanese heritage. I am all for the withdrawal of Syrian influence from Lebanon (as well as Israeli). However, I am a little skeptical of a couple of things. What's with the timing of this? Far worse things have happened and the Syrians have refused to budge. Why now? Also, one of the reasons that the Syrians and the Israelis had a strong presence in Lebanon was its long and bloody civil war. I'm not convinced that the factors that caused the civil war are gone but were simply muted or re-directed toward anti-Syrian or anti-Israel missions. After all, much of Lebanon is based on Christian tenets (such as the cedar tree on the flag). Muslims now have a stronger presence and there is growing friction between the Sunnis and Shi'ias. What do you see happening in Lebanon?

Jefferson Morley: I have no crystal ball Alexandria.

You're analysis of the situation strikes me as quite accurate. To put the matter perhaps too harshly, the Lebanese haven't had full sovereignty because bloody, endless, pointless civil war was the result when they did.

Everybody, the U.S. included accepted Syrian domination, as the lesser of two evils. If the Syrians go, the possibility of civil war returns. This is why the Christian dominated opposition and the Shiites of Hezbollah are in deep discussion about how to proceed. Because the situation is potentially dangerous.

_______________________

Munich, Germany: The Berliner Morgenpost published an interesting interview today with former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev (In German: Dienstag, "Putin geht einen radikalen, liberalen Weg" (morgenpost.de, March 8)). He talks about Perestroika, his wish for the Soviet Union not to have been divided, the shootings in Vilnius, Latvia that were orchestrated to put him under pressure, and most of all, about Vladimir Putin.

He's still a fan of the young and erudite Putin, and considers his social reforms to be radical and liberal. Although Gorbachev acknowledges a reversal in freedom in Russia, he still thinks that it's not too late to turn things around.

Personally, I'm hoping that Gorbachev is right.

Jefferson Morley: Thanks for the link Munich. Sometimes its nice to step back from the news.

_______________________

Burke, Va.: It doesn't seem like all Lebanese want the Syrians to leave. Do you get any sense what the breakdown is? Do a majority want the Syrians to leave or stay, or is it more nuanced (for example, they want the Syrians to withdraw some troops).

Jefferson Morley: The large demonstrations thanking Syria for its presence in Lebanon that Hezbollah mounted today show that that point of view has considerable public support as well. The Lebanese elections in May should help sort out where the majority stand on this.

The Shiites are the single largest religious/ethnic grouping in Lebanon and they are also the most pro-Syrian grouping.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I think you might want to consider not responding to folks who simply accuse you of being "anti-Israeli," without any reference to anything you've said in your columns or the chats. I understand your commitment to a full debate, but this is clearly a group of people who have gotten together and decided (or been directed) to continually make these unsupported attacks. I don't see any purpose in posting this pointless name calling, which leaves less time and space for legitimate questions and comments. Keep up the good work.

Jefferson Morley: Thanks for your comment but I'm not going to take your advice.

I'd rather take the obnoxious comments than give the impression that the discussion isn't totally open.

Michael Kinsley, the columnist, has a good saying about opinion journalism: "If you're afraid to go too far, you won't go far enough."

I'm not afraid to go too far in hearing out my critics.

_______________________

Lincoln Park, Washington, D.C.: How is Bolton's appointment playing in foreign media?

Jefferson Morley: There not much--yet.

But I'll be following this story.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: Will the Hezbollah-sponsored protests in Lebanon affect world opinion in Syria's favor and the Pro-Syria factions inside Lebanon?

Jefferson Morley: Hezbollah is flexing its democratic muscles by showing that they have popular support. I think they hope that this give them a stronger bargaining position as Lebanon moves toward a future that seems likely to have less Syrian involvement.

As long as Hezbollah behaves democratically and isn't linked to future terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians, it will gain respect in world opinion.

_______________________

Jefferson Morley: I note for the record that we never heard back from the critics who accused me--without evidence, in my view--of "anti-Israeli" bias.

I still hope to hear from them--and from all of you.

I'm sorry I couldn't get to all of the questions. Let's do it again next week.

Jeff

_______________________