View previous stories
	U.S. image abroad still Sinking by Jim Lobe Financial Times / Inter Press Service   August 2, 2005   "World Turning Its Back on Brand America", by Kevin Allison. (The Financial Times/UK )   The US is increasingly viewed as a "culture-free zone" inhabited by arrogant and unfriendly people, according to study of 25 countries' brand reputations.   The findings, published online today, will add to concerns that anti-Americanism is hurting companies whose products are considered to be distinctly "American".   The Anholt-GMI Nation Brands Index found that although US foreign policy remained a key driver of hostility, dissatisfaction with the world's sole superpower might run deeper.   "The US is still recognized as a leading place to do business, the home of desirable brands and popular culture," said Simon Anholt, author of the survey. "But its governance, its cultural heritage and its people are no longer widely respected or admired by the world."   Keith Reinhard, president of Business for Diplomatic Action, a group of business leaders dedicated to improving the US's image overseas, said help from the private sector was needed to repair Brand America.   "Right now the US government is not a credible messenger," said Mr Reinhard, chairman of DDB Worldwide, the advertising group. "We must work to build bridges of understanding and co-operation and respect through business-to-business activities."   Such initiatives could include lobbying for less stringent visa requirements for foreign students entering the US, increased cultural exchanges between US businesses and their foreign counterparts, and courses in diplomacy and foreign languages at business schools.   The US ranked 11th in the Brands Index, which asks people around the world to rate 25 countries according to their cultural, political and investment potential and other criteria. Australia received the highest overall score, with respondents expressing "an almost universal admiration of its people, landscapes and living and working environment", according to the report.   Although the US received high marks for its popular culture, it ranked last in cultural heritage, a measure of a country's "wisdom, intelligence, and integrity", according to Mr Anholt.   That the world takes a dim view of the US people will surprise most Americans themselves: the study's American respondents consistently placed the US at the top of all six categories polled.   © Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2005   June 24, 2005 (IPS)   Two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Washington's image in Europe, Canada and much of the Islamic world remains broadly negative, according to the latest in a series of surveys of public opinion in 16 countries sponsored by the Pew Global Attitudes Project (PGAP).   While some of the hostility, particularly in Muslim countries immediately after the 2003 invasion, has abated somewhat, the overall opinion of the U.S. public voiced by the citizens of Washington's traditional allies and in the Islamic world has continued to fall over the past two years, according to the survey and accompanying analysis.   Consistent with pre-U.S. election surveys of foreign countries last fall, the re-election of U.S. President George W. Bush is seen almost universally as tarnishing the country's image abroad.   On specific issues relating to Iraq and Bush's ''war on terrorism,'' strong pluralities or majorities in all 16 countries except India and the U.S. said that the world was more dangerous without former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.   Out of the 14 countries where the question was asked, only in Poland did a plurality of respondents say that Bush's re-election inclined to them think of the U.S. more favorably. Twenty-one percent of Polish respondents said they thought better of the U.S. as a result of Bush's re-election; 18 percent said it made them think of the U.S. More negatively.   In all other countries -- Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Russia, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, Lebanon, Jordan, India -- pluralities or majorities said Bush's re-election made them feel worse about the U.S. by margins that ranged from three to one to as more than five to one (Turkey).   Only in India, was the margin less -- 35 percent of respondents there said it made them feel worse about the U.S.; 28 percent said it made them feel better.   Remarkably, 11 of the 16 countries, including Washington's traditional European allies, Pakistan, Lebanon, and Jordan, and Indonesia, all rated China more favorably than the U.S.   ''It's amazing when you have the European public rating the United States so poorly, especially in comparison with China,'' said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, who has co-ordinated the PGAP studies since they began in 1999.   Surprisingly, two countries that have had historically rocky relations with Beijing -- Russia and Indonesia -- also rated Washington less favorably in comparison.   Nonetheless, the survey found substantial improvements in Washington's image over the past two years in a number of the surveyed countries. In Russia, 52 percent of respondents rated the U.S. Favorably compared to 36 percent two years ago.   In Indonesia, 38 percent of the public gave the U.S. an overall favorable rating compared to 15 percent two years ago, an improvement which PGAP attributed in major part to the rescue and relief role played by the U.S. after last December's devastating tsunami.   Improvements were also found elsewhere in the Islamic world. In Lebanon, for example, favorable marks rose from 27 percent to 42 percent, and in Jordan, one percent to 21 percent. And while only 15 percent of Turks gave the U.S. a favorable rating in 2003, 23 percent did so this year -- down from 30 percent in the last PGAP poll for that country in May 2004.   Overall, however, solid majorities in all five predominantly Muslim countries covered by the survey still expressed unfavorable views of the U.S. in sharp contrast to the views expressed by predominantly Muslim countries surveyed by Pew just five years ago.   Washington is also seen as increasingly self-interested in its foreign policy in half of the surveyed countries compared to two years ago, particularly among its closest allies.   Asked whether Washington considers other countries' interests in pressing its policy goals, only 19 percent of Canadians said it did, compared to 28 percent in 2003; and only 32 percent of British respondents said so, compared to 44 percent two years ago.   In only three countries did a majority of respondents say that the U.S. did take into account other nations' interests: post-tsunami Indonesia (59 percent -- up from 25 percent in 2003); China (53 percent) and India (63 percent). (The question was asked in the latter two countries for the first time in 2005.)   Of the 15 foreign countries surveyed, India gave the United States the most favorable mark -- 71 percent; followed by Poland (62 percent), Canada (59 percent), and Britain (55 percent), and Russia (52 percent).   Significantly, U.S. citizens, who were also surveyed, appear to understand they have a significant image problem. Nearly seven in 10 U.S. respondents described the U.S. As ''generally disliked'' by people in other countries -- the most downbeat assessment of global popularity given by any national public in the survey.   By comparison, 94 percent of Canadians and 83 percent of Indians said they were liked abroad, while 32 percent of Russians and 30 percent of Turks said were liked by foreigners.   On specific issues relating to Iraq and Bush's ''war on terrorism,'' strong pluralities or majorities in all 16 countries except India and the U.S. Said that the world was more dangerous without former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.   Support for the war on terror has also slipped virtually across the board except in Indonesia, where it has reached 50 percent compared to 23 percent in 2003, Pakistan, where support has risen from 16 percent to 22 percent and Jordan (from 2 percent to 12 percent). The decline has been most dramatic in Spain, where support has fallen from 63 percent in May 2003 to 26 percent in 2005.   Asked about whether January's elections in Iraq contributed to a more or less favorable image of the U.S., European countries generally fell on the positive side of the ledger, while for predominantly Muslim countries, particularly in Indonesia, Turkey, and Lebanon, the elections actually appeared to have had a negative impact.   On the other hand, Bush's calls for more democracy in the Middle East were generally well received, except in Pakistan, Indonesia, and Turkey.   Majorities ranging from 50 percent (Spain) to 73 percent (Canada) of non-U.S. Respondents in NATO member-countries said they favored a more independent relationship vis-à-vis the U.S.   Similarly, majorities in all 15 countries, ranging from 51 percent (Canada) to 85 percent (France), said the world would be better if a group of countries emerges as a rival to U.S. military power. By contrast, 63 percent of U.S. Citizens said the world would be better off if Washington remained its only military superpower.   The notion that China, whose economic growth is seen by pluralities or majorities in each country as benign, could emerge as a counterforce to the U.S. draws a more-mixed reactions, however.   Majorities in only Pakistan and Jordan (77 percent), Indonesia (60 percent) and Turkey (56 percent) said they though China's emergence as a military rival to the U.S. would be good for the world. Only about one in five respondents in Europe agreed.   Washington is also seen as a military threat, particularly in the Islamic world. Large majorities ranging from 59 percent (Lebanon) to 80 percent (Indonesia) of respondents there said they were either somewhat or very worried that their countries could be a target for attack by the United States.   © Copyright 2005 IPS - Inter Press Service
	Three things about Iraq by The New York Times USA   28 June, 2005   To have the sober conversation about the war in Iraq that America badly needs, it is vital to acknowledge three facts:   The war has nothing to do with Sept. 11. Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of Washington, but there was no Iraq-Al Qaeda axis, no connection between Saddam and the terrorist attacks on the United States. Yet the president and his supporters continue to duck behind 9/11 whenever they feel pressure about what is happening in Iraq. The most cynical recent example was the absurd and offensive declaration last week by Karl Rove, President George W. Bush''s chief political adviser, that conservatives and liberals had different reactions to 9/11. Let''s be clear: Americans of every political stripe were united in their outrage and grief, united in their determination to punish those who plotted the mass murder and united behind the war in Afghanistan, which was an assault on terrorists. Trying to pretend otherwise is the surest recipe for turning political dialogue into meaningless squabbling.   The war has not made the world, or the United States, safer from terrorism. The breeding grounds for terrorists used to be Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia; now Iraq has become one. Of all the justifications for invading Iraq that the Bush administration juggled in the beginning, the only one that has held up over time is the desire to create a democratic nation that could help stabilize the Middle East. Any sensible discussion of what to do next has to begin by acknowledging that. The surest way to make sure that conversation does not happen is for the administration to continue pasting the "soft on terror" label on those who want to talk about the war.   If the war is going according to plan, someone needs to rethink the plan. Progress has been measurable on the political front. But even staunch supporters of the war, like Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, told Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a hearing last week that Bush was losing public support because the military effort was not keeping pace. A top general said last week that the insurgency was growing. The frequency of attacks is steady, or rising a bit, while the repulsive tactic of suicide bombings has made them more deadly.   If things are going to be turned around, there has to be an honest discussion about what is happening. But Rumsfeld was not interested. Sneering at his Democratic questioners, he insisted everything was on track and claimed "dozens of trained battalions are capable of conducting anti-insurgent operations" with American support. That would be great news if it were true. General George Casey, the commander in Iraq, was more honest, saying he hoped there would be "a good number of units" capable of doing that "before the end of this year."   Americans cannot judge for themselves because the administration has decided to make the information secret. Senator John McCain spoke for all Americans when he expressed his disbelief at this news. "I think the American people need to know," he said. "They are the ones who are paying for this conflict."   June 24, 2005   "The War President", by Paul Krugman.   In this former imperial capital, every square seems to contain a giant statue of a Habsburg on horseback, posing as a conquering hero.   America''s founders knew all too well how war appeals to the vanity of rulers and their thirst for glory. That''s why they took care to deny presidents the kingly privilege of making war at their own discretion.   But after 9/11 President Bush, with obvious relish, declared himself a "war president." And he kept the nation focused on martial matters by morphing the pursuit of Al Qaeda into a war against Saddam Hussein.   In November 2002, Helen Thomas, the veteran White House correspondent, told an audience, "I have never covered a president who actually wanted to go to war" - but she made it clear that Mr. Bush was the exception. And she was right.   Leading the nation wrongfully into war strikes at the heart of democracy. It would have been an unprecedented abuse of power even if the war hadn''t turned into a military and moral quagmire. And we won''t be able to get out of that quagmire until we face up to the reality of how we got in.   Let me talk briefly about what we now know about the decision to invade Iraq, then focus on why it matters.   The administration has prevented any official inquiry into whether it hyped the case for war. But there''s plenty of circumstantial evidence that it did.   And then there''s the Downing Street Memo - actually the minutes of a prime minister''s meeting in July 2002 - in which the chief of British overseas intelligence briefed his colleagues about his recent trip to Washington.   "Bush wanted to remove Saddam," says the memo, "through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." It doesn''t get much clearer than that.   The U.S. news media largely ignored the memo for five weeks after it was released in The Times of London. Then some asserted that it was "old news" that Mr. Bush wanted war in the summer of 2002, and that W.M.D. were just an excuse. No, it isn''t. Media insiders may have suspected as much, but they didn''t inform their readers, viewers and listeners. And they have never held Mr. Bush accountable for his repeated declarations that he viewed war as a last resort.   Still, some of my colleagues insist that we should let bygones be bygones. The question, they say, is what we do now. But they''re wrong: it''s crucial that those responsible for the war be held to account.   Let me explain. The United States will soon have to start reducing force levels in Iraq, or risk seeing the volunteer Army collapse. Yet the administration and its supporters have effectively prevented any adult discussion of the need to get out.   On one side, the people who sold this war, unable to face up to the fact that their fantasies of a splendid little war have led to disaster, are still peddling illusions: the insurgency is in its "last throes," says Dick Cheney. On the other, they still have moderates and even liberals intimidated: anyone who suggests that the United States will have to settle for something that falls far short of victory is accused of being unpatriotic.   We need to deprive these people of their ability to mislead and intimidate. And the best way to do that is to make it clear that the people who led us to war on false pretenses have no credibility, and no right to lecture the rest of us about patriotism.   The good news is that the public seems ready to hear that message - readier than the media are to deliver it. Major media organizations still act as if only a small, left-wing fringe believes that we were misled into war, but that "fringe" now comprises much if not most of the population.   In a Gallup poll taken in early April - that is, before the release of the Downing Street Memo - 50 percent of those polled agreed with the proposition that the administration "deliberately misled the American public" about Iraq''s W.M.D. In a new Rasmussen poll, 49 percent said that Mr. Bush was more responsible for the war than Saddam Hussein, versus 44 percent who blamed Saddam.   Once the media catch up with the public, we''ll be able to start talking seriously about how to get out of Iraq.
	View more stories