WORLD NEWS SUMMARY

Foreign Press Reacts to Bush's Re-election

On November the 3, most of coverage showed, as expected, a worldwide disappointment. The title of the editorial of the French Le Monde was merely “why?,” whereas, on November 4, the British Guardian's story was titled, “And now...four years more.”

The British press, in particular, definitely thrashes Bush’s reelection. Joked Boris Johnson, editor of the conservative Spectator, writes as a sub-title: "The American people have awarded a second term of office to the cross-eyed Texan warmonger George Dubya Bush, who narrowly escaped self-assassination with a pretzel." On the morning after the victory, The Liberal has been said to be plunged into a “collective depression.”

The Times of India did not mince words. On November 3 the front page says: “Doh! Four more years of Dubya!”.

In another part of 'Old Europe,' Germany, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung deplores the fact that Bush will certainly not change his foreign policy, “thereby relegating Europeans to ‘at best useful back-up troops, at worst awkward troublemakers.’ "

The Spanish newspaper El Pais focused on the fact that Bush has turned into the president who got the highest number of votes in American history, which gives him a dangerous coming legacy. “Mr. Bush will be able to push his mandate more easily now the Republican Party has increased control of the Senate and the House of Representatives," El Pais says.

Disappointment also dominates in the Middle East. Some street protests were reported in Iran, and the Iranian daily Etemad published a story titled "Bush reelected with the help of Ben Laden."

In Lebanon, the newspaper Al-Safir warns “Hide yourself, it’s Bush,” reporting that it was afraid that of the huge power the popular vote has given to Bush, allowing him to worsen his yet “radical foreign policy” in the middle East. The fear was also deeply expressed in the Magreb, where the daily El-Watan's front page says: “towards tough years."

In Asian countries, too, the media response was not enthusiastic. Most of the Chinese were against Bush’s reelection, and in the Thai capital, Bangkok, the English-language daily The Nation said in an editorial: "The next four years are shaping up to be a volatile time, on both the security and economic fronts. With no need to worry about re-election, Bush will be free to pursue his religious and ideological goals with few constraints."

Enthusiasm was expressed in a few countries. An editorial in the Iraqi paper Al Sabah expressed concern about the current division of their nation, and called on their readers to “take example of the American elections, because the electors were not divided about the country’s major interest but about the means to settle the questions, as the Iraq, Israel, oil and terrorism issues." At the same time, the Iraqi daily Al’Taaki asks: “ Did you see violent arguments between partisans and candidates? Did you witness kidnapping or assaults?....We must learn from this lesson and live, whatever our divergences are, in peace.”

Presidents Putin (Russia) and Berlusconi (Italy) are also reported by Le Monde as being really satisfied by the election results. Putin actually said the American people have made a “fair decision...without being afraid by terrorism.” He also praised the “president’s toughness," as did Berlusconi. The president of the Philippines, Hu, warmly welcomed Bush’s reelection. He is reported by the Sydney Morning Herald as saying: "Our shared political vision encompasses not only blood shed in war but energies put forth to win the peace in many parts of the world, including in our own country".

As the days pass, the international press is beginning to try to explain what happened in the US election. Worldwide commentators agree with the idea that “a conservative revolution is occurring," according to Le Monde’s front page tittle. The big surprise, among the European press, is not so much Bush’s reelection as it is the “meanings” of the popular vote. According to Le Monde, America appears “much more conservative than expected.” The country is getting today far from its “traditional" role, described by one journalist as “multilateral and open-minded." The Le Monde story quotes a poll conducted by the The Associated Press that purports to reveal that “moral values” was the most important issue among the voters in the states where the vote outcome was uncertain.

According to Le Monde, most Europeans misjudged the outcome of the election and cannot comprehend that it was a "campaign fought in an America at war and that (more specifically) it was all about President Bush's 'world war on terror,' a concept he has managed to impose as a new mindset."

In a commentary called "A World Apart,' Jean Marie Colombanie, referring to 'Bush’s America,' concludes that the election of Bush means that “the beginning of the 21st century is definitely different from what one could have imagined" after the collapse of the Berlin Wall. The new world that is emerging now, he writes, is a world in which "economic liberty" is being mixed with "moral checking.”

On November 5, The Times of India claims “It was the moral values, stupid," caricaturing Clinton's famous phrase about the economy. One of their correspondents in London highlights in particular the growing disconnection between “American religion and European reason.” He calls Bush’s strategy the 3G’s one: God, gays, and guns.”

For Le Figaro, the success of the campaign can be attributed to Bush’s character. The Republican appears as a “revolutionary man," says this conservative daily, a man who is able to propose a “new order for the world, new values," and “tough actions to achieve his goal.”

ABC in Spain, emphasizes the success of Bush’s strategy, because this time “the neo-conservatives not only win in the White House but in the society. For this newspaper, “Bush’s team succeeded in imposing his conservative views among the undecided electors."

This is the only newspaper reviewed that reports a mistake in the vote counting, telling readers that a computer mistake that occurred in Ohio has given Bush 4,000 votes more than he should received. (According to the Colombus Dispatch, the results actually gave 4,258 votes to Bush and 260 to Kerry, though only 638 people voted.

A final commentary, paradoxically coming from the US press, but reported by Le Monde, quotes Thomas Friedman, a New York Times columnist, as saying, “ Now there are two nations under the same God,” adding, “On some level, it was an election without any sense. None of the issues that really affect the country was seriously discussed....It wasn’t an election, but more a process of identification. I’m ready to bet anything that if the ballots weren't labeled “Kerry” or “Bush” but instead merely asked ‘Do you watch Fox News?’ or ‘Do you read the New York Times?,’ the result would have been exactly the same.”

Generally speaking, the foreign observers point out the spreading of "moral values" among American society. Yet they don’t go further to explain the origin of what appears as a big change in mentalities among the US electorate, and they don't examine why Bush's election strategy was successful. For the most part, the foreign press remains outside the US. If more journalists were to travel to the US and observe the news programming on the various stations and the "talk shows" featuring well-known media figures, they would be better able to understand the role the media played in shaping the outcome of the election.