Bush’s Farewell to NATO Underlines ‘Absence of American Leadership’
April 3rd, 2008 by WILLIAM KERN
What’s Europe’s perception of President Bush, now that he’s appearing at his last NATO Summit? From Le Figaro, France’s largest and most pro-American newspaper, comes this editorial. Written by Pierre Rousselin, the judgment of Bush’s legacy is a harsh one. Rousselin writes, “If the American president would take a sincere accounting of his actions, he would observe that he leaves a weakened Atlantic Alliance in military difficulty in Afghanistan, politically divided in the face of a more aggressive Russia, and ever-hesitant about its missions, its scope of activity and its raison d’être in the 21st century.”
Rousselin goes on to say, “Beyond the press releases glorifying painstaking compromise, the summit, which is to be followed on Friday by an unprecedented dialog with Vladimir Putin, highlights the lack of American “leadership” in the world at the end of a period marked by the Iraq War and the transatlantic crisis that it has unleashed. It is a sad result for a presidency that at its inception placed itself under the rubric of putting the use of force at the service of a conquering ideology.”
Editorial By Pierre Rousselin
Translated By Sandrine Ageorges
April 3, 2008
France - Le Figaro - Original Article (France)
The NATO summit in Bucharest is the final farewell of the allies to George W. Bush. If the American president would take a sincere accounting of his actions, he would observe that he leaves a weakened Atlantic Alliance in military difficulty in Afghanistan, politically divided in the face of a more aggressive Russia, and ever-hesitant about its missions, its scope of activity and its raison d’être in the 21st century.
Beyond the press releases glorifying painstaking compromise, the summit, which is to be followed on Friday by an unprecedented dialog with Vladimir Putin, highlights the lack of American “leadership” in the world at the end of a period marked by the Iraq War and the transatlantic crisis that it has unleashed. It is a sad result for a presidency that at its inception placed itself under the rubric of putting the use of force at the service of a conquering ideology.Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
In regard to relations with Russia, the lack of direction is evident. The question of the accession of Ukraine and Georgia to NATO demonstrates this fact. Despite the late campaign waged by George W. Bush, the allies displayed their divisions for all to see. The basic problem isn’t whether the two countries deserve to join the Atlantic Alliance. The answer is obviously that they do. The problem is defining a coherent policy toward Russia. Is it a partner, an adversary or perhaps a little of both? Are the allies capable of holding a common position in relation to Moscow? This is clearly not the case. George W. Bush is preaching in the desert and has only managed to rally the Poles, the Balts and those who were already convinced. A more substantive debate will have to wait for the next occupant of the White House.
Europeans aren’t going to mortgage their future. …
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the 59th NATO Summit.
This entry was posted on Thursday, April 3rd, 2008 at 7:28 am and is filed under Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, EU, Gordon Brown, Belgium, Democracy, The Netherlands, Ukraine, Eastern Europe, Newspapers, European Union, Poland, Foreign Policy, Bush Administration, G8, Columnists, Condoleezza Rice, War, Afghanistan, Military, Middle East, Europe, Foreign Affairs, Iraq, George W. Bush, Germany, Foreign Politics, France, Vladimir Putin, Russia, United Kingdom, History. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
