American Politics Journal -- Bush's Hostile Environment

The View from Europe
Bush's Hostile Environment
by Nicola Mitchell

Tuesday, Sept. 3, 2002 -- London (APJP) -- You can say what you want about us Brits, but you have to give us points for consistency. When we find something to moan about, we just keep on going until someone pays attention.

And it seems to be working.

The UK press have gone on and on about the Iraq issue so much that now even the New York Times is writing pieces about how the British might not be completely behind an attack.

But this week you'll be pleased to know, I have something other than Iraq to talk about.
There is now another subject that has managed to capture Europe's mutual distaste, as, in the wake of the Earth Summit in Johannesburg, we have begun re-visiting Bush's colourful environmental record.

Don't get me wrong; Iraq is still the main topic of conversation within the pages of the UK press, with the tone becoming even more hostile by the day. In fact, the recent round of speeches by Dick Cheney beating the drums of war have ruffled a couple of British feathers, and have even led to some negative pieces in the most ardent right wing papers.

But I digress, as despite all the Iraq talk, the administration has managed to win itself a small reprieve with some portions of the press switching their attack to focus on environmental issues.

It may not have been a huge surprise that Bush turned down the invitation to attend the earth summit, but that has not stopped members of the European press debating the meanings and messages behind the low level delegation that the administration sent over to attend the South African summit.

Unfortunately for Bush, the seemingly apparent disregard for all things environmental shown by the administration during the past week or so (i.e. snubbing the summit and announcing controversial new logging plans) could not have come at a worse time. In Europe the headlines have been full of the floods which have killed scores of people, while over in South Asia the UN has reported that a brown cloud of pollution is not only responsible for thousands of deaths from respiratory disease, but is also blocking sunlight which is in turn reducing rainfall and affecting agriculture.

Unfortunately for Bush, it appears that the environment is weighing heavily on many peoples' minds, and with America responsible for producing 25 per cent of the world's greenhouse gasses, many in Europe feel that POTUS should at least appear interested in the issue.

But we all know he isn't.

You only have to look at his environmental record as Governor of Texas, together with the fact that the oil industry practically wrote the administrations energy plan, not forgetting the Kyoto debacle and his latest "Healthy Forests" plan to know that he couldn't care less.

Of course, the administration would argue that it does care, and that sending Colin Powell to the summit is a reasonable substitute for the President. Now, if this were any other administration it would probably be true. However, this is the Bush administration, and the increasing view of Powell is that he holds no sway in core policy decisions, but is just deployed by the president to sort out international problems that do not interest the White House.

And it's not only the press that have been on Bush's back about his non attendance at the summit, as there was also another person who felt it was important Bush should attend the conference -- none other than his old friend, Tony Blair.

Apparently, Blair made a number of repeated appeals in the hope that Dubya would reconsider his decision not to attend, but it was all to no avail. Of course this development delighted the UK press, as it further reinforced the view that the Bush-Blair relationship is based on Bush demanding a lot from the UK, but giving Blair nothing in return.

But with the summit almost over, the press' attention is inevitably turning back to Iraq, and with countries the world over expressing their concern at the increasingly hawkish rhetoric spluttering out of Washington, there is plenty to talk about.

Cheney's recent call for "pre-emptive action" against Iraq has been seen in the UK as the strongest indication yet that the White House intends to go to war. The VP also did himself no favours by implying that the rest of the world will just fall in line with the US if they decide to go to war, and as it stands in Europe, the White House is managing to further alienate itself from those it believes will fall over themselves to help.

So with the world screaming at them to step on the brakes, the White House has promised it will consult both Congress and Allies before any decisions are made.

At present the administration is doing a great deal of tough talking and making lots of promises, but as far as Europe is concerned, the talking needs to stop and the action need to begin, starting with the presentation of a clear cut case if there is any intent of going to war, and then just maybe we could all make up our own minds instead of the administration trying to make them for us.