|
by Zhang Lijun
To date the United States and Britain have not come up with irrefutable proof that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, which has increased the mounting pressure on both leaders and brought an unprecedented wave of media attention, now referring to the situation as the "Intelligence Gate."
Bush battles on
In view of the election year, US President George W. Bush has to handle the so-called "worst intelligence failure in US history" with great care, or he may fail to be reelected or even see an end to his political career.
The "Intelligence Gate" could see Bush lose much public trust and support at home. In the United States, the most effective way for the incumbent president to win public support and realize reelection is by stressing the correctness of his policies carried out in the current tenure and showing results that have been achieved in the past three years. Former US presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton won the reelection in 1984 and 1996 respectively by adopting this strategy.
Launching the Iraq war, toppling Saddam Hussein and achieving initial success in the counter-terror war is what Bush is most proud of. The achievements also won wide support from the American public. Opinion polls showed that Bush's overall job approval rate at home had always been above 50 percent in the past three years, though Americans were not quite satisfied with what he had done in boosting the economy and increasing employment opportunities. There is no doubt that his popularity came mainly from the anti-terrorist campaign. When the US troops overthrew Saddam Hussein's regime, the approval rate of Bush soared to 70 percent.
This is Bush's advantage and he seized on this in his 2004 State of the Union address, stating that the war against terrorism is going on and the United States is still in a state of war. Americans should continue to support his anti-terrorist strategy and not give up halfway, Bush said, implying that changing a president in mid-stream would be a mistake.
But things changed when more and more proof shows that Bush may not really want to maintain world peace, promote democracy and serve the national interests when he waged the Iraq war, but only to fish for his own political gains. It now seems the war was nothing more than a political show, where average Americans and Iraqis sacrificed their lives.
Moreover, Bush is also faced with attacks from opponents. The Democrats have always criticized the unilateralist policy that Bush adheres to. But against the international and domestic situations after September 11, 2001, they had to agree to authorize Bush "unlimited diplomatic power" to start the anti-terrorist campaign. But due to setbacks the US troops have encountered in Iraq, plus the desire to win the presidential race, the Democrats began to be aggressive. All Democratic nomination candidates have strongly heckled Bush's Iraq policy, blaming him of lying on the issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and misleading the public.
According to a poll this January, only 37 percent of the respondents supported his reelection and 43 percent of them wanted an alternative. As a result, John Kerry, the front-runner among Democrats vying for presidency nomination, would be already able to beat Bush, with a lead in the approval rate of 48 percent to 46 percent.
Some influential US political figures and scholars have also joined the criticism against Bush. Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor of former President Jimmy Carter held that Bush's actions have greatly undermined the credit of the United States in the international community. Meanwhile, some liberal scholars have begun to ponder the theoretical basis of Bush's policy -- neo-conservatism. They accused the Bush administration's unilateral military actions of having escalated the conflict between the United States and Europe, which has most damaged the cross-Atlantic alliance since World War II. In their opinion, Bush's policy inflames the discontent of other nationalities and civilizations toward the United States and weakens the "soft power" of the country. Besides this, they are also concerned about the massive expenditures of the military operations in Iraq and the US-led reconstruction of the country.
To change the unfavorable situation, Bush has taken some measures to make up his side. For example, he has repeatedly stressed that just because of the Iraq war, Libya decided to abandon its plan to pursue weapons of mass destruction last December. He said that the United States has been in diplomatic negotiations with Iraq for 12 years, hoping the country would give up the development of weapons of mass destruction, but failed to achieve success. After the Iraq war, however, the United States took only nine months to make Libya surrender.
Bush also tried to take initiative in the probe into the intelligence that said Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons, when in fact none has been found. In order to alleviate the pressure on him, he proposed to establish a bipartisan and independent investigation commission this January and promised to cooperate with the commission. But Bush hinted that he would not testify before the commission gives a final report. As the commission is expected to be set up no earlier than this April and its final report is unlikely to come out before the end of this year, Bush seems to be eliminating a too-narrow "Intelligence Gate" to his reelection deliberately.
Blair in political black hole
British Prime Minister Tony Blair may not be as lucky as President Bush, as he is in a serious predicament caused by the "intelligence gate."
The distrust of the British public for Blair is growing daily. A poll conducted by The Independent showed that around 60 percent of British people believe that Blair had lied on the Iraq war issue and more than 50 percent hold that the prime minister did not tell the truth on government weapons scientist David Kelly's suicide.
Twice parliament members of his own Labor Party have blamed Blair, the first time this has happened in the history of the party, for his persistence in launching the Iraq war together with the United States. He is considered to have "gone away from the reality and the public" by his party members.
Within the Labor Party, there are currently remarkable disagreements on issues such as the Iraq war and the reform of public services, resulting in a reduction of cohesion within the party. The public support of the Party has slumped to the lowest since 1987. Meanwhile, the two major opposition parties -- the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democratic Party -- have recently intensified attacks on Blair, accusing him of misleading the public to support the Iraq war. The two parties' challenge is especially strong over the investigation into the death of Kelly.
So, Blair faces more pressure than Bush as he stands before the "Intelligence Gate." Blair has been the longest serving Labor Party prime minister in history. Although he clearly expressed at the 2003 Party Assembly that he planed to lead the party to a general election victory for the third time, analysts predicted that chances for him doing so appeared slim.
The next general election in Britain takes place in two years. So long as the US-British coalition cannot find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the reason for the coalition to launch the Iraq war will be more harshly questioned, and Blair will not be able to get rid of censure from the opposition.
(The author works at the China Institute of International Studies.)
(Beijing Review February 25, 2004)
|
