Time - Man of the Year/Time_Man_of_the_Year_Compact_Publishing_3YX-Disc-1_Compact_Publishing_1993.iso/moy/112392/1123unk.001

Text File | 1993-04-08 | 6KB | 115 lines

                                                                                AMERICA ABROAD, Page 51

Why They Backed Bush


By Strobe Talbott


    Bill Clinton had won the election but lost his voice, so
it was a good thing Boris Yeltsin did most of the talking. "I
think that my warm and good relationship with George Bush will
not prevent our relations from being even better," said the
President of Russia in a phone call on Nov. 5. "The political
boldness and firm rejection of old dogmas and stereotypes that
you stand for match the principles of Russian-American
relations."

    These gracious sentiments were in marked contrast to what
Yeltsin had been saying only a few weeks earlier. In
conversations with his own aides and at least one Western
diplomat, he had dismissed the Arkansas Governor as too young,
too inexperienced and -- get this -- too much of a "socialist."
That's a peculiar epithet from someone who, until two years ago,
was a card-carrying communist; but now that Russia has
repudiated Karl Marx and embraced Adam Smith, its leader is
apparently susceptible to Republican propaganda about Democrats.

    Last month Yeltsin cast an absentee ballot for Bush. He
released information from the flight recorder of KAL 007, the
Korean airliner that a Soviet interceptor shot down off Siberia
in 1983. Yeltsin was making a humanitarian gesture to the
families of the passengers, who included many Americans. But he
was also inviting Bush to take credit for having encouraged the
move, thus giving the beleaguered President a boost in the
polls. Worried that his government was backing the wrong horse,
the Russian ambassador to Washington, Vladimir Lukin, sent
Yeltsin a positive assessment of Clinton and urged the
conciliatory call to Little Rock.

    As one of Clinton's advisers says with a broad grin, "The
only leader who was unreservedly for our man was Saddam Hussein
-- and part of our job now is to see that he regrets it."

    It's no mystery why the overwhelming majority of the
world's Presidents, Prime Ministers and potentates reflexively
want to see an incumbent President returned to office. Even
America's foes prefer the devil they know to the one they don't.
In the eyes of a nervous world, continuity is nearly an absolute
virtue. But it is not a particularly American one. The
razzle-dazzle of U.S. politics has a way of lifting from
obscurity the most unlikely characters, usually by way of some
provincial statehouse. A peanut farmer? A movie actor? The
Governor of what? Where's that? No wonder that if there were a
global electoral college, a sitting President would be virtually
guaranteed re-election. Otherwise, the candidate with more
foreign policy experience has the edge.

    Looking back to 1968, Richard Nixon believes he had more
support overseas than Hubert Humphrey: "I had spent the eight
preceding years traveling widely and knew the leaders." Only the
Soviets hoped Nixon would lose: "They felt Humphrey would be
easier to deal with." But when Nixon ran again in 1972, even the
Soviets were foursquare in his camp. In their eyes, he was no
longer a cold warrior but the architect of detente. That same
year, when Nixon visited China, Mao Zedong gave him his
blessing, saying, "I like rightists Those on the right can do
what those on the left can only talk about."

    In general, foreign leaders -- and not just communist
dictators -- tend to prefer Republicans to Democrats.
Republicans have a reputation for being more hard-headed, more
inclined to realpolitik, while Democrats, because of their
populist tradition, are seen as more subject to swings in public
mood and more likely to engage in moralpolitik.

    The outside world was particularly rooting for Bush this
time. As Nixon says, "More than any other President, Bush has
based his foreign policy on personal relationships.
Consequently, he built up trust. Other leaders think he is
responsible and applaud his conduct during the Gulf War."

    Earlier this year, Saudi Arabia's occasionally bumptious
envoy in Washington, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, privately
suggested that the kingdom would do what it could to help Bush
get re-elected. In September the Saudis agreed to buy 72 F-15
warplanes. At least part of their motive was to help Bush carry
Missouri, home of the McDonnell Douglas plant where the aircraft
are manufactured. Bush lost Missouri anyway.

    Now that foreign leaders are stuck with Clinton, chances
are they will quickly convince themselves that he is actually
a pragmatist and internationalist. They will be right. Clinton
is no stranger to the world abroad. He has spent more time in
Japan as Governor of Arkansas than James Baker did as Secretary
of State (three weeks versus five days). Despite the emphasis in
his campaign on domestic issues, Clinton avoided pressures to
adopt protectionism or isolationism. He was actually ahead of
Bush on the need to aid Russia and to use force in defense of
international relief efforts in Bosnia, and he supported the
North American Free Trade Agreement.

    That's all by way of reassurance for those non-Americans
who would have voted for Bush if they could have done so. The
consolation for Clinton is that like the peanut farmer and movie
actor before him, he's about to go from being a worrisome exotic
to being the most powerful statesman on earth. Four years from
now, when he runs for re-election, he'll be the candidate with
the backing of his fellow world leaders. But he should keep in
mind that it won't do him any more good than it did Bush this
year.