TIME: Almanac 1995

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac 1995 / TIME Almanac 1995.iso / time / 112392 / 1123unk.001 < prev

Wrap

Text File | 1994-03-25 | 5.8 KB | 124 lines

<text id=92TT2632> <title> Nov. 23, 1992: America Abroad </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1992 Nov. 23, 1992 God and Women </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> AMERICA ABROAD, Page 51 Why They Backed Bush </hdr><body> 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. </body></article> </text>