July 7, 2008
QUACK LIKE AN EAGLE:
Bush carves out a legacy in Asia (M K Bhadrakumar, 7/08/08, Asia Times)
As Bush heads toward Japan for the Group of Eight (G-8) summit in Hokkaido, he anticipates he's likely wrapping up two Asian legacies - and if luck holds, three. Beware the lame duck. As the Washington Post summed up, "George W Bush's presidency seems exhausted and irrelevant, but that's a dangerous illusion. The Decider remains in command ..." Clearly, North Korea has begun disabling its plutonium production facility at Yongbyon under the watchful eyes of US inspectors. Rice's consultations in Beijing last week galvanized the process. The White House announced that Bush proposed to attend the opening ceremony of Beijing Summer Olympic Games in August.Meanwhile, a second Asian legacy for the Bush era is also gaining traction. On Wednesday, on the sidelines of the G-8, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will inform Bush that New Delhi has decided to give the final push to the civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with the US. The Indian deal goes way beyond Kim Jong-iI's "denuclearization". It is a major non-proliferation move. India will surrender its right to test nuclear weapons; India's nuclear program will come under US monitoring and control; and India's capacity and will for augmenting its weapon stockpile will remain under US scrutiny.
Equally, there is an enormous business spin-off. The US-India Business Council estimated the downstream business to be in the region of US$150 billion. It isn't merely pork-barrel politics. Washington's influence on the making of Indian economic policies will greatly increase. Then there is the foreign policy spin-off. The deal becomes a powerful tool for the US to encourage Delhi to continue to harmonize its foreign policy with US global strategies.
The deal leads to the dismantling of US embargoes on the transfer of military technology to India and the "interoperability" between the armed forces of the two countries becomes realizable. Most important, India will join the US missile defense program, which Delhi sees as vital for neutralizing China's strategic capabilities. Thus, from the US perspective, Delhi is taking a decisive step toward a congruence of objectives with Washington where the principal elements are: a) making the US-India strategic partnership irreversible; b) seeking US good offices as a facilitator in the normalization of India-Pakistan relations; c) ensuring US support in standing up to Chinese "hegemonism"; and d) availing of US backing for India's emergence as a world power.No wonder, while paying lip service to the deal as critical to India's energy security, Washington left no stone unturned for months ensuring Delhi didn't develop second thoughts.
The big question now is whether Bush's gargantuan appetite for Asian legacies will be satiated. The indications are Bush is contemplating a far more ambitious legacy - India-Pakistan relations. Just think of two nuclear adversaries reconciling so that the world can sleep more peacefully. There will be a lot on Bush's mind following his meeting with Manmohan on Wednesday. He has three weeks to mull over before he hosts Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani for lunch at the White House on July 28. Like his Indian counterpart, Gilani is also not the real power center in Islamabad. Bush knows they are malleable individuals, but he prefers to deal with them, since their desire for a legacy can't possibly be any less than his. It is what could be called a "win-win" situation.
A lot of back-channel activity has been going on between Delhi, Islamabad and Washington. Nine-tenths of the way to a framework agreement on Kashmir have been covered. Much credit goes to President Pervez Musharraf, but there is a broad consensus among Pakistani politicians for normalization of relations with India. Plainly speaking, the Pakistanis are tired and they desperately want to ensure that all is quiet on their eastern front so that they can devote themselves with full energy to the nation's existential crisis.
The rivalry for gaining parity with India is proving too costly and deflects Islamabad from its national priorities of countering the rising tide of religious extremism and militancy. Besides, the nuclear deterrence has in any case ensured that a belligerent India would think twice before embarking on any adventurism. Islamabad, therefore, would be inclined to have a relook at the Kashmir saga so that relations with India aren't held hostage.
How George W Bush became an African hero (David Blair, 07/07/2008, Daily Telegraph)
[T]he most right-wing president in recent memory has become the unlikely darling of anti-poverty activists for his unsung efforts to help Africa. [....]Combating Aids once played virtually no part in America's development policies. Mr Bush has established the biggest fund ever devoted to fighting an epidemic.
The President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief, funded to the tune of Pounds 7.5 billion, is paying for hundreds of thousands of Africans to receive the life-saving drugs which hold Aids at bay.
Mr Bush has also made America the biggest single donor to the Global Fund for Aids, tuberculosis and malaria, contributing one third of its Pounds 5 billion.
No other leader has given as much money to the World Food Programme as Mr Bush. America now provides about half of all the emergency food aid distributed across the globe.
Countries which desperately need this help often have viscerally anti-American governments. The rulers of Sudan and Zimbabwe, where millions depend on emergency food supplies, probably do not grasp the irony of the man they vilify keeping so many of their own people alive.
Bob Geldof, the anti-poverty campaigner, has often praised Mr Bush's "Africa story". Overall, however, this side of the president's legacy has earned him few votes and precious little international credit.
The point, as Mr Geldof stresses, is that Mr Bush helped Africa anyway.
This just in: W is governing for the world's future, not for headlines in today's fishwrap.


[T]he most right-wing president in recent memory has become the unlikely darling of anti-poverty activists for his unsung efforts to help Africa
So what's the false assumption here? That the Left has a monopoly on being "anti-poverty"? Or that only the Left's policies can actually do something about poverty? Or that the "right-wing" is in favor of poverty? Or are racists who'd prefer Africa to be a Socialist Hell-hole? My vote is for all of the above.
And does this mean that Ronnie is no longer officially "the most right-wing president", or just another indication that most journalists have memories shorter than the length of most fads?
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at July 7, 2008 12:17 PM