In Bush we trust not
By PAUL KRUGMAN
THE NEW YORK TIMES
SO IT seems that Turkey wasn't really haggling about the price, it just wouldn't accept payment by cheque or credit card. In return for support of an Iraq invasion, it wanted - and got - immediate aid, cash on the barrelhead, rather than mere assurances about future help. You'd almost think President George W. Bush had a credibility problem.
And he does.
The funny thing is that this administration sets great store on credibility. As the justifications for invading Iraq come and go - President Saddam Hussein is developing nuclear weapons; no, but he's in league with Osama bin Laden; no, but he's really evil - the case for war has come increasingly to rest on credibility.
You see, say the hawks, we've already put our soldiers in position, so we must attack or the world won't take us seriously.
But credibility isn't just about punishing people who cross you. It's also about honouring promises, and telling the truth. And those are areas where the Bush administration has problems.
Consider the fact that Mexican President Vicente Fox appears unwilling to cast his United Nations Security Council vote in America's favour. Given Mexico's close economic ties to the United States, and Mr Fox's one-time personal relationship with Mr Bush, Mexico should have been more or less automatically in America's column.
But the Mexican President feels betrayed. He took the politically risky step of aligning himself closely with Mr Bush - a boost to Republican efforts to woo Hispanic voters - in return for promised reforms that would legalise the status of undocumented immigrants. The administration never acted on those reforms, and Mr Fox is in no mood to do Mr Bush any more favours.
Mr Fox is not alone.
New York's elected representatives stood side by side with Mr Bush a few days after Sept 11 in return for a promise of generous aid. A few months later, as they started to question the administration's commitment, the budget director, Mr Mitch Daniels, accused them of 'money-grubbing games'. Firefighters and policemen applauded Mr Bush's promise, more than a year ago, of US$3.5 billion (S$6 billion) for 'first responders'; so far, not a penny has been delivered.
Then there's the honesty thing.
Mr Bush's mendacity on economic matters was obvious even during the 2000 election. But lately it has reached almost pathological levels. Last week, Mr Bush - who has been having a hard time getting reputable economists to endorse his economic plan - claimed an endorsement from the latest Blue Chip survey of business economists. 'I don't know what he was citing,' declared the puzzled author of that report, which said no such thing.
Despite his decline in the polls, Mr Bush hasn't fully exhausted his reservoir of trust in this country. People still remember the stirring image of the President standing amid the rubble of the World Trade Center, his arm around a fireman's shoulders - and our ever-deferential, protective media hasn't said much about the broken promises that followed. But the rest of the world simply doesn't trust Mr Bush either to honour his promises or to tell the truth.
Can we run a foreign policy in the absence of trust? The administration apparently thinks it can use threats as a substitute. Officials have said that they expect undecided Security Council members to come around out of fear of being on the 'wrong' side. And Mr Bush may yet get the UN to acquiesce, grudgingly, in his war.
But even if he does, we shouldn't delude ourselves: Whatever credibility we may gain by invading Iraq is small recompense for the trust we have lost around the world.
In Bush we trust not
By PAUL KRUGMAN
THE NEW YORK TIMES
SO IT seems that Turkey wasn't really haggling about the price, it just wouldn't accept payment by cheque or credit card. In return for support of an Iraq invasion, it wanted - and got - immediate aid, cash on the barrelhead, rather than mere assurances about future help. You'd almost think President George W. Bush had a credibility problem.
And he does.
The funny thing is that this administration sets great store on credibility. As the justifications for invading Iraq come and go - President Saddam Hussein is developing nuclear weapons; no, but he's in league with Osama bin Laden; no, but he's really evil - the case for war has come increasingly to rest on credibility.
You see, say the hawks, we've already put our soldiers in position, so we must attack or the world won't take us seriously.
But credibility isn't just about punishing people who cross you. It's also about honouring promises, and telling the truth. And those are areas where the Bush administration has problems.
Consider the fact that Mexican President Vicente Fox appears unwilling to cast his United Nations Security Council vote in America's favour. Given Mexico's close economic ties to the United States, and Mr Fox's one-time personal relationship with Mr Bush, Mexico should have been more or less automatically in America's column.
But the Mexican President feels betrayed. He took the politically risky step of aligning himself closely with Mr Bush - a boost to Republican efforts to woo Hispanic voters - in return for promised reforms that would legalise the status of undocumented immigrants. The administration never acted on those reforms, and Mr Fox is in no mood to do Mr Bush any more favours.
Mr Fox is not alone.
New York's elected representatives stood side by side with Mr Bush a few days after Sept 11 in return for a promise of generous aid. A few months later, as they started to question the administration's commitment, the budget director, Mr Mitch Daniels, accused them of 'money-grubbing games'. Firefighters and policemen applauded Mr Bush's promise, more than a year ago, of US$3.5 billion (S$6 billion) for 'first responders'; so far, not a penny has been delivered.
Then there's the honesty thing.
Mr Bush's mendacity on economic matters was obvious even during the 2000 election. But lately it has reached almost pathological levels. Last week, Mr Bush - who has been having a hard time getting reputable economists to endorse his economic plan - claimed an endorsement from the latest Blue Chip survey of business economists. 'I don't know what he was citing,' declared the puzzled author of that report, which said no such thing.
Despite his decline in the polls, Mr Bush hasn't fully exhausted his reservoir of trust in this country. People still remember the stirring image of the President standing amid the rubble of the World Trade Center, his arm around a fireman's shoulders - and our ever-deferential, protective media hasn't said much about the broken promises that followed. But the rest of the world simply doesn't trust Mr Bush either to honour his promises or to tell the truth.
Can we run a foreign policy in the absence of trust? The administration apparently thinks it can use threats as a substitute. Officials have said that they expect undecided Security Council members to come around out of fear of being on the 'wrong' side. And Mr Bush may yet get the UN to acquiesce, grudgingly, in his war.
But even if he does, we shouldn't delude ourselves: Whatever credibility we may gain by invading Iraq is small recompense for the trust we have lost around the world.
