Posted on 09/07/2007 11:58:47 AM PDT by GeorgeKant
SYDNEY, Australia - President Bush used an address before an audience of Pacific Rim business elite to discuss the war on terror. Chinese President Hu Jintao talked about the business opportunities that China's growth is producing.
The messages, and the reviews they received this week, underscore how Washington and Beijing are now being perceived in the Asia-Pacific region, where the U.S. role seems to be slipping, while China is seen as the power of the future.
"Politics does not exist in a vacuum, and whenever there is a vacuum, somebody else is going to fill that, whether it is China or India or some others," Ricardo Lagos Escobar, the former president of Chile, said after listening to Hu's speech Thursday.
"But it is very clear that what has happened during the last years has been the growing influence of the Chinese economy."
The terrorist attacks in 2001 and the war in Iraq drew Washington's attention from Asia, critics say, just as China's historic re-emergence gained critical mass. Its economy running at a better than 10 percent clip, China has huge purchasing power and is an engine of growth for the region, buoying economies from Canada to Malaysia.
Along the way Beijing has picked up influence, preaching a business-first message that multinationals like and that avoids the security and democracy issues the Bush administration dwells on.
"China's sound and steady economic growth has not only benefited China's 1.3 billion people, but also offered enormous business opportunities to other countries," Hu told the gathering of 300 business leaders Thursday.
At the same podium Friday, Bush briefly discussed trade, preferring to focus on the threat terrorism poses to economic prosperity. He confused the occasion for the speech, thanking Australia for inviting him to an OPEC summit of oil exporters, instead of the APEC summit of Asia-Pacific economies that brought him to Sydney. He called Australians "Austrians" and fumbled the name of Myanmar's democratic opposition leader.
Perceptions of a distracted U.S. and a rising China have dogged the Bush administration all week, putting it on the defensive. As Bush headed to Australia — making a surprise stop in Iraq on the way — former State Department official Richard Armitage decried Washington's preoccupation with Iraq at Asia's expense in an interview with The Australian newspaper.
Bush was asked aboard Air Force One whether "this was China's summit?"
"Absolutely not," Bush replied. After arriving in Sydney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice went on Australian television to defend the administration as "extremely involved in Asia."
Unconvinced, Greg Sheridan, the often pro-Bush foreign editor of The Australian, panned the president's performance at a news conference in Sydney this week, noting he barely mentioned Asia. "Overall, you'd have to say the press conference illustrates the increasing tin ear of the Bush administration in Asia," Sheridan wrote Thursday.
Such reviews of a visiting U.S. president would have been unheard of until recently in Australia. Affinities between the two countries run deep.
Australia has struggled with its Anglo roots to redefine itself as an Asian country. Though Bush is unpopular because of Iraq and Australia's participation in the war, he has attracted more media attention than Hu or any of the 16 other visiting heads of government attending the summit.
But China is more often depicted as Australia's economic lifeline and future, a resource-hungry giant that needs Australia's raw materials.
Trade with China has given Australia one of the highest growth rates among industrialized countries, said Chunlai Chen, an Australian National University expert on China's economy.
"If you look at what has happened in the last five years, China has grabbed at the chance to become more and more important in the region," said Chen.
Even so, China's influence so far is largely confined to economic matters, lacking the pop culture appeal and democratic ideals that has helped sustain U.S. power.
"There are no substantial underlying attractive moral, political or other values behind China's present attractiveness," said Gerry Groot, a Chinese politics expert at the University of Adelaide. "There is, however, a very great deal of attraction to the hard power of Chinese markets ... the fact that the Chinese government can now splash money and resources at pet projects."
Well, Obama is the articulate one. Although I think he did say he wanted to attack our ally Pakistan. Oh, well, the important thing is that President Bush “fumbled the name of Myanmar’s democratic opposition leader”.
Letterman has a nightly (at least it seems like it) spot on important presidential addresses. Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy quips are provided as a setup that ushers in another video clip of a Bush verbal blunder. I can’t help it, but my first reaction is to dispise Letterman for doing it. Then I realize that Bush does it all the time, and you can’t really blame someone for focusing on it. It’s been a source of irritation to me for a long time, so I can’t exatly blame Letterman.
Every president has made verbal mistakes. None have seemed to be as prolific at it as this president IMO. I wish it weren’t so.
I can’t believe AP gets away with being so politically biased in their reporting.
Obama would have referred to Prime Minister Howard as “President Howard.”
When he shows up in Syria with a scarf on his head, we’ll talk about it.
“”Overall, you’d have to say the press conference illustrates the increasing tin ear of the Bush administration in Asia,” Sheridan wrote Thursday.””
Yeah, sure. Tin ear...ok...Bush knows China well...China’s got him (and us) by the...finances his tax deferment aka “cut” , allowed him to spend like a drunk on a spree. He can’t talk about China because it’s an embarassment.
With President George W Bush, the DBM amplifies it every single time.
It goes back to the 1999 DNC play-book. It was to paint George W Bush as a dim bulb stupid smirking frat boy, and to make several talking points out of it.
The DBM gleefully went along with it. They hated the last name Bush so much even back then,they were willing to prop up John McCain. Notice how the DBM could care less about McCain now that there is no Bush running?
Fortunately for President Bush, he is a very brilliant person, and has been able to single handedly make the USA safer from Muzzies, stack the Supreme Court with conservatives, and proving for once and for all, that lower taxes equate to more revenues.
He is a wonderful Christian too, which really fuels the liberal hatred, not too mention some of the conservative angst towards him, since Christianity plays a large role in his immigration stance, due to his love for all of Gods children.
I would hope that one day, Jeb Bush would seek a higher office, just for the last name, and to emotionally devastate every liberal I know and see.
Ultimately, it’s up to Asia to keep Uncle Sam involved there, not the other way. Remember, it wasn’t - for the most part - American cities that the Japanese bombed during their construction of the Great East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. And Americans won’t be primary victims of the Chinese quest for territorial gains.
Ultimately, it’s up to Asia to keep Uncle Sam involved there, not the other way. Remember, it wasn’t - for the most part - American cities that the Japanese bombed during their construction of the Great East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. And Americans won’t be the primary victims of the Chinese quest for territorial gains.
And that's been one of the biggest problems with his "leadership." The man just can't articulate well enough to rally the nation to his policies and goals. He might not be an idiot on paper but this isn't 1907, mastery of modern media is critical. That's a lesson known since at least the Nixon-Kennedy debates.
I think the fact that he couldn’t beat the likes of Gore or Kerry with a wide margin backs up your observations. Neither of them should have gotten more than 40% of the popular vote IMO. He was by far the better man. I just don’t think he connected to the degree he should have.
I think the fact that he couldn’t beat the likes of Gore or Kerry with a wide margin backs up your observations. Neither of them should have gotten more than 40% of the popular vote IMO. He was by far the better man. I just don’t think he connected to the degree he should have.
Well since both Iraq and Afganistan are in Asia then strictly speaking that is true.
Speaking as an Australian, nobody here is really at all concerned that President Bush called us Austrians - it’s a very easy slip of the tongue to make. Even some colleagues who absolutely hate President Bush (and I do unfortunately have some) and despise his politics, view this as a slightly amusing minor slip that doesn’t matter at all. Seeing the media turn it into a big thing is astonishing.
Calling us New Zealanders... that would have angered us!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.