EuropaWorld 26/1/2001 Uneasy Lies The Head That Wears The Crown

President George W Bush's inaugural address was strong on democracy, freedom, leadership and not passing by on the other side. But unless these concepts can be applied on a world scale America risks isolation and loss of influence, argues Peter Sain ley Berry

When George W. Bush stood up to make his compact inaugural address he mentioned America 20 times with a 10 references to our nation, our country, our union. The words 'international' and 'global' were not mentioned at all. Allowance must be made for the fact that such an address is not designed to be a statement of government policy and is clearly focused, quite properly, on the domestic audience, but when he pledged "when we see that wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, we will not pass to the other side" it is difficult to believe he was referring to the West Bank.

Similarly, when he cited an "unfolding American promise that everyone belongs….that no insignificant person was ever born" he was echoing the Declaration of Independence's 'all men are created equal.' But just as two centuries ago the unwritten parenthesis in the latter was the word 'white' so those listening to the context of Bush's remarks can be forgiven for adding the parenthesis (in America). It is the real challenge for the Bush administration to prove that this is not so.

For this challenge will quite likely dictate America's long term relationship with the rest of the world. As the Cold War has ended the internet revolution and the advance of market economies have created great fluidity and opened tremendous opportunities. At the same time the world as a whole is faced with enormous challenges on almost every front, climate change, armed conflict, disease, famine. There are a great many lying in the road to Jericho: and America is passing.

Unfortunately, to an outsider, the Bush administration appears to view the world as a difficult neighbourhood - a quasi-hostile place - in which its own particular mansion is regrettably located, albeit behind the best security guards on earth.

Such isolation is certainly feared by many commentators. Earlier this month Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, appealed to the Unite States to pick up the human rights baton with which an earlier generation of American leaders had inspired the world after the end of the Second World War. She drew attention, with regret, to the three human rights treaties that the United States was failing to ratify, questioning the example that this sent to the wider world especially in such areas as the protection of children. If the United States is truly to become - as George Bush avowed - 'a servant of freedom' then ratifying these international treaties must surely be a part of the servant's duties.

Moreover, the United States is virtually the only developed country of any importance that keeps the death penalty, engaging annually in a sombre competition with the People's Republic of China for the largest number of executions of its citizens. "We will be urging President-elect Bush to adopt a broader awareness of human rights and international standards than he has displayed in Texas," said Amnesty International last week noting that as Texas Governor, George Bush oversaw 152 executions with, according to Amnesty, consistent violations of international standards.

There is now an ever widening gulf between those countries that practice the ultimate sanction and those that do not. "If our country does not lead the cause of freedom, it will not be led" said President Bush - but times have moved on: America is in grave danger of losing that leadership if indeed it hasn't already lost it.

There are many other issues on which America's moral leadership of the free, rich and developed world is in question. In the area of funding for development programmes it is fast losing out to Europe which collectively gives in aid over one and a half times as much as the USA and Japan combined. Despite its wealth America is not overly generous where its strategic interests are not at stake.

Environment is yet another issue on which America is failing to impress. We must judge the new administration on their actions rather than their words but environmental groups have reacted with dismay to certain of Mr Bush appointments.

Friends of the Earth, for instance, have said that Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton's recent and past affiliations show "a consistent pattern of efforts to undermine and roll back the very environmental laws and protections she will be sworn to uphold." And it appears doubtful that the new administration will be even as prepared as Clinton's to agree targets for greenhouse gas reductions when the World Climate Change talks resume later this spring.

The new President's previous remarks and actions suggests that he has little sympathy for anything more than token action: Condoleeza Rice has even suggested that environmental problems reduce as countries become richer, which suggests a certain lack of self-awareness. But the country that creates a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases bears a quarter of the world's responsibility, perhaps more, for sorting out a problem now acknowledged by international experts to be twice as advanced as previously thought. This continued process of denial is bound to create strains and loss of influence within the world order.

America's disengagement from these issues behind an all too symbolic missile defence shield risks provoking the very situation that it is designed to avoid: the rejection of American values by an increasingly alienated developing world. 'Let them eat cake' was not an effective slogan in 1789 when a privileged French ruling elite disengaged from the popular masses in the midst of a food crisis. The result was predictable. Unless Bush can demonstrate that he intends the sentiments in his inaugural address to apply to all the world's citizens, regardless of domestic cost, America may eventually find itself alone and isolated in a hostile world.