Huh? Surely I jest. The latest poll numbers in the U.S. do not back up such a claim. I am referring to Bush’s poll numbers in India however. From the BBC:
India is one of just three countries which thinks the world is safer with George W Bush back in the White House, according to a BBC World Service poll.
The survey found that 62% of Indians thought his re-election as US president was positive for global security.
The BBC’s Nick Bryant says the poll was carried out in big Indian cities where US trade benefits may have counted.
On average, 58% of respondents in 21 countries believed another Bush term made the world a more dangerous place.
Well, I guess it’s good to be, err…different than most, but what’s the logic? Pretty obvious actually:
Our correspondent says Mr Bush’s popularity in India seems to be borne primarily of economic necessity.
People were questioned in Mumbai (Bombay), Calcutta, Delhi and Madras (Chennai) – four powerhouses of India’s fast-expanding economy.
Our correspondent says that with a growth rate of well over 6%, many Indians simply believe that the Bush administration is good for business, and that its strong desire to forge closer trade ties is a key component of India’s stunning economic success.
While economics might have played a part, I believe many of the people who voted for Bush in the poll are Hindu bigots who hate Muslims and on some level admire Bush for his anti-Muslim actions and policies
Well, that’s what I thought reading the poll results. Everyone who voted in this poll for the guy I didn’t vote for is clearly a bigot.
But Bush’s popularity outside the U.S. is pretty low in most countries, so this is legitimately interesting.
What do these countries have in common?
Earlier, I posted this comment about the BBC article over at Sulekha:
“It is an interesting poll, although most BBC reporting is of poor quality. One thing to notice, of the three nations, India, Poland, and the Philippines – all are democracies, where often raucous debate occurs. Trying to gauge opinion in nations like these is far more valuable than in a nation like China, where debate is limited to the party-line. Also, both India and the Philippines have suffered from terrorism, while Poland has only been free of the Soviet yoke for less than 15 years, and knows the importance of a strong defense. Unlike the nations of Western Europe, which have enjoyed the benefits of the American military for over fifty years, these three nations border trouble-zones. I did not agree with all the policies of either the previous or current Indian government, but one thing is promising – India is increasingly pursuing self-interest, instead of trying to win the favor of unimportant or despotic nations. It’s not there yet, but I like the direction.”
The idea that Indians were voting with their pocketbooks does not hold up. It assumes that Indians are too dim to distinguish between economic matters and security matters. After all, if the burgeoning economic relationship with the U.S. was the most important thing to Indians, then the BJP would still be in power in New Delhi, since that was a platform in their “India Shining” campaign.
Other comments from Sulekha can be found here: http://www.sulekha.com/news/newsitem.aspx?cid=412826&com=y#focuscom
But if Indians support Bush to fight terrorism, which they’re extremely familiar with, his coddling of Musharraf and AQ Khan isn’t logically consistent.
Manish,
The policy toward Pakistan isn’t logical (US policy). It is one of Bush’s weakest areas, for which he rightly deserves criticism. I’m sure, even with the need for Pakistani help, he could lean on Musharraff a bit more.
That said, getting rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan probably didn’t hurt the Indians in Kashmir. There is a certain amount of fluidity in jihadi training camps between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
“But if Indians support Bush to fight terrorism, which they’re extremely familiar with, his coddling of Musharraf and AQ Khan isn’t logically consistent.”
Not necessarily – keep in mind, India and Pakistan were engaged in an actual shooting war in 1999, an Indian Airlines jet was hijacked by Pakistani-backed terrorists in 1999, and the Parliament was attacked in 2001.
Using sticks and carrots with both New Delhi and Islamabad, Bush has managed to navigate a very delicate course. All prominent separatist groups have been labelled “terrorist” by teh U.S., which was not the case prior to Bush. The amount of infiltration is down, there is real peace-process now (nudged forward by Washington). Bush has told Musharaff there is no way he will get the US involved in Kashmir. In June of 2002, when the situation seemed particularly bleak, Bush put the blame squarely on Musharaff. he was the first president to say infiltration was taking place, rather than leaving it to nameless administration officials.
War between these two nations is less likely at the start of the second Bush administration than it was at the beginning of the first – an observations which Indians can see for themselves. Plus, since Bush is not putting too much pressure on India to concede on Kashmir (or even mention it in public), Indians believe that can set the peace talks at their own pace, not America’s or Pakistan’s.
These are all half-measures, and the results are weak. India’s capitol building was attacked. Jihadis are still entering India. The banned jihadi orgs have changed their names and openly operate, fundraise, speak to the press. Bin Laden is probably in Pakistan, and we still haven’t caught him. Pakistan was prolif’ing nukes to China and Iran just recently.
I’ve met a few Pakistanis, some who are good friends, who praise the dictator as being better than that which he replaced. But sometimes a cancer is best cut out rather than ineffectually contained. Isn’t that the neocon paradigm?
Rule 1 of effectiveness is, prevent recurrence. Can anyone claim with a straight face that with Musharraf at the helm, Kashmiri jihad, Pakistani nuke prolif and bin Laden’s freedom will now cease? If the U.S. Capitol had been attacked, would we have simply rattled sabers and gone home? What message does that send?
Musharraf ain’t great BUT, the fact that he’s been the target of 2 (or is it 3?) assassination attempts thus far by pakistani extremists is quite possibly the strongest measure that he’s more “with us” than “against us.”
You only have so much latitude to work with the leaders / nations you want… eventually you work with the ones you have…
It’s more an indication that they’re confused, that their ideological side overrides their pragmatism sometimes. Jihadis also attacked the Saudi mainland, don’t forget, their #1 source of funding.
Right, like we just did in Afghanistan and Iraq militarily and Haiti via diplomatic pressure.
I think I’ll go with excision, thanks.
Well, regarding pressuring Musharraf – the fact that Pakistan already has nuclear weapons means that the options are limited. Well, maybe not so limited. There are fighter jets waiting to be delivered to Pakistan and trade tariffs as leverage.
(The difficulty of dealing with Pakistan just shows how important it is to make sure other nations don’t get nuclear weapons. You (other commenters : ) ) can make your parallels with allowing Iraq to get, or continue developing, weapons as you see fit….)