Stephen Vasciannie
ACCORDING TO CNN, last week was not good for President Bush. Or was it the BBC that put this view forward?
Nowadays, it is hard to recall which of the mainstream news media houses may be throwing stones at the American President at any point in time. I suspect this is a case of giving the dog a bad name and hanging it.
But, not to worry, other media houses - Fox News especially - are keen to give the other side of the story, even excessively so.
Thus, if you watch the fellow who spins his finger at the end of each programme, you may well come to the view that right-wing values are endangered, but that President Bush and his assistants are fighting valiantly to stem the tide of the liberal media.
OBJECTIVITY
Sometimes, though, those of us on the outside may yearn for objectivity. Consider, in greater detail, the situation concerning President Bush.
The point has now been adequately made that the Iraq intervention was a mistake. The weapons of mass destruction have turned out to be a fiction; the absence of evidence has become the evidence of absence, and the people of Iraq have not entirely flocked the streets with open, welcoming arms.
All that can be taken as given. And I would go further: the invasion has given ammunition to those who argue that the United States does not believe in the rule of law.
This is an exaggerated conten-tion, but, given the problems that President Bush has had in justifying the Iraq intervention ex post facto, full-time critics of the U.S. have had an enjoyable time.
Sometimes these critics become boring in their repetition, but, in fairness, the Iraq intervention has given them fodder. But, as I say, there is a tendency to give the dog a bad name and then hang it.
INDIA
Last week, President Bush went to India, and was able to reach agreement with India on the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
The details of the agreement are not yet fully publicised, but clearly, this is a positive development in international affairs.
For much of the last decade, the nuclear situation concerning India has been dicey. India has not ratified the Nuclear Non-Prolifer-ation Treaty (it is not obliged to), and has pursued a nuclear strategy that recognised no externally imposed restrictions.
At the same time, India's relationship with Pakistan, especially on the status of the Kashmir, has prompted the fear that, in extremis, nuclear weapons could be used on the sub-continent.
President Bush goes to India and an agreement is reached. Do the mainstream media houses recognise the significance of this?
Well, perhaps they do, but in the midst of emphasizing how bad President Bush's week has been, the media houses are obliged to stress that Bush will have a hard time convincing the American Senate to accept the deal. This exemplifies unfairness to Bush. Imagine what they would have said if agreement with India had failed completely!
PAKISTAN
Then, Bush goes to Pakistan. Pakistan is an unsteady ally, for reasons that have more to do with religious, ethnic and political rivalries of longstanding vintage than with George Bush's presidency.
But Pakistan is also an indispensable ally because al Qaeda, and presumably bin Laden, have taken refuge in that country. President Bush, therefore, has no alternative but to align himself with President Musharraf.
Enter the media. Where does their emphasis lie?
In the television reports I have seen, it has been stressed that Pakistan is not a democracy, a point probably intended to demonstrate that the American President is hypocritical.
He calls for democracy in the Middle East, but he is willing to socialise with the non-elected dictator of Pakistan. Imran Khan, once of cricketing fame, has been used by the media as one voice for this particular point of emphasis.
The criticism of Bush on this point may be valid, but again, it exemplifies the idea of flogging the American President where no further flogging is necessary.
We know that the compromise with Musharraf is inconvenient, but even the mainstream media houses should acknowledge that it is inevitable.
Stephen Vasciannie is a professor at the University of the West Indies and a Deputy Solicitor-General.
