There was a considerable amount of misreporting about what happened in Florida after the November 7 election, including misunderstandings and outright distortions that arose during the post-election contest. There has been even more misunderstanding of how events in Florida will affect the foreign policy of President-elect George W. Bush. Let me correct a few of the more egregious errors by the international media.
First, there is no evidence that any voters, particularly racial minorities, faced even the slightest discrimination, intimidation or any other impediment to the legitimate casting of their ballots in Florida. No fair-minded media reporters have found any such evidence, nor has an ongoing Justice Department investigation, conducted by the outgoing Clinton administration, found any violations of federal civil rights laws.
Second, the presidential vote in Florida was close, as it was nationwide, and Florida's electoral votes turned out to be dispositive. Accordingly, it should come as no surprise that both major presidential candidates were determined that the state's popular votes were accurately counted.
While the procedure for doing so was far from perfect, the criticisms leveled against Florida and its counties, especially in international circles, were wildly off the mark. Many criticisms centered on the lack of national voting methods and procedures, as if the election practices of a homogeneous, medium-sized European country could be readily applied to a diverse, continental power.
Moreover, such criticisms prove too much, because they necessarily question the very federal structure of the US. Yet imagine if the Electoral College system were abandoned; a close vote in Florida could have triggered recounts all around the country, making a difficult problem far worse. Ironically, by resorting to strained legal theories and hoping for rescue by activist courts, Vice President Gore made a reliable hand recount impossible. This is unfortunate, but does not in any way detract from the legitimacy of the final outcome.
So, where does this leave the new President? The critical fact is that George W. Bush and his team will direct foreign policy. The US does not have a parliamentary system, and it will not be operating under a coalition government. There is only one president, with a constitutionally defined term of four years. These structural realities mean, by definition, that the new president will have at his command all of the enormous governmental power of the US -- political, economic and military -- from noon on January 20 forward. Whatever happened before will be of no matter after Chief Justice William Rehnquist administers the oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Some commentators argue that the close Electoral College result, and the fact that Vice President Gore received more popular votes will weaken the Bush presidency, and that it will not have a clear "mandate" to govern. No one, of course, can deny the election's closeness, but that statistic is already fading from significance. The reality of international affairs means that issues that only the president can decide will be thrust before him immediately. In short, the only "mandate" he needs after January 20 will be the one he receives when he sits behind his Oval Office desk every morning. From that point forward, it will be his performance in office that matters, not what the popular or Electoral College votes were.
During the campaign, Bush's opponents complained about his lack of foreign policy experience. This assumes, of course, that experience counts for more than judgment, a dubious proposition at best. Moreover, no new president assumes office with command of every substantive policy area that he must eventually master. For now, President Bush will have to concentrate his energies on preventing the US economy sliding into recession. His success or failure on this issue will have profound global implications, and probably be more significant than superficial attempts to "engage" on less important foreign policy issues. Finally, the US is eager to look forward, and to have the new president restore honor and integrity to his office. Even supporters of other candidates agree that the departing president's personal conduct has been appalling and shameful, and the desire to look forward is a deep and intrinsically important component of America's national character. The post-election recounts and contests will be debated for decades to come by scholars and students. But for today, one thing is already certain: the Florida chapter is now history.
John Bolton is the senior vice president of the American Enterprise Institute. During the previous Bush Administration, he served as the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under