Bush no-show would be a blow to APEC (Al Gore slammed)

The Australian ^ | August 30, 2007 | Greg Sheridan

[Dundee]

IS President George W. Bush going to come to Sydney for the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum summit next week?...

As The Australian revealed on Monday, Bush's senior advisers unanimously opposed his coming to Sydney. That information is not a whisper. That information is solid...

Bill Clinton cancelled out of two APEC leaders meetings: Osaka in 1995 and Kuala Lumpur in 1998. On both occasions he skipped at the last possible minute and sent then vice-president Al Gore in his place.

...Clinton's absence led to a previously unscheduled meeting between Keating and Gore in which Keating gave Gore a fearful bollocking over Clinton's characteristic dereliction...

In Kuala Lumpur, Gore gave one of the stupidest speeches delivered by an American statesman in Asia. One forgets just what a klutz Gore could be and just how bad Clinton's policy was in Asia.

Gore gave his famous "reformasi" speech in which he praised the region's pro-democracy activists. But he equated reformasi in Indonesia with reformasi in Malaysia, a remarkable insult to his Malaysian hosts. Much worse, having identified the Malaysian government as one of the region's bad guys, he further equated "doi moi" - the official slogan of the ruling Vietnamese Communist Party, which, while liberalising economically, has remained thoroughly Stalinist politically - with the region's reformasi good guys. It was kind of deranged in its nuttiness, a prelude of sorts to Gore's green fundamentalism a decade later. And Gore compounded his ignorance with arrogance, rudely declining to eat with his fellow APEC summiteers at the dinner where he spoke. He delivered his insults and stormed off...

...overall it seems to me incontestable that Bush has done better in Asia than Clinton...

[Gay State Conservative]

The US has only three true allies among the members of APEC...Australia,Japan and Taiwan.What would motivate us,other than a desire to be humiliated face-to-face,to attend?

[rwgal]

Since it means absolutely nothing...how about we let ALGORE go?

Meadow Muffin

[gondramB]

>>...Clinton’s absence led to a previously unscheduled meeting between Keating and Gore in which Keating gave Gore a fearful bollocking over Clinton’s characteristic dereliction...<<

Lets see them try to give Cheney “a fearful bollocking.”

[paudio]

People seem to be forgetting about several facts:

1. The rise of anti-Western economic values in Asia, which led to the 'Asian values', happened during and because the Clinton Administration's policies.

2. Mahathir Mohammad, then Prime Minister of Malaysia, accused George Soros as the one that triggered the region's monetary crises.

[taxed2death]

“The US has only three true allies among the members of APEC...Australia,Japan and Taiwan. What would motivate us,other than a desire to be humiliated face-to-face,to attend?”

To show support for our “three true allies” in the area.

[snowsislander]

One forgets just what a klutz Gore could be and just how bad Clinton's policy was in Asia.

President Clinton's disastrous foreign policy was only equalled by the depths of folly achieved by President Carter.

[naturalman1975]

To show support for our “three true allies” in the area.

Which isn't a minor issue in Australia.

If President Bush doesn't attend, absent a major crisis which obviously prevents his attendance, it would likely significantly decrease John Howard's chance of winning this years election.

[Rocky]

Love to see Gore get slammed, but sorry to hear that Bush will not be attending to provide support to Howard.

Some of these international affairs, though, tend to be “traps” where anti-American powers put some resolution on the table and then dare the President to declare his position on it - a no-win situation meant only to embarrass him. I don’t know if something like that could happen here, I’m just speculating that that might explain his reluctance to go.

[Recovering_Democrat]

In Kuala Lumpur, Gore gave one of the stupidest speeches delivered by an American statesman in Asia.

How unsurprising.

[Gay State Conservative]

If President Bush doesn't attend, absent a major crisis which obviously prevents his attendance, it would likely significantly decrease John Howard's chance of winning this years election.

Wow..I didn't know that it would be considered to be so important in Australia.Wouldn't Australian voters understand that Bush's absence wouldn't be meant as a snub to Australia but,rather,to our other "allies"....China,Russia,South Korea,New Zealand,etc?

OK,given what you've said then I think that Mr Bush should make it point to attend.

[naturalman1975]

Wow..I didn't know that it would be considered to be so important in Australia.Wouldn't Australian voters understand that Bush's absence wouldn't be meant as a snub to Australia but,rather,to our other "allies"....China,Russia,South Korea,New Zealand,etc?

Some would - but here's the reason there's a problem.

One thing most Australians admire about John Howard - and this, importantly, includes those who don't admire much else about him - is that he has greatly boosted Australia's international profile, and strengthened our relationship with the United States. Even those who may dislike everything else he has done, generally concede that.

The people who admire most things about Howard will vote for him anyway - to win, he needs to get those who are undecided to vote for him - and for a lot of these, the impact he has had on Australia's international standing is significant.

World leaders - and most especially the most powerful of those leaders, the President of the United States, failing to attend the APEC summit in Sydney - would be seized on by the Opposition, and the media opposed to Howard as a sign that Australia's standing isn't as high as people think, and that the US doesn't actually take the relationship seriously - it doesn't matter if it's true or not, it's the perception that would be a problem. And it could persuade some voters.

Something that Americans may not realise is that a lot of Australians feel the United States has always taken our alliance for granted - and a lot of that feeling came from the fact that very few US Presidents have made official visits to Australia - Lyndon Johnson was the first - he visited twice - but then no serving US President visited Australia until President Bush in 1992 - twenty five years between visits, through Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan. Since the 1992 visit, US Presidents have visited more often - Clinton visited twice, and the current President has visited once. And that is important to a lot of Australians as a symbol the US takes Australia seriously.

APEC is an Australian invention - established by the initiative of the Hawke government in 1989. In a sense, it is one of the most internationally significant Australia has ever created. That also makes it important symbolically.

And, as embarassing as they may be on some levels, these are the types of images that come out of APEC.

The value of images like those to an Australian Prime Minister who wants to show the voters he has the standing to represent this nation are immense.

This doesn't mean President Bush has to come. President Bush should, and must, do what is in the best interests of his nation, and his administration (in that order). He has far more of a duty to those than to any foreign leader, even the leader of a closely allied nation. But, if it is possible to do both, then it would have value here. Current plans call for President Bush to spend about four days in Australia - cutting that short (to two, or even one day) wouldn't cause Howard major problems. Not coming at all - unless there is an obvious reason he can't come - could.

[Gay State Conservative]

Just saw an AP story written yesterday (31 August) which mentions,in passing,that Mr Bush will be attending an "Asian summit" next week.So it looks like he'll be in Sydney after all.

I'd stay away from Sydney if I were you.Security arrangements for any event that a US president attends are *very* strict (often to the point of rediculousness) and are always a huge pain in the a$$ for those who happen to find themselves nearby.

(It happened to me last summer while I was in Washington)

[naturalman1975]

Oh yes - security in Sydney is incredibly tight this week - it’s costing the Australian government alone $170 million, before even considering the costs of the security other nations provide. Sydney has been more or less locked down - President Bush is the biggest security concern, but the Premier of China, and others just add to it all.