The Guardian

Millions of Americans are scratching their heads over how to vote on November 2 after the last of the three televised presidential debates left George Bush and John Kerry neck and neck over jobs, education, health care and taxes, with little mention of Iraq or 9/11. But the rest of the world, according to a poll we and several other newspapers publish today, has already made up its mind, backing the Democratic challenger by a margin of two to one.

Any sample, of course, is just a sample, but this survey of public opinion in 10 countries does include the US's two immediate neighbours, Canada and Mexico, as well as Israel and Russia, Washington's close allies in the "war on terror", and Britain, still its most loyal transatlantic friend, despite widespread criticism of Tony Blair. Unfortunately, Muslim countries are absent, though their inclusion would have made even gloomier reading for the White House. A recent Pew Research Centre poll, for example, showed just 7% of Pakistanis approve of Mr Bush, while 65% have a favourable opinion of Osama bin Laden.

These findings - likely to achieve a high degree of exposure because they are media-driven - confirm previous polls in underlining the degree of global hostility to President Bush and the Iraq war. Some 74% of Germans, according to GlobeScan, want to see Mr Kerry win the election. A June poll conducted by the German Marshall Fund found that 76% of respondents in nine European countries disapproved of Mr Bush's handling of international affairs, up significantly from a survey in 2002. It also found that 80% of Europeans polled - compared with half of Americans - said Iraq was not worth the human and financial cost. In Europe, only Poles would rather see Mr Bush back in the Oval office. Elsewhere in "new Europe" there is a distinctly "old European" wish to see the Massachusetts senator win. Further afield, Israelis are the only people to back the incumbent and to see American democracy as a model for other countries. Similarly positive views in Russia appear to reflect the hardline US view on Chechen terrorism: the survey was carried out in the aftermath of the Beslan school massacre.

Against this bleak background, the good news is that there is a clear distinction between anti-Americanism and criticism of US policies. No less than 68% of all those polled - with the French, Mr Kerry's most fervent backers, scoring a surprising above-average 72% - have a favourable view of Americans but are implacably opposed to the US government. Opinions of the US have worsened for 57% over the past three years.

Strikingly, though, political differences may now be casting shadows in other areas. Young Britons, avid consumers of Big Macs, Starbucks and Friends, are now hostile to American culture on a scale traditionally associated with the French. Canada, Mexico and South Korea feel even more threatened. It is common ground that Iraq and the Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib scandals have eroded the sympathy generated by the 2001 terrorist attacks. Encouragingly for whoever does win, 90% believe it is important to maintain good relations with the US. The danger is, perhaps, of expecting too much from a Kerry victory.

Mr Bush may well wish to exploit this hostility, against a rival he has portrayed as caring too much for allies and not enough for America. Clearly, if the world had a vote, the result on November 2 would not be in doubt. The president is unlikely to be surprised that the Guardian, Asahi Shimbun, Le Monde or El Pais believe that Iraq is a "deadly and highly questionable war". That though, is the view of the Lone Star Iconoclast, published in his home town of Crawford, Texas. It matters a lot what others think about the US. But it is only Americans who can choose their own leader.

Those who truly know history can appreciate the parallel to England's pre-WWII leader when he had the world's backing in his "Peace Treaty" with Adolph Hitler.

Only Winston Churchill called Chamberlain a fool. And the world instead ostracized Churchill at the time and marginalized him as a lone wolf crying in the dark.

Yep, sheep certainly love to pack together. Thank God in Bush we have someone who knows to drink upstream from the herd.

And those who truly know history won't compare Bush to Churchill!

How confused you MUST be to compare the poor, poverty stricken third world country of Iraq with that of Germany of 1930s and 40s?  Iraq couldn't make a single aircraft, battleship, anything resembling a modern army. Whatever little they had, was bought.

How could you compare that with a highly modern and technical Germany, on the brink of making nuclear weapons, submarines, figher planes.

Don't permit to be brainwashed.  There is no parallels between Iraq and Germany.  Germany was truly a major power,and a threat.  

Don't you read papers?  Don't you know there was no weapons of mass destruction there?



-- Modified on 10/17/2004 11:50:29 PM

A weakened U.S. is in the best interest of a lot of countries around the world. Since we are almost the sole Superpower remaining it works to the advantage of many nations if we have a weaker leader. That weaker leader would be John Kerry. Remember, Kerry is the guy who thinks we need to pass an international "litmus" test before we can act to defend ourselves.

The question you have to ask yourself is do you want the US to be in a weaker position to appease other countries.

With all do respect, you are wrong on your recolection of post WWI Germany's economic situation, or should I say plight.  Don't forget they were sadled with hughe war reparations, runaway inflation and unemployment.

I guess selective reading of history will alow you to forget that one of the reasons that Hitler came to power (via an election I might add) was how shitty their economy was at that time.  Their currency was better used for toilet paper it was so worthless.

You must confuse modern germany with the germany between the WW's.

Yes Hitler's Nazi party came to power with perhaps 25 to 30 % of the vote. But Hitler was not elected Chancelor, he took that position thru manipulation and force. Germany had an inflationary ecomomy but it also had a huge industrial complex military and otherwise. They had an educated advanced population and Hitler put them to work buiding a masssive army. Their national pride was strong and the Nazi's played on that. They claimed it was weak leadership that lost WW1 and not the military. Iraq is a fucking desert with oil and not much else. They have to buy everything they need for an army some where else. To compare Hussien to Hitler is just insane.    Bob

We don't want to be weaker, but we certainly don't want to be a bully.