Bush Administration critiqued by Christopher

  MIKE CHIEN Former Secretary of State Warren
Christopher speaks in Korn Hall Wednesday evening, where
he offers a one-year assessment of the Bush Administration.

By Dexter Gauntlett
Daily Bruin Staff

Former Secretary of State Warren Christopher made stark
contrasts between the Clinton and recent Bush Administration in his
one-year assessment of the current administration at UCLA Wednesday
evening.

Though he applauded the president’s role in forming an
international coalition after Sept. 11, he also assaulted
Bush’s “unilateral decisions” that, prior to the
World Trade Center attack, “seemed determined to bend the
world to its will” without offering other nations much in
return, he said to about 300 people.

“In sum, in the first two-thirds of the year, America
stood stubbornly apart from other nations on issue after
issue,” the former Clinton appointee said.

Christopher ridiculed the international agreements that Bush
backed away from, including the Kyoto Protocol ““ a treaty
that seeks to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. At a conference
in Bonn, Germany, the treaty was adopted, with a margin of 178 to
one, with only the United States opposing.

Other agreements that displeased Christopher when Bush abandoned
them include the Small Arms Control Pact, the Biological Weapons
protocol, the Comprehensive Test ban Treaty, the Anti-ballistic
Missile Treaty and the treaty to create an international criminal
court.

Christopher acknowledged that in many instances, there may have
been reasons for the administration to object to key provisions of
the accords. He then criticized the drop in U.S. activity in
Arab-Israeli peacekeeping ““ to which Christopher believes the
United States is a crucial party.

“Without the U.S. presence, (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel)
Sharon and (Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser) Arafat let loose
their mutual loathing, violence escalated and instability in the
region increased,” he said.

Halfway through his speech, Christopher did a 180 and
complimented decisions Bush has made since Sept. 11. Contrary to
Bush’s presidential campaign that “scorned at the
thought that the U.S. might be involved in nation-building in
troubled countries abroad,” Bush has changed his ways, he
said.

“Now he sees (nation-building) in a different
light,” he said, adding that he was impressed by Bush’s
new commitment to learn from previous experience with Afghanistan
and the administration’s pledge of $300 million to the
war-torn country’s reconstruction last Sunday.

He also commended the immediate formation of the anti-terrorism
coalition and Bush’s camaraderie with Russian President
Vladimir Putin.

Their friendship, in addition to the events of Sept. 11, have
softened Russia and many other countries’ response to
Bush’s withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and other accords,
Christopher said.

He questioned, however, whether Bush’s multi-national
coalition for Afghanistan will result in permanent changes in the
attitude and foreign policies of the president, or if his decisions
will still be unilateral outside of terrorist policies.

Citing withdrawal from the ABM Treaty as a sign of inherent
unilateral beliefs, “there is little evidence of any lasting
change in the president’s thinking beyond the war on
terrorism,” he said.

Leif-Eric Easly, a recent UCLA graduate, heeded
Christopher’s point, but said he is optimistic the coalition
will represent a lasting change.

The question-and-answer portion of Christopher’s lecture
broke the ice on the subject many have been skating around in how
the United States should deal with Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

Hussein is the most problematic issue confronting Bush,
Christopher said. An assault on Iraq could lead to the coalition
dissolving, he said. Also, the Iraqi army is about 10 times that of
the Taliban’s.

And in a swift conclusion of his speech, Christopher honed in on
his view of how the Bush Administration should handle the existing
coalition.

“Terrorism will yield only to the aggressive coordination
of intelligence among all civilized nations,” he said.
“The nations of the world need each other, and the United
States is not exempt from that reality.”