Analysis: Int'l Media Interpret State of Union as Campaign Speech

This product was prepared jointly by FBIS and the State Department's Media Reaction Team.

(FBIS Media Analysis) International: Commentators Interpret State of Union as Campaign Speech; Emphasize Omission of Topics of Regional and Global ConcernEditorials in the world's press were largely critical of President Bush's 20 January State of the Union address, characterizing it as a domestic political campaign speech justifying the administration's record rather than laying out a program for the future. In particular, print journalists faulted the speech's failure to address some major issues of global and regional concern, including next steps in Iraq, the fate of the Middle East road map, and the global economy -- all issues that had generated global editorial commentary even before the State of the Union address. Based on these criticisms, the speech generated overall negative comment in 62 percent of the 274 editorials collected by US embassy staff and FBIS monitors in 70 countries. About a third of the editorials also offered their verdict on the efficacy of the Administration's global anti-terror strategy. While most who commented on the strategy were skeptical or negative, the rest pointed to Saddam's capture, Libya's decision to abandon WMD programs, and Iran's agreement to IAEA inspections as evidence that the strategy is working.

Media reaction collected by US Embassy and FBIS monitors in the week following President Bush's annual message to Congress was more negative than positive in tone. The spread of views on this speech was within the range of previous INR surveys of foreign editorial opinion on selected US policies.

Many commentators expressed disappointment that, in their view, the speech was primarily a political campaign event, focused on justifying the Administration's past actions rather than on charting a way into the future. Global media outlets echoed the observation of a writer in the Norwegian Oslo Aftenposten who argued that "politically his most interesting message lay in what (President Bush) did NOT say" (22 January). The most glaring omission, according to global commentators, was mention of the Middle East road map, noted in 64 editorials, 22 percent of all the opinion pieces monitored. In the region itself, 77 percent of commentaries remarked upon the omission. Also prominent in editorialists' lists of omissions was a fuller explanation of the role that WMD had played in the run-up to the war in Iraq as well as a more detailed explanation of how the Administration will cope with present and future problems in Iraq. Some opinion pieces expressed concern about the speech's relative silence on the state of the global economy and the role that US economic policy will play in a world-wide recovery.