<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Thursday, October 28, 2004

The Economist rediscovers its sense of shame 

I had made a post a couple of days wondering who the Economist would endorse for president. After having played the part of cheerleader-in-chief for Bush's 'catastrophic successes' for the better part of 4 years, it did seem like the Economist was beginning to have some doubts about the man they so heartily endorsed in 2000 over Al Gore. Today, they finally rediscovered some of their sense of shame and endorsed John Kerry for president. In their endorsement, the Economist paid particular attention to Abu Ghraib and Guantanomo Bay, two issues I feel havent received any attention either in the debates or in the dying days of the campaign.

The biggest mistake, though, was one that will haunt America for years to come. It lay in dealing with prisoners-of-war by sending hundreds of them to the American base at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, putting them in a legal limbo, outside the Geneva conventions and outside America's own legal system. That act reflected a genuinely difficult problem: that of having captured people of unknown status but many of whom probably did want to kill Americans, at a time when to set them free would have been politically controversial, to say the least. That difficulty cannot neutralise the damage caused by this decision, however. Today, Guantánamo Bay offers constant evidence of America's hypocrisy, evidence that is disturbing for those who sympathise with it, cause-affirming for those who hate it. This administration, which claims to be fighting for justice, the rule of law and liberty, is incarcerating hundreds of people, whether innocent or guilty, without trial or access to legal representation. The White House's proposed remedy, namely military tribunals, merely compounds the problem.

To succeed, however, America needs a president capable of admitting to mistakes and of learning from them. Mr Bush has steadfastly refused to admit to anything: even after Abu Ghraib, when he had a perfect opportunity to dismiss Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, and declare a new start, he chose not to. Instead, he treated the abuses as if they were a low-level, disciplinary issue.


The Economist describes the choice facing American voters as one between incompetence and incoherence. Errmmmm, doesnt President Bush qualify on both counts?