The Truth About George W. Bush

Rogue Nation

Secretary of State Powell Sticks Close to Home
Secretary of State Colin Powell is on track to become the least traveled secretary of state in three decades, according to records maintained by the State Department's historian. In Powell's view, news reports say, he is bringing the job of secretary of state back to its core purpose of managing foreign policy from Washington. He travels when necessary, as briefly as possible, and reaches out to foreign leaders by telephone and to foreign audiences with repeated television interviews. However, some leading foreign policy specialists—even some State Department officials—have wondered whether Powell's travel schedule has in some ways contributed to the United States' weakened image abroad. They argue that behind-the-scenes actions, such as telephone calls, carry much less impact overseas in an era when public diplomacy is increasingly important in advancing foreign policy goals. "Telephoning is necessary but not sufficient," said former U.N. ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke, who many believe would be a leading candidate for secretary of state if John F. Kerry wins the presidential election. "In the modern age, like it or not, secretaries have to travel. There is no alternative." Powell has been on the road for 180 days in the 42 months of his tenure. His immediate predecessors—Madeleine Albright, Warren Christopher and James Baker—all averaged nearly 150% of that at a similar time in their posts.
Sources: "Colin Powell Flies in the Face of Tradition," Glen Kessler, The Washington Post, July 14, 2004; "Powell prefers phone to plane," Alec Russell, The Daily Telegraph, July 15, 2004

U.S. Faces Lasting Damage Abroad
U.S. officials and foreign policy experts say the ability of the Bush administration to make serious headway on a range of foreign policy goals has been called into question as a result of the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal. "It's a blinding glimpse of the obvious to say we're in a hole," conceded Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, who added that the backlash in Europe is even greater than in the 22-nation Arab world. In public and private communications, European officials have reportedly become increasingly critical of the U.S., and experts say that the scandal will not only compromise the Bush administration's goal of promoting democracy in the Middle East, the humiliating photographs will incite terrorist groups to act against the U.S. Meanwhile, deep divisions are emerging among senior military officials over the course of the occupation. Some have reportedly said that the U.S. could face casualties for years without establishing a free and democratic Iraq. Some officers say the place to begin restructuring U.S. policy is by ousting Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, whom they see as responsible for a series of strategic and tactical blunders over the past year. Several of those interviewed said a profound anger is building within the Army at Rumsfeld and those around him. A May 10 editorial in the Army Times, an influential private military paper, called the scandal "not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential—even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war."
Sources: "U.S. Faces Lasting Damage Abroad," Robin Wright, The Washington Post, May 7, 2004; "Dissension Grows In Senior Ranks on War Strategy," Thomas E. Ricks, The Washington Post, May 9, 2004; "Rumsfeld Criticized by Influential Military Paper," Charles Aldinger, Reuters, May 10, 2004

Support for Bush Continues to Dwindle in the U.S. and Around the Globe
A March 2004 Washington Post ABC News Poll found that George W. Bush's disapproval ratings are at their highest ever. With more than 48 percent of Americans dissatisfied with Bush's overall performance and 36 percent strongly disapproving, the administration has seen a clearly damaging shift in public opinion influenced by the Democratic primary season, a debilitating economy, and growing uncertainty over the Iraq situation. Currently, the war on terror is the only issue where Bush continues to receive majority support—6 in 10 Americans approve of Bush's actions. Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry leads Bush in 8 of 12 policy areas, with the public supporting him on issues such as the economy (61 percent) and the budget deficit (70 percent) and tying Bush on Iraq, civil liberties and same-sex marriage. The poll also found that the public sees Bush as a divider when national unity is vital, and that nearly 75 percent—an increase from 58 percent in December—see Bush as catering to corporate interests over those of the individual citizen. While Kerry, in a hypothetical presidential match-up, is ahead of the president 48 to 44 percent, 60% of Kerry supporters say they are voting against Bush and not in favor of Kerry.
Sources: Dana Milbank and Richard Morin, "Support for Bush Falls On Economy and Iraq," The Washington Post, March 9, 2004.

Surveys Find Falling Opinion of U.S. Overseas, Belief that Iraq War Increased Terrorist Threat
Two new international polls, conducted one year after the invasion of Iraq, found slipping support for the U.S. war on terrorism in Europe and predominantly negative views of the U.S. in all foreign countries surveyed. In a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, views of Bush were strikingly low in Europe and the Muslim countries: Only 14 percent of Germans, 15 percent of the French, 28 percent of Russians and 7 percent of Pakistanis viewed Bush favorably. The opinions represented a dramatic reversal from 1991, when 75 percent of Germans and 72 percent of Russians had a favorable view of President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father. A similar poll conducted by AP-Ipsos on Feb. 12-21, 2004, indicated that a majority of the people living in Britain, Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Mexico and Spain have an unfavorable view of the role that Bush plays in world affairs, and that they think the war in Iraq increased the threat of terrorism in the world.
Sources: The Pew Research Center, March 16, 2004; AP/Ipsos Poll, March 5, 2004.

Bush Re-Asserts Pre-Emptive Strategy
About to embark on his longest trip to Asia, Bush re-asserted "America's right to take pre-emptive action against its enemies." The New York Times reports that Bush's comments, "marked an assertive declaration of what he called 'a new American strategy'." Bush said, "America is following a new strategy. We are not waiting for further attacks. We are striking our enemies before they strike us." Bush's pre-emption strategy was unveiled 13 months ago in a national security strategy "that has come to define a major turn in America's approach to the world." Some Asian diplomats have expressed concern that Bush's "affinity for direct language and his determination to turn an economic policy meeting in Thailand into a forum on security issues could backfire, exacerbating the president's public image in the region as a leader who is intent on expanding American influence, by military needs if necessary." In California, instead of moderating his tone Bush declared that America was still at war and that "wars are won on the offensive." Get more information on NOW's progressive agenda for peace.
Source: New York Times, "Bush Re-Asserts Pre-Emptive Strategy in Speech," Oct. 16, 2003.

Bush Suspends Aid to 35 Countries for Refusing Immunity to Americans in International Criminal Court
According to the New York Times, the Bush administration has halted all military assistance to 35 countries because they are refusing to grant Americans immunity before the newly formed International Criminal Court. The court was created to prosecute individuals charged with crimes against humanity and the treaty creating it has been ratified by more than 90 countries. The White House, which withdrew U.S. support for the court a year ago, contends that the court will be used to bring politically motivated charges against American officials. Yet supporters of the court indicate that safeguards have already been established to lessen the possibility of such political maneuvers. The aid that has been withdrawn was intended for training programs and financing weapons and equipment purchases—some of which may have been purchased from the U.S.—for countries that are essential in the stabilization of the Western Hemisphere and some of those attempting to modernize their armies with hopes of joining NATO. According to the Washington Post, this pressure to grant Americans immunity puts countries such as Croatia in a difficult bind as they attempt to demonstrate their commitment to the rule of law and justice in order to forward their bid to become NATO members.
Sources: New York Times, "U.S. Suspends Aid to 35 Countries Over New International Court," Elizabeth Becker, July 2, 2003; Washington Post, "U.S. May Cut Aid Over Court Immunity: About 35 Nations Could Lose Funds," Peter Slevin, July 1, 2003.

Washington Bullies Belgium with Threats to Withdraw Funding for NATO Headquarters
According to the Washington Post, the White House is threatening to withdraw any additional funding for a new NATO headquarters to be built in Belgium unless the country "repeals a law under which its courts have entertained war crimes complaints against former president George H. W. Bush and other U.S. leaders." The 1993 law—which BBC Worldwide Monitoring reports already allows "functional immunity" for NATO representatives—allows Belgian courts to judge suspects accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, regardless of where the crimes were committed or the nationality of the accused or the victims. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insists that he will boycott the autumn meeting of NATO defense ministers if Belgium refuses to attend to U.S. concerns. In addition, the Washington Post reported that the Bush administration is "pressing foreign governments to exempt members of (U.S.) armed forces from the jurisdiction of the newly created International Criminal Court."
Sources: BBC Worldwide Monitoring, "Former Belgian NATO Chief Warns U.S. NATO Threat Serious," No Author, June 18, 2003; Agence France Presse, "Belgium Under Pressure Over War Crimes Law," No Author, June 13, 2003; Washington Post, "Rumsfeld Says Belgian Law Could Imperil Funds for NATO," Vernon Loeb, June 13, 2003.

Bush's Commitment to New International Funding Initiatives Appears Hollow
After initially receiving tremendous accolades for his new initiatives for foreign aid, Bush's proposals—including the $10 billion, three-year promise known as the Millennium Challenge Account, and the $15 billion, five-year HIV/AIDS initiative he signed at the end of May—may not be "funded at the levels the initial headlines suggested," according to the Washington Post. When Bush first signed the HIV/AIDS legislation—which included controversial provisions regarding the promotion of abstinence, the refusal to work with prostitutes, and permission for religious groups to reject any AIDS fighting strategy to which they object—Congressional Democrats were deriding the White House's commitment to the program as "hollow." According to the Post, "Bush's first-year request for his new initiatives couldn't all be spent wisely" due in large part to the fact that "the administration has been slow to gear them up."
Sources: Washington Post, "U.S. Aid Plan Comes Up Short: Bush Proposal Wins Praise, But Not Congressional Appropriation," Paul Blustein, June 22, 2003; Washington Post, "Bush Signs $15 Billion AIDS Bill; Funding Questioned," Amy Goldstein & Dan Morgan, May 28, 2003.

U.S. Officials Consider Plans for Death Row in Guantanamo Bay
The Mail on Sunday reported late last month that U.S. officials are discussing the establishment of a death row or execution chamber for prisoners of war being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Los Angeles Times indicated that the Pentagon is currently forming recommendations as to which prisoners being held at Guantanamo—alleged Afghani terrorists who have been held for as many as 18 months without being charged—will face military tribunals, most likely in Guantanamo Bay. The Los Angeles Times also noted that Bush will probably not act on these recommendations until this summer, at the earliest, and that "only a handful of the detainees would initially be sent to military court." The very existence of the prison camp at Guantanamo has elicited international criticism of the U.S. for breaching the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war. In describing the plan, the Mail on Sunday stated that prisoners would be "tried, convicted and executed without ever leaving (the prison camp's) boundaries—without a jury and without right of appeal"—a possibility that horrifies human rights groups and the lawyers representing the detainees.
Sources: Mail on Sunday, "Death Camp Planned at Guantanamo Bay," Jo Knowsley, Sharon Churcher and Amanda Perthen, May 25, 2003; Los Angeles Times, "Base Preparing for Possible Tribunals," Richard A. Serrano, June 3, 2003.

Bush's "War on Terror" Condemned for Worsening the State of the World
Amnesty International's 2002 annual report on global human rights abuses proclaimed the world to be a more dangerous place due to increasingly repressive governments, the curbing of human rights, and the undermining of international law in the wake of Bush's "war on terror." The annual report targeted the U.S. for criticism because of many actions it has taken in the name of state security. Specifically, Amnesty denounced the U.S. for detention of hundreds of prisoners in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba without charge or trial. As quoted by the New York Times, Irene Khan, Amnesty's secretary general, described these violations as "a human rights scandal." In addition, she charged that the U.S. "continues to pick and choose which bits of its obligations under international law it will use, and when it will use them."
Sources: Reuters, "Amnesty International: 'War on Terror' has made World Worse," Gideon Long, May 28, 2003; New York Times, "Amnesty Calls World Less Safe," Sarah Lyall, May 28, 2003.

Bush Underestimates Complexity of Middle East Conflict
Despite Bush's presence at the Middle East Peace Summit in Jordan—convened with hopes of establishing a plan toward resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—the Washington Post indicated that Bush's "hands-off approach" in this peace initiative may fail to produce his objective of adjacent and peaceful Israeli and Palestinian states. Based on comments by current and former aides, the Washington Post reports that Bush "has shown little interest in the details of the complex disputes in the region and remains skeptical of intervening deeply in the negotiating process." In addition, the Washington Post noted that some aides have been astonished by Bush's comments that seem to naively underestimate the complexity of the conflict and the obstacles toward the two-state solution that he supports.
Source: Washington Post, "Bush Sticks to the Broad Strokes In Mideast Peace Push, President Wary of Details and Deep Intervention," Glenn Kessler, June 3, 2003.

Bush Administration Pursues New Era of Nuclear Weapons
Buoyed by recent developments in Congress that will, according to the Los Angeles Times, allow the administration to "fully explore their options" to restore the U.S. nuclear weapons complex and rapidly "develop and test such arms," the Bush administration is pursuing a new era of smaller, less powerful nuclear weapons. The Senate Armed Services Committee voted to end a 10-year-old ban on the development of small nuclear arms, and the repeal of this ban is expected to pass the full House and Senate as part of the defense authorization bill later this month. In addition, the committee approved the administration's request for funds by allotting $46.5 million to conduct further research on advanced nuclear weapons concepts and to allow the Pentagon to recommence nuclear weapons testing. Despite denials of plans to build such bombs, according to The Nation, the Bush administration is the first since World War II to endorse a policy not based on nuclear arms control.
Sources: Los Angeles Times, "Bush is Seeking Newer, Smaller Nuclear Bomb," Paul Richter, May 13, 2003; The Nation, "The WMD Follies," Robert Scheer, May 13, 2003.

Bush Administration Moves to Shield Human Rights Abusers
The Bush administration moved to block the ability of victims of human rights abuses committed abroad to sue their alleged abusers for civil damages in U.S. courts. Filing a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of Unocal-which is facing a suit alleging it was involved in a number of human rights abuses committed by the Burmese army-the Department of Justice also indicated it wants to "deny victims the right to sue ... for abuses committed abroad." According to Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth, "This is a craven attempt to protect human rights abusers at the expense of victims." The suit brought by Holocaust survivors against Swiss banks in 1996 is one example of the type of cases that would not have been heard by U.S. courts if victims of human rights abuses did not have the ability to file these suits.
Source: Human Rights Watch, "U.S.: Ashcroft Attacks Human Rights Law," May 15, 2003

Bush Ignores Allies' Human Rights Abuses
Human Rights Watch criticized the United States for "turning a blind eye" to human rights abuses by Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia and other allies in the war against terrorism. Although the group's director Kenneth Roth stressed that the United States is far from being the world's most repressive government, he did point out that the Bush administration has initiated a "copycat phenomenon" and that other governments also feel justified in ignoring human rights in the name of fighting terrorism. Human Rights Watch also expressed concern that by backing repressive regimes, the United States was eroding support among the population in many allies in the war against terror.
Source: Agence France Presse, "War on Terror Stifling Human Rights: Human Rights Watch," Magan Crane, Jan. 14, 2003

Bush Administration Using Questionable Military Interrogation Techniques
A recent Washington Post report raised serious questions about the United States' use of "stress and duress" techniques during interrogations of al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners held in overseas interrogation centers. According to U.S. officials, suspected al Qaeda operatives are often deprived of sleep (a technique the United States previously has denounced); bound in uncomfortable and painful positions; blindfolded and subjected to loud noises; and thrown into walls. Questions have also been raised about the practice of rendition, where the United States turns over prisoners for questioning to other nations, including nations such as Jordan and Morocco that reportedly use brutal interrogation techniques. At least one U.S. official acknowledged that prisoners who were handed over to repressive governments "were likely to be abused." According the Washington Post, "The picture that emerges is of a brass-knuckled quest for information, often in concert with allies of dubious human rights reputation."
Source: Washington Post, "U.S. Decries Abuse but Defends Interrogations," Dana Priest and Barton Gellman, Dec. 26, 2002

Administration Refuses Developing Nations Access to Low-Cost Medicines
The Bush administration killed an agreement that would have helped poor countries access cheaper drugs by allowing them to override drug patents and import generic drugs from abroad. Talks at the World Trade Organization broke down after the United States indicated it was unwilling to support an agreement that would have expanded the range of low-cost drugs countries could import beyond drugs for HIV/AIDS and 15 "tropical diseases." Developing nations were seeking a compromise that would also include medicines for conditions such as asthma and diabetes. Developing countries criticized theUnited States, and health advocates accused the Bush administration of caving to pressure from the pharmaceutical industry. According to the Associated Press, the United States was the only country that "openly refused" to support the agreement.
Source: The Associated Press, "WTO Talks on Cheap Drugs Collapse," Naomi Koppel, Dec. 20, 2002

Decline in World Opinion of U.S. Policy Coincides with Bush Government
Although most of the world still views the United States and its citizens favorably, a Pew Research Center poll showed that the country's image had suffered during the past two years—which coincides with Bush & Co.'s rule. The poll found that while U.S. technology and culture are widely admired by those polled in 44 countries, the majority also believes that the United States "acts without giving proper consideration to the interests of other countries, contributes to the growing worldwide gap between the rich and the poor and has failed to do its part to address world problems." A majority of those polled also questioned the country's motives in the impending showdown with Iraq, which overwhelming majorities in allied nations believe is fueled by the government's desire to control Iraqi oil fields.
Source: Washington Post, "World Image of U.S. Declines," Richard Morin, Dec. 5, 2002

Bush's Deadly Attacks Questioned
Questions have been raised about the recent U.S. missile attack on alleged al Qaeda terrorists in Yemen. According to Amnesty International, the attacks could be in "violation of international human rights law" if they represented "the deliberate killing of suspects in lieu of arrest." The attack, which was labeled "a highly successful tactical operation" by Bush's Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, killed six suspected al Qaeda members, including a U.S. citizen and a USS Cole bombing suspect.
Source: Reuters, "Rights Group Questions Attack," Nov. 9, 2002

Bush Drops Support for Strengthening Biological Weapons Convention
The Bush administration recently announced that it will not support efforts to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention and that it wishes to postpone discussions of proposed treaty revisions until 2006. The Convention, which bans the "development, production and stockpiling of germ warfare agents," does not include measures to ensure compliance. Negotiations to build enforcement mechanisms into the treaty have been underway for nearly seven years. A conference on these proposals (which are supported by many of the United States' allies) had been scheduled for November, after the Bush administration abruptly walked out of last year's discussions.
Source: Washington Post, "U.S. Drops Bid to Strengthen Germ Warfare Accord," Peter Slevin, Sept. 19, 2002

Powell Describes the Administration's Idea of International Cooperation
According to a Washington Post report, Secretary of State Colin Powell provided some insight into the administration's disdain for multilateralism and cooperation when he explained earlier this year how Bush works out disagreements about foreign policy with allies. "He tries to persuade others why that is the correct position," Powell said. "When it does not work, then we will take the position we believe is correct."
Source: Washington Post, "Diplomatic Gap Between U.S., Its Allies Widens," Glenn Kessler, Sept. 1, 2002

Administration Opposes Measures to Increase Renewable Energy
The United States, the world's largest polluter, joined Australia, the world's largest per capita polluter, Saudi Arabia and several other nations at the Earth Summit in opposing proposals to substantially increase the use of renewable energy sources. These cleaner energy sources, such as wind power and solar energy, are less polluting than the fossil fuel-based technologies in use today.
Source: Agence France Presse, " 'Meaningless' Renewable Energy Targets on Table at Summit: WWF," Aug. 27, 2002

Bush Praises a Dictator Who Refuses to Clean Up His Act
In contrast to the disapproving remarks by the U.S. Department of State and White House Spokesperson Ari Fleischer, Bush praised Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf when asked the about the latter's move to expand and entrench his powers. Musharraf, one of Bush's steadfast allies in the war against terrorism, amended Pakistan's constitution to extend his mandate by five years and grant himself the right to dissolve parliament. Despite these and other anti-democratic changes, Bush indicated that he appreciates Musharraf because "he's still tight with us on the war against terror" and "understands that we've got to keep al Qaeda on the run." Bush also thanked Musharraf for the "strong support" the Pakistani dictator has offered. After making these comments, Bush added, "We will continue to work with our friends and allies to promote democracy, give people a chance to express their opinions the proper way."
Sources: The Washington Post, "Democracy as Afterthought," Aug. 25, 2002; Agence France Presse, "Bush Says U.S. 'Still Tight' with Musharraf," Olivier Knox, Aug. 23, 2002

Bush Administration Disses Earth Summit
Signaling to many his lack of interest in global environmental problems, Bush declined to participate in the U.N. World Summit on Sustainable Development (the Earth Summit) in South Africa, which opened on Aug. 26. The summit was attended by approximately 100 heads of state, including President Jacques Chirac of France, Prime Minister Gerhard Schroeder of Germany and President Vicente Fox of Mexico.
Source: Natural Resources Defense Council, "Global Summit Aims for Real World Impact," Aug. 14, 2002

Bush Intervenes in Human Rights Case Against Exxon Mobil
The Bush administration, through its intervention on behalf of a U.S. oil firm facing a human-rights lawsuit, again made it clear that it is willing to ignore international human-rights standards if they interfere with the corporate bottom line. The International Labor Rights Fund, a U.S.-based nonprofit, sued Exxon Mobil Corp. on behalf of eleven plaintiffs in U.S. Federal Court. The suit alleges that Exxon Mobil was complicit in the "murder, torture, crimes against humanity, sexual violence and kidnapping" perpetrated by the Indonesian military. The U.S. State Department, which under the Clinton administration generally remained neutral in this type of case, interceded on behalf of Exxon Mobil and asked the U.S. district judge to dismiss the lawsuit. The courts, not the administration, should determine whether Exxon Mobil acted as a good corporate citizen.
Source: Human Rights Watch, "U.S./Indonesia: Bush Backtracks on Corporate Responsibility," Aug. 7, 2002

Administration Flip-Flops on Women's Treaty
The Bush administration flip-flopped on the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Initially it identified CEDAW as a "Category II Treaty," meaning it was "generally desirable and should be approved." But, reportedly in response to howls of protest from Bush's ultra-right-wing supporters, the State Department changed its tune, calling the treaty "vague." The Bush administration also indicated that it wants John Ashcroft's Justice Department to review the treaty before the Senate votes on it. CEDAW has been ratified by 169 nations—nearly every other country in the world.
Source: Scripps Howard News Service, "U.S. retreats on U.N. pact backing women's rights," Lisa Hoffman, July 22, 2002

Bush Blocks Expansion of Security Force in Afghanistan
The Bush administration continued to block the expansion of the mission, size, and jurisdiction of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) beyond the capital, Kabul. Expansion of the ISAF would help protect Afghan women against rapes, beatings, and other horrific violence committed on a daily basis. However, key lawmakers have asked Bush to reconsider his decision because the ISAF is a crucial element for the successful rebuilding of Afghanistan.
Source: New York Times, "Lawmakers Urge Bush to Expand Afghan Force Beyond Kabul," James Dao, June 27, 2002

Administration Weakens Agreement on Children's Rights
The administration sided with countries such a Sudan, Syria and Iraq at the first U.N. children's summit to water down an agreement to protect the rights of children over concerns regarding language on sex education, contraception and abortion. Bush's representatives were also successful in excluding the United States from an agreement exempting children under 18 from the death penalty or life imprisonment.
Source: The Associated Press, "U.N. Summit Pledges to Help Children, but U.S. Demands Disappoint Some," Edit M. Lederer, May 11, 2002

Administration Opposes Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
The United States did not attend a United Nations conference on the nuclear test ban treaty, signaling its displeasure with the treaty. Although the Test Ban Treaty cannot go into effect until the 44 countries that have nuclear weapons or programs have ratified the agreement, it has been signed by 161 nations and ratified by 84. The United States also forced a vote in the United Nation's committee on Disarmament and Security to demonstrate its opposition to the Test Ban Treaty. The United States was the only nation to vote against the treaty.
Source: The Associated Press, "U.S. Boycotts U.N. Conference on Nuclear Test Ban Treaty," Gerald Nadler, Nov. 11, 2001

United States Boycotts Conference on Racism
The United States withdrew from participation in the International Conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa, despite pleas from world leaders to attend the conference. The United States did not send a delegation to the conference due to concerns "that Arab nations would use the forum to equate Zionism with racism and apartheid."
Source: United Press International, "Annan Urges U.S. Not to Boycott Conference," Aug. 27, 2001

Bush Refuses to Back Clean Energy Sources
The G-8 group of industrial nations (United States, Canada, Japan, Russia, Germany, Italy, France, and the U.K.) agreed on an International Plan for Cleaner Energy while the United States opposed the proposal at a meeting in Genoa, Italy. The plan would have phased out subsidies for fossil fuel and would have increased financing for clean energy projects.
Source: The New York Times, "U.S. Set to Oppose International Plan for Cleaner Energy," Joseph Kahn, July 14, 2001

Administration Underfunds AIDS Fund, Weakens AIDS Negotiations
The Bush administration pledged $200 million for the new United Nations AIDS trust fund, a sum well below the amount U.N. and international relief groups expected the United States to contribute. The advocacy group the Global Treatment Access Campaign also accused the U.S. delegation of consistently undercutting support for lifesaving AIDS medication, refusing to support an expansion of the antiquated Essential Drugs List, which currently does not include many AIDS-related medications, and refusing to discuss condoms and other accepted HIV prevention methods at the annual World Health Assembly.
Source: Health GAP Coalition, "After Underfunding UN AIDS Trust Fund, Bush Administration Colludes With Drug Industry to Block AIDS Medication and Care Proposals at World Health Assembly," Asia Russell, May 18, 2001

Administration Abandons Crackdown on Tax Havens
The Bush administration indicated it intends to abandon the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Harmful Tax Competition initiative, and effort to eliminate tax havens. Although it only intended to scale back its participation, U.S. officials privately admit that the administration's stance effectively kills the agreement. According to the Washington Post, the administration's decision was fueled by "concerns the effort would lead to higher domestic taxes."
Source: The Washington Post, "U.S. to Abandon Crackdown on Tax Havens," Dana Milbank, May 11, 2001

United States Booted off Human Rights Body
The United States was not re-elected to the United Nations Human Rights Commission, marking the first time that the United States is not on the committee since its creation in 1947. U.S. and foreign diplomats indicated that the move follows increasing frustration with the United States for its unwillingness to comply with international agreements and to pay dues owed to the United Nations.
Source: The Associated Press, "U.S. Loses Seat on U.N. Human Rights Commission," Robin McDowell, May 4, 2001

Bush Withdraws from Kyoto Protocol
The Bush administration declared the Kyoto Protocol on global warming "dead on arrival" and announced that it will not submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification. According to Bush—who earlier in the month backtracked on a campaign pledge to implement mandatory cuts in carbon dioxide emissions—"scientific knowledge about global warming [is] incomplete."
Source: Agence France Presse, "Bush Won't Back Kyoto Climate Treaty: White House," Olivier Knox, March 28, 2001