The New York Times
www.nytimes.com

The Two George W. Bushes

By ANTHONY LEWIS
April 14, 2001

In bringing the imbroglio with China successfully to an end, President Bush displayed qualities that had not been evident since he entered the White House. He was measured, and sensitive to the other party's interests and political needs.

It was in striking contrast to foreign policy moves that had U.S. allies talking worriedly about his unilateralism, arrogance, bullying. One was his sudden cancellation of talks with North Korea — to the embarrassment of the South Korean president, Kim Dae Jung, who was visiting Washington at the time. Another was his disavowal of the Kyoto protocol on global warming, which shocked Europeans.

Mr. Bush learned and adjusted during the China episode. After first brusquely demanding return of the U.S. spy plane's crew, he moderated his tone. He paid no attention to right-wing calls for punitive action, which would have delayed the crew's return and harmed both Chinese and American interests. (After the crew was freed he spoke more critically of China: a gesture to the right.)

The lesson of the episode should not have been lost on Mr. Bush. For all its power, the United States cannot just impose its will on the world. Unilateralism has limits, and costs.

The interesting question now is whether Mr. Bush will think about applying that lesson in domestic affairs. For on a whole host of domestic policy issues he has sought to impose his will even more starkly.

Environmental policy is a signal example. Mr. Bush and his people have proposed radical policy changes in defiance of public feelings and of his own campaign promises.

In a campaign speech in Miami last August, for instance, Mr. Bush said he would ask Congress to relieve developing countries of $100 million in debt in exchange for the protection of tropical forests. "These forests," he said, "affect the air we breathe, the food we eat, medicines that cure disease, and are home to more than half of earth's animal and plant species."

But in the budget he announced this week, Mr. Bush allowed just $13 million for tropical forest conservation. And that money will not come from a direct appropriation but will be diverted from the Agency for International Development.

Other policy changes made by the administration have outraged the most moderate of environmental organizations. The steps include disavowal of Mr. Bush's campaign promise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and indications that the administration will allow road-building in now-protected areas of the national forests.

The latest environmental move is notable for its sweeping character and slippery means. That is the Bush budget proposal that would undermine lawsuits to require the listing of particular animals and plants as endangered species. Instead of trying directly to amend the Endangered Species Act, the proposal would prohibit the expenditure of any funds to carry out court orders for listing — orders that up till now have forced most of the protective steps. Officials would be required to disregard court orders: a terrible proposition in a country that prides itself on adherence to law.

Passing these and similar proposals would involve Mr. Bush in bloody battles. The somnolent Democrats could be aroused by the environment issues. Al Gore, who has disappeared without a trace, could re-emerge. More important to Mr. Bush, his suburban supporters who care about the environment could become disaffected.

A certain logic, then, would counsel Mr. Bush to consult, consider the other side's interests and try to find mutual accommodations — on the pattern of the China episode. But there is a sharp difference in the situations.

Mr. Bush came to office with no profound foreign policy commitments. But in domestic matters it is payback time for his supporters — the right, business, religious groups. And there is a sense of vengeance, of getting even for years of frustration over, say, developers' inability to gut the Endangered Species Act.

And Mr. Bush's own ideology is involved, not only his supporters' wishes. But on environmental issues, above all, unilateralism is dangerous to him. Does he want to be remembered as a president who knowingly left the world a worse place for his children and grandchildren?