The world’s turned against America

In politics, five years is an eternity. Just take a look at the world’s views of US foreign policy on this week’s anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

France’s Libération provides the typical European appraisal: "The Bush administration has accomplished the tour de force of reducing the huge surge of compassion and solidarity which appeared throughout the world to nothing."

Belgium’s De Standaard argues that America has "played into Osama Bin Laden’s hands", "made the world a more dangerous place" and "fuelled hatred".

Not surprisingly, it prefers Europe’s approach: "negotiations" aimed at "building trust between the parties in a conflict". Yes, surely that would have worked better - look how much it has achieved in, say, Belgium.

Spain’s La Razón believes we are witnessing the start of a "conflagration on a planetary scale", in which Western nations are being "hounded by internal and external enemies".

Russian paper Kommersant notes that the wars since 9/11 have claimed more American lives than the terror attacks themselves. It also detects a significant shift in the world’s attitude towards America, according to the BBC translation service: "from a victim of terrorism the US turned for many into a country responsible for its spread".

Another Russian paper, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, goes so far as to say that the "modern world is more spiteful and mutually intolerant than in the times of mature confrontation of at least the last quarter of the 20th century".

Meanwhile, in Germany, Süddeutsche Zeitung pounces on Chancellor Angela Merkel for her promise to the Pope that she would try to include a reference to Christianity and God in the European Constitution when Germany takes over the EU presidency next year. It says Merkel "not only contravenes the principle of strict separation of the state and church", she also "reveals an astounding ignorance of the European history of ideas and baffling negligence in tackling her future EU presidency".

The paper also looks at another embattled European leader, examining Tony Blair’s "undignified end" and arguing that the British prime minister is damaging his party and government by "clinging to office".

Libération calls the situation a "creeping putsch" but cautions that the debate is less about Blair’s politics than his style of governing and especially "the constant spin".

Austria’s Die Presse defends Blair, saying his refusal to set a specific resignation date is a sign of "strength and consistency".

Switzerland’s Le Temps states the obvious: "Politics is cruel." It goes on to say that the "controversy surrounding the handover to [Blair’s] natural successor, Gordon Brown, is very damaging to New Labour".

The Wall Street Journal Europe says that with the imminent departure of Blair, "a remarkable era in European politics and British-US relations is coming to a close." The paper also looks at recent comments by UK Conservative Party leader David Cameron, who has sought to distance himself from the current US administration. It notes that Cameron "wants ‘a new emphasis on multilateralism’ where the UN ‘confers the ultimate legitimacy.’" Needless to say the editorialists at the Journal don’t agree. "If these are the new Tories," they write, "we’ll take the French."

• Craig Winneker is editor of TCSDaily.com

In politics, five years is an eternity. Just take a look at the world’s views of US foreign policy on this week’s anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.