The Decline in America's Reputation: Why?
Wasn't quite sure where to post this and I apologize in advance if this is a duplicate. This is a committee reprint from the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The link to the 47-page document in PDF format is below.
http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/42566.pdf
Executive Summary:
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attack there was world-wide
sympathy and support for the United States. This was best summed up in
the headline in the French newspaper Le Monde—Nous sommes tous
Americains. (“We are all Americans now.”)
Since then, polls conducted by the U.S. Government and respected
private firms have revealed a precipitous decline in favorability toward the
United States and its foreign policy. The generally positive ratings from the
1950’s to 2000 moved to generally negative after 2002. As the very first
witness in a 10-hearing series with pollsters and regional analysts told the
Subcommittee—“We have never seen numbers this low.”
The reversal is unprecedented and widespread:
• A 45-percentage point drop in favorability in Indonesia; 41 in
Morocco; 40 in Turkey; and 27 in the United Kingdom;
• Among Muslims in Nigeria, favorable opinion fell 33 points, from
71 percent to 38 percent, within an eight-month period;
• A 26-point increase in Europe of the view that U.S. leadership in
world affairs is undesirable;
• Unfavorability rose to 82 percent in Arab countries and 86 percent
of Latin American elites now rate U.S. relations negatively; and
• 83 percent of countries in 2002 had a plurality of citizens judging
the United States favorably; by 2006 only 23 percent of countries
had a plurality saying that U.S. influence is positive.
While the United States can’t base its foreign policies on opinion polling—
either at home or abroad—this consistently negative view of U.S. foreign
policy is both a liability and a sign that something has gone seriously awry.
What happened? Why, as the question is often posed, do they hate us?
Comment:
Having leafed through the document, the answer seems to be one of two:
--We are hated for who we are.
--We are hated for our policies in the world which are perceived as hypocritical and in violation of our values.
And it's not just the Middle East that holds these views. The report cited a Russian high school text:
"American foreign policy is designed to dominate the strategic minerals of the Middle East through alliance with dictatorial regimes. In Asia and Latin America, it uses military force to threaten governments who challenge its commercial interests."
As a former US Navy Intelligence Specialist (IS), I would be interested in hearing any comments on this report.
Great Power means Great Responsibility
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Steve Blair
It's always easier to look on the US ....
Having Greater Power means also having Greater Responsibility.
Or, to put it like this: The Foreign Policy of the US is somewhat more important than that of Madagaskar and will be therefore looked at more closely.
Heh. Interesting list. I agree with most of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
...That's more than the Soviet Union had as foreign policy sins at its peak.
However since the USSR -- and a few others I cuold name in other times -- have engaged in exactly the same things to a greater extent than we ever have, you blew it when you added that.
With respect to your list, I suggest:
Torture. -- some, not systemic or widespread.
Heating up of international conflicts by threatening other countries (which is illegal). -- Illegal? How so? By what laws? Morally wrong in the view of some, perhaps but illegal? Nah...
Unnecessarily promoting a conflict with Russia. -- That's funny.
Disrespect towards U.N. -- that's even funnier. If you can produce any organization that does more to earn disrespect, please tell me what it is...
Spying on corporations and individuals even in allied countries. -- and you don't? Most other nations don't??? :D
Huge arms sales into crisis regions, to both sides. -- Let me count the Leopards...
Repeated friendly fire on allied troops. -- Yep, we are trigger happy. Poor training, no excuse. Not even that it's a fact of war that can occur even with the best trained troops.
Cheating the world economically. -- Do Daimler and BMW know this?
Over-stressing natural resources with wasteful consumption and economic behaviour. -- that's possibly true; that's why Mercedes and BMW sell so many cars here.
Quote:
The U.S. government needs to learn respect, quickly. Powers who don't respect others cannot expect good relations.
That's true. We can't.
One possible response ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
I have a terrible feeling that "Why?" was probably a honest question and needs a more elaborate answer...
Lying to us in the U.N. assembly.
Invading a sovereign country.
Refusing co-operation in many international treaties.
Bullying and disrespecting even close allies.
Kidnap of free individuals overseas.
Violating captured person's rights by denying both criminal and POW rights.
Torture.
Heating up of international conflicts by threatening other countries (which is illegal).
Unnecessarily promoting a conflict with Russia.
Disrespect towards U.N.
Spying on corporations and individuals even in allied countries.
Huge arms sales into crisis regions, to both sides.
Repeated friendly fire on allied troops.
Repeated attack on civilians by fighter-bombers "in self defence" (few accept this justification)
Cheating the world economically.
Over-stressing natural resources with wasteful consumption and economic behaviour.
That's more than the Soviet Union had as foreign policy sins at its peak.
The U.S. government needs to learn respect, quickly. Powers who don't respect others cannot expect good relations.
@Steve:
That's a typical point of view of Americans. Fact is that this might apply to some countries, but has no relevance about the general situation.
... to your list is that the anti-American propaganda campaign has been obviously effective.
To take just one point, "Disrespect towards U.N.," I have held the UN in contempt since Biafra. Self righteous posturing on nearly every humanitarian crisis since has only confirmed my opinion.
My point on this one, and I could make one similar on each of the issues raised, is that someone should explain, using concrete examples of quantifiable alleviation of human suffering, just exactly why the UN deserves any respect?
I grant you, the US commits more than its share of screw ups. But that's what happens when somebody steps forward, takes a moral position, and actually tries to accomplish something in the real world.
Step 1. Compare & Contrast, Step 2. Develop Solutions
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
This "Why?" is a rhetorical question, isn't it?
The U.S. foreign policy is the greatest problem in international affairs to date.
Fuchs,
Your list and comments are interesting and worth thought. Holding up Russia as a contrast to the US is perhaps reflexive given our past history, however I would steer you towards an book entitled "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy (ISBN 0-394-54674-1) published back in 1987 for additional comparison/contrast material. (I welcome any references, German is fine, that you are willing to share)
German history and methods as recorded in the history of the Catholic League and Protestant Union in proto-Germany during the 1600's appear to have some interesting similarities to things we see on a marco-scale today. Human nature seems to be constant despite geographical and temporal location in my eyes.
What is your proposed solution to the inequities of today that you see?
Regards,
Steve
The give away is the complete lack of charity, mein Freund
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
@Wolfsberger;
That's a typical mistake that Americans do. The attitude is not anti-American, but anti-U.S. policy. The difference is crucial, and those who don't see it are blind to the real problem, excuse it away with the assumption that others are at fault.
Fuchs,
A propos of typical, your screed is very much that and I've heard variations on it as long as I have known Germans. This is a typical role many Germans like to play - the Oberlehrer. It's a national pasttime for many, this Besserwisserei, America is the favorite target but by no means the only one, and I witnessed it over and over again in the many years I lived in Germany, during the presidencies of Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, so it's not just GWB and his administration who are at fault. In fact, it almost always starts out thus, "we are criticizing your government's policies, not your country," but quite often ends up in general criticisms (actually, just plain disapproval) of American life and society.
Let me preface my points by saying that I have lived in Germany over a decade, speak German, even studied at the University of the Bundeswehr (so I am not speaking out of ignorance), and that I agree with several of your complaints, and have been frequently embarrassed by the actions of the current administration, such as its clumsy and ham-fisted diplomacy. But your list amply makes my point, starting out with legitimate grievances (poor/ rude diplomatic treatment of allies), then quickly devolving into questionable and/or unsubstaniated examples of misconduct ("heating up of conflicts," arms sales, friendly fire*), then down to outright wild and defamatory slurs (current world economic difficulties solely fault of US) that can only reflect on the character of the people as a whole. So it seems to me that you, like a fair number of your fellow countrymen, use points of disagreement with our policies not for fair criticism and not with an interest as to how we could repair our relationship, but as a pretext to air deeper, atavistic animosities (and yes, there is long, long pedigree of this in Germany, as regards the US).
You know, with friends like you...
*I take particular umbrage at use of friendly fire incidents as some evidence of American misdeeds. I was and continue to be involved in the Coalition Combat Identification ACTD that is to identify, test and rush fielding of CID devices to prevent fratricides. Friendly fire is by no means only committed by the US, I can assure you, and to anyone with any exposure to the actual problem, particularly in the air to ground context, it is a difficult problem providing accurate CAS and avoiding fratricide. It is a testament to the professionalism of the CAS community that this does not happen more often. Fortunately your government's representatives to CCID take a more balanced and mature view of the problem that you seem to.
In response to your last list ...
Attempts by European Union to effectively negotiate in the conflicts about Israel - nonexistent
Attempts to get more auxiliary troops from European countries - failed in several countries, little success in others - due to moral failure of Europeans to participate in a REAL international community
Attempt to get Georgia into NATO - failed - thanks to EU
Attempts to keep "coalition of the willing" auxiliary forces in Iraq - quite failed, the number of non-U.S. coalition forces is shrinking - due to moral failure of Europeans to participate in a REAL international community
Attempts to mobilize Europe for an attack on Iran - failed, Europe prefers non-violent means - that allow them to feel good about themselves when they say them, but require zero effort and accomplish nothing. And by the way, the only people talking seriously about an attack on Iran are the hard core left - when they make up the accusation that the US is planning it.
U.S. relevance in African conflicts (Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe, Kenya)?
Marginal, except when it incited a conflict (the U.S.-backed invasion of Somalia by Ethiopia). - And largely the same as the UN efforts. Or less. See Biafra. Also see the UNs spectacular failure in Rwanda - when the US (mistakenly) deferred to the international "community."
U.S. relevance in Latin America? - Probably close to the level of Venezuela... - vote is still out
U.S. relevance in Asian conflicts? Marginal, East Asian allies prefer their silent diplomacy with North Korea and PR China over U.S. diplomacy. - A failure due to the US attempting to work with the international "community."
Situation in Europe? Almost all Bush-friendly governments lost to opposition (an exception was Major, who was still replaced). - Exactly wrong. Look at who won the last elections in France and Germany.
Attempt to prevent North Korean nukes? - grand failure, the U.S. gave up and accepted that NK is likely now a nuclear power - thanks to Clinton and reliance on the international "community." And by the way, North Korea is a slow motion train wreck, but again, the international "community" approves.
Attempt to turn Pakistan against the Taleban? - miserable failure - I think a lot of people need to keep silent on Pakistan until they learn something about its internal politics. The test of their learning is that, if they have, they will voluntarily stay silent.
Attempts to prevent several international treaties (like the Den Haag trials) - failure - no comment: I don't know what you're referring to
Attempt to install a stable government in Iraq - still not successful - vote is still out, but looking good
Attempt to install a stable government in Afghanistan - still not successful - vote is still out, but looking good
(And on these last two, it took the US 11 years, afte the Revolutionary War ended, to establish its constitution. Iraq and Afghanistan get a few more years, in my book.)
Attempt to 'ally' with India - India was nice, but stays neutral. - vote is still out, but looking good
You know folks, he's right
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Come on, I was asked to provide a list of failures, with the implied assumption that I couldn't. I provided a long list in few minutes of writing and thinking, but the responses are excuses, effectively denying that these are U.S. failures albeit I mentioned lots of high-priority political initiatives of the U.S. that failed.
The crucial thing that is happening here is that everyone seems to be concentrating on the reality of Fuch's laundry list, rather than on its rhetorical status. At the level of rhetoric, and that is where a lot of "reputation" lies, it doesn't matter if the list is "true" or if other nations do/did it either; all that matters is that the US is perceived as doing it.
If you boil all of the points down, one main pattern comes out: a dissonance between rhetoric and action - basically, the "talk" and the "walk" don't jibe for the international audience. International politics, at the level of influencing the general populace of other nations (Strategic Communications as Mountainrunner like to call it), requires a constancy between rhetoric and action that is quite different from the realpolitik behind closed doors.
On the tu quoque defence, specifically dealing with the old Soviet Empire, it doesn't work because almost everybody expected them to be lying bastids. No one with two neurons to rub together thought that their system could or would produce a better life for the people under their control or in their sphere of influence (aka imperium). But most people do expect the US to be better, and feel betrayed in that expectation when something happens that disabuses them of that expectation.
Oh, boy, another windmill...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Just two details:
Article 2.4 of U.N. Charter defines international law...
I again ask you who is the enforcement agency for that 'law?'
Quote:
Nobody should attempt to tell me that the present German government is Bush-friendly. It's not.
Agreed.
Quote:
- "Europeans are pussies" (which is an embarrassing misunderstanding of facts. The mere idea that the Europeans wouldn't have been powerful enough in the past years is a joke. Several European countries could have crushed Yugoslavia on their own.)
True -- but they did not due to lack of political will. Then got annoyed at the US for having the will.
Quote:
- some ignorance about realities, using interpretations which are solely accepted in the U.S. and irrelevant in 95% of the world.
Perhaps on the part of some, for myself and many others it's not ignorance but a total lack of concern for what the rest of the world thinks. The world has broadly been anti-American for many years, certainly all my lifetime and I first went overseas in 1947 and have spent over 12 years in one part of the world or another. The feeling is not as intense now as it was at the heighth of Viet Nam. Now we're just disliked, then there was almost hatred in some place. That stuff comes and goes.
Quote:
That's quite disappointing, but it's also typical for military-related U.S.-dominated environments.
May annoy you but it seems like a quite logical reaction considering the environment, I'm unsure what else you would expect.
Quote:
It's quite easily possible to discuss such matters much more fruitful in other arenas, even with Americans.
Fruitful in that you get more agreement with your opinions elsewhere?
Quote:
This topic is really one that doesn't need much discussion. Most people easily agree. Just centre/right Americans have problems to understand it, as it collides with their fancy understanding of the USA.
I'll give you my favorite quote from Ms. Christy Blatchford, a Canadian newspaper Columnist; "...most Americans don't give a rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks."
And no, Marc, I will not quote McQuaig to him... :D
From BBC...seemed germaine
to the discussion. Full story is here, but this quoted snippet was an interesting summation/comparison. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but Frei makes some interesting points and observations.
Quote:
The world needs to come down to reality and experience the cold turkey of American electoral politics.
Despite the lofty dreams ringing in campaign ears this remains the 50-50 nation.
American elections tend to be decided by a whisker-thin majority in the swing county of one swing state.
Obama may be a global citizen but to voters in West Virginia or parts of Ohio that sounds as pretentious as a double decaf Venti latte.
But before the German politician who wrote that Obama was a cross between John F Kennedy and Martin Luther King gets too sniffy about those hillbillies in America, just remember this:
Germany has a minority of four million Turks, but has elected only a handful of ethnic Turks to the Bundestag.
An ethnic Pakistani Prime Minister taking up residence at Number 10 Downing Street is even less likely than England winning the World Cup.
In Beijing, the overt racism shown to African students brought over under the bygone days of international Communism is truly shocking.
Even if America is not ready to elect a black president, the rest of the world has no right to point the finger.
And there is always the possibility that Obama failed not because he was black, not because he was too global, but simply because his vision of America's future did not add up.
Probably a good thing, Ken
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
I'll give you my favorite quote from Ms. Christy Blatchford, a Canadian newspaper Columnist; "...most Americans don't give a rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks."
And no, Marc, I will not quote McQuaig to him... :D
.........
I tend to agree with most of the posts in this thread, pro and con.
To include Fuchs' (but not snapperhead who has contributed nothing other than pseudointellectual bon mots). Though I have to admit most of you take the issue more seriously than do I. We have been on the nasty list for most of the world for most of our existence. Rarely, we are if not loved, either accepted or respected -- but mostly we're slammed. I've seen so much of it here and there I don't pay much attention to it. It goes in cycles. That's why I think this is sort of important:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Blair:
There's also a segment, I think, that likes the idea of having the US "handy"...in other words sitting quietly on the sidelines yet willing to come when called (with money and/or military force if needed) to deal with things that others don't want to deal with directly. The fact that from time to time we don't want to play in that role makes them nervous. The roots of much of this are quite deep, and there's enough of it to go around.
To which Marc responded:
Quote:
I'm honestly not sure if it's that or not .
I submit that Steve is correct.
At the ripe old age of 14, I was in China (B.M. - Before Mao) and a British Officer pointed to a "Yankee go home" graffiti on a wall. I told him I was from Kentucky, so that didn't apply to me and he was totally uncomprehending. That was the beginning of a revelation. Very few people in the rest of the world can understand the US (many in the US don't understand it...), Canadians probably come closer than anyone but even they think we're beyond tacky and really rather weird (both truths). Surprisingly, I think Asians understand us a little better than do Europeans. So too do South Americans, many of whom harbor some earned resentment toward us -- but they all still want to come here. We totally baffle most Europeans I've met..
Given the fact that we contributed to the defeat of Germany in two wars, Japan in one; we effectively forced the British and French out of the Colonial business and messed up Suez for them and have managed to annoy most nations in the world at one time or another in pursuit of US interests and you have plenty of reasons for us to be on many a nasty list. Add to that a really ignorant and pathetic media face to the world which tends to emphasize our clownish side coupled with the fact that we're big and over prone to try to throw our weight around when it is to our benefit and ignore those issues that are note seen as beneficial (always with an eye to domestic politics) and we're seen an inconsistent and somewhat hypocritical pain in the tail too many. That is unlikely to change.
So are we.
In the immortal words of J Wolfsberger:
Quote:
...I think we'd make the attempt. Having done so, when it didn't work out, we'd lurch way to far in the other direction.
Just to add to the confusion.
Yep... :D