The Decline in America's Reputation: Why?

[Fuchs]

@patmc:

One of the most relevant factors is in my opinion the loss of political capital. That diminished the diplomatic influence.

As someone once said, Baker accumulated capital by building the coalition against Saddam in 1990, GWBush spent all political capital by building the "coalition of the willing" and attacking Saddam again.

And I believe you are wrong with your assertion that the U.S. has most influence in the world. That's a shadow of the past. I don't see any country being significantly ahead in influence to date. China, UK, France, Germany, Russia and the USA all have significant influence, albeit in different regions and with different methods.
The USA failed with too many diplomatic initiatives in the past years to be considered very influential.

@Surferbeetle:

I don't see a parallel to your example.

My suggestion is to return to normality, which includes mutual respect.

---

Btw; it's not relevant whether Americans think that the world is unfair to them. If they want to recover to a better standing and to more respect, then they need to do something about the causes.
Few foreigners will be impressed by "you treat us unfairly" or "you are anti-American" complaints. That does simply not work, it's a waste of time.

[patmc]

Loss of political capital compared to what? What does political capital actually mean or achieve?

In 1990, we built a coalition and expelled Iraq from Kuwait. in 2003, we built a coalition, and took control of a country. We had more international support the first time (political capital?), but all that support prevented us from going farther than expulsion of Iraqi forces. In 2003, with less support, we invaded and took control of Iraq in a few weeks. Has the occupation cost us capital? Maybe, but with who? Libya openly abandoned nuclear programs bc of OIF, and it appears Iran suspended theirs for the time being because of OIF. Eastern Europe wants our bases and money. Asia wants our bases and money. al Qaeda is being rejected by other militants door to its aggressive actions, and performance on the front lines in Iraq.

Throughout the ages, groups and countries have invaded Afghanistan. In 2001, we sent in troops and firepower to assist the non-Taliban forces, and expelled the Taliban from power. Today, though not perfect, there is a nominal central government, that is slowly improving the security situation. If nothing else, we may be the first foreigners to ever be reluctantly welcomed by most Afghans. That's capital.

@patmc:

One of the most relevant factors is in my opinion the loss of political capital. That diminished the diplomatic influence.
As someone once said, Baker accumulated capital by building the coalition against Saddam in 1990, GWBush spent all political capital by building the "coalition of the willing" and attacking Saddam again.

We probably lost some "political capital" from OEF and OIF, but it was probably with countries that were already lukewarm friends to begin with. Conversely, strenghth and commitment have given us capital. Colombia, Ethiopia, Georgia, and other states are more confident in taking action now because they have our support. Is that a loss of political capital? The President of the United States may be booed and protested when he enters a foreign country, but what other leader has sent his/her forces across the globe and taken over 2 separate countries, despite the complaints?

China, UK, France, Germany, Russia, etc... are still largely regional powers now, though they all were once world powers. The UK, Germany, and France can barely meet their commitments in Afghanistan and Africa. China is buying influence with investment, and military ties. They are a strong power, but they still can't cross water and take back Taiwan. The US took back its breakaways 2 centuries ago. Russia has size and oil, but is still tied down in its backyard, and in playing spoiler elsewhere.

And I believe you are wrong with your assertion that the U.S. has most influence in the world. That's a shadow of the past. I don't see any country being significantly ahead in influence to date. China, UK, France, Germany, Russia and the USA all have significant influence, albeit in different regions and with different methods.
The USA failed with too many diplomatic initiatives in the past years to be considered very influential.

Name the diplomatic initiatives that have failed, and they can probably be met with initiatives that have succeeded. Are these failures enough for the country with the largest economy and most active military to not be very influential? I doubt that. The US in not perfect, and criticism is not necessarily knee-jerk Anti-Americanism, but it is better to use facts and examples rather than abstract theories such as perceived loss of political capital, which is largely an opinion, not fact. I may be wrong, so please show some evidence.

[Fuchs]

Attempts to negotiate in the conflicts about Israel - failed

Attempts to get more auxiliary troops from European countries - failed in several countries, little success in others

Attempt to get Georgia into NATO - failed

Attempts to keep "coalition of the willing" auxiliary forces in Iraq - quite failed, the number of non-U.S. coalition forces is shrinking

Attempts to mobilize Europe for an attack on Iran - failed, Europe prefers non-violent means

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).

U.S. relevance in Latin America? - Probably close to the level of Venezuela...

U.S. relevance in Asian conflicts? Marginal, East Asian allies prefer their silent diplomacy with North Korea and PR China over U.S. diplomacy.

Situation in Europe? Almost all Bush-friendly governments lost to opposition (an exception was Major, who was still replaced).

Attempt to prevent North Korean nukes? - grand failure, the U.S. gave up and accepted that NK is likely now a nuclear power

Attempt to turn Pakistan against the Taleban? - miserable failure

Attempts to prevent several international treaties (like the Den Haag trials) - failure

Attempt to install a stable government in Iraq - still not successful

Attempt to install a stable government in Afghanistan - still not successful

Attempt to 'ally' with India - India was nice, but stays neutral.

It's naturally more difficult to tell about the failures because politicians don't talk much about denied demands in front of the press after the talks. But this list is still impressive in my opinion. It focuses on the security policy area, an area that received a lot of attention by the U.S. government in the past years. Still, lots of failures to exert influence.

The relevant successes happened in the 2002-2004 time frame (bases and overflight rights in Central Asia, Lybia scrapping a questionable nuclear arms program, support for GWOT, limited support for Iraq invasion).

[J Wolfsberger]

Attempts to negotiate in the conflicts about Israel - failed

Attempts to get more auxiliary troops from European countries - failed in several countries, little success in others

Attempt to get Georgia into NATO - failed

Attempts to keep "coalition of the willing" auxiliary forces in Iraq - quite failed, the number of non-U.S. coalition forces is shrinking

Attempts to mobilize Europe for an attack on Iran - failed, Europe prefers non-violent means

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).

U.S. relevance in Latin America? - Probably close to the level of Venezuela...

U.S. relevance in Asian conflicts? Marginal, East Asian allies prefer their silent diplomacy with North Korea and PR China over U.S. diplomacy.

Situation in Europe? Almost all Bush-friendly governments lost to opposition (an exception was Major, who was still replaced).

Attempt to prevent North Korean nukes? - grand failure, the U.S. gave up and accepted that NK is likely now a nuclear power

Attempt to turn Pakistan against the Taleban? - miserable failure

Attempts to prevent several international treaties (like the Den Haag trials) - failure

Attempt to install a stable government in Iraq - still not successful

Attempt to install a stable government in Afghanistan - still not successful

Attempt to 'ally' with India - India was nice, but stays neutral.

It's naturally more difficult to tell about the failures because politicians don't talk much about denied demands in front of the press after the talks. But this list is still impressive in my opinion. It focuses on the security policy area, an area that received a lot of attention by the U.S. government in the past years. Still, lots of failures to exert influence.

The relevant successes happened in the 2002-2004 time frame (bases and overflight rights in Central Asia, Lybia scrapping a questionable nuclear arms program, support for GWOT, limited support for Iraq invasion).

... to accept any responsibility is what this list boils down to.

Here's a question. Where are the European troops intervening in Darfur?

If there is any such thing as an international community, it requires the structure of "community:" shared values and a commitment to enforce them. Such as "Rape is evil. If you build a rape camp, we'll hammer you into the ground."

Now go to another thread and tell Sarajevo about the moral superiority of the "European Community."

Fuchs, I am sure you, personally, are a good guy. But you are advancing a set of arguments,that, in my opinion, serve only to list the complete lack of moral stature in the world in general, and Europe in particular.

When the rest of the world demonstrates a capacity to behave in a moral manner in international relations, as has the US, Australia, the Netherlands, the Danes, and a very few others, I'll pay attention to their opinion. Until then, you're asking me to respect the opinion of moral midgets.

The rest of the world needs to understand, if they really want the US to act according to their standard of moral posturing:

a. Not likely.

b. They won't like it if we do.

[patmc]

Fuchs, you suggest the US has failed at the following. True, but lack of political capital not necessarily the reason, and I would argue that many are world issues, not just US. The fact you are holding American responsible for all of these shows our influence in the world:

Israel: no country will ever force Israel to give up its security, nor force an Arab neighbor to make an agreement. US can work behind the scenes and hold meetings, but ultimately the warring parties have to reconcile. Following the US democracy plan for the Middle East, the world allowed Palestinians to elect their own leaders. Hamas and Fatah are drowning, but infighting and struggle are sadly a common reality in young democracies. Israel is waiting for Palestinians to elect a government that will reasonably negotiate. May take way too long for anyone's liking, but I think that is there goal. It took the US decades to work out the original kinks, took a civil war to resolve further issues, and has still needed decades of work on civil rights. The fact that Israel won't make peace with Hamas is the fault of Hamas or Isreal, not lack of US political capital.

More troops from Europe: Europe spent decades on defense welfare, and was called out on it with the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Lack of forces has more to do with the failure of European defense than our lack of capital. How many other countries contributed forces to the British, French, or Soviet middle east/central asia adventures? Nobody wants to go to Afghanistan for obvious reasons, but the US did, and continues to send troops. That is action.

Georgia into NATO: Georgia has contributed troops, but still has too many domestic political problems. It could also snare NATO into a direct conflict with Russia, as Russia is psuedo-annexing the breakaway Georgian areas (1914 Serbia, Round 2?). This political reality discourages admitting Georgia, rather than a lack of US focus. If the US was steadfast about getting Georgia in, we probably would have. We are waiting for their political reality to mature. Side note: I served with Georgian troops in Iraq; the fact that they are even there shows which polar direction former Soviet states are moving to.

"Coalition of the Willing"- true, our allies are tired and leaving, but that also speaks to their political/military weakness, not specifically our political capital strength. Having allies contribute troops is nice, but generally there has to be an immediate reward for those allies. We're fighting with less and less support, but could any other nation fight these wars without tremendous Allied support?

Iran: we would prefer that Iran abandon its program without an attack, and Europe is moving to our position in supporting more sanctions. Our diplomacy is working on sanctions, despite Russia and China, so this is not a failure.

Africa: that the world has largely abandoned Africa is a tragedy, but not an indication of US policy failure. George Bush's best legacy overseas will be his work on fighting AIDS in Africa. We are involved in African countries where we suspect terrorism (North Africa and the Horn) but we've left the rest to their former colonial powers (ie: France). I am a firm supporter of more US engagement in Africa, but not really a popular policy. China has the most influence on Sudan, but they have not stopped Darfur, because money talks. The US actually negotiated the north-south Sudan peace treaty that is under strain right now, but is still holding. The US could do more, but already does more than it gets credit for.

S. America: just like Africa, we need to put more US attention back into S. America, but we still have forces in many LA countries training and working with local governments. Colombia is confronting its neighbors bc of our support. Voters in Venezuela and Bolovia are rejecting the dictatorial socialism being imposed. We could do more, yes, but we're still involved. I would also argue that lack of political capital has nothing to do with Hugo Chavez or Evo Morales winning elections. Latin America went from left to right, now back to left. Kind of like Europe, but not our fault or choice.

Asia: Japan and Korea still want our forces. NK and SK have been negotiating for 50 years, thanks to the presence of these forces. NK made and broke deals throughout the 90's, so Bush administration called them out on it, and waited for NK to come clean. US then engaged China in dealing with NK, which they originally would not, so I would say that was a US success. Also, I would argue nuclear proliferation is a world failure, not just the US, or are we the only one enforcing it? China has not attacked Taiwan. Why? Domestic politics and lack of sufficient military capability? Yes. Because of US security assurance? Yes. China is building a submarine and missile fleet because we are so influential in Aisa, and that would be our weak spot.

European governments: Sarzoky and Merkell won by being Pro-American, rejecting earlier Bush-bashing. Eastern Europe wants more engagement and ties. Europe is realizing that they are losing their traditional continent to the left and Islam. Result of decades of socialism, not Us capital loss. On President Bush's current European tour, he has actually been quite well received.

Pakistan and Taliban: eastern half of Afghanistan is Pashtun, as is western Pakistan, so good luck at stopping cooperation with just talks. We unwisely supported Musharraf because we saw him as bringing security and stability. In reality, the Pakistani military and intelligence forces helped support and train the Taliban, just as we supported the mujahideen in the 1970s and 80s. That policy is now biting Pakistan, as some argue it bit us. Many Pakistanis realize that the genie is out of the bottle, but are unwilling to make the committment to fix it, if possible. That Pakistan has even attempted to control their Federal Tribal Areas is a big deal, as all armies that have moved in their have lost.

International Treaties: I have little knowledge of these, but I do know that the US has been able to win protection for its forces in the ICC from most countries, and the US stood strong against Kyoto, not giving in to feel good environmentalism rather than sound policy.

India: was a Soviet bloc country in previous decades, but has opened with democracy and economics (who would have thought?) The world's largest democracy and growing economic power. We've never been an ally, but now India is not openly oppossed to us, and is even considering military purchases and contacts, in addition to the nuclear deal still be worked out. We are moving in right direction, but again, we're negotiating and working with them, not just throwing money.


Iraq and Afghanistan: Iraq's government is growing abler and stronger as time passes. Basra, Sadr City, and Mosul offensives are showing growing confidence. Political progress is being made as well. Our Iraq policy originally was regime change, and we succeeded in that. It has now morphed into building a democracy. Only time will tell, but recent success sheds some glimmers of hope. Afghanistan has never had a strong central government, and probably never will. Life is much better for many Afghans than under the Taliban, and the country is slowly recovering. Will it even be a modern western society? No, because it is Afghanistan, but that does not mean that the people are not prospering or happy. Again, our policy was regime change, and we succeeded in that. If anything, we're pretty good at regime change, just not the next phase.


I completely agree that US actions should match our words, but I would argue that they largely do. Do we claim to be a Boy Scout? I've never heard that, usually heard us called a policeman though. Unfortunately, we've lived up to the policeman identity too often and find ourselves involved all over the world. That's more to the American spirit of believing you can and should help others and make changes though. If a cop hits a suspect too hard, he is held accountable. If the suspect deserved it, that's another question. He'll get charged, but most people will tell him, "Nice hit."

Good discussion. Too bad our candidates are not having it.

[J Wolfsberger]

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

[Schmedlap]

Fuchs,

Your first list reminded me of a comment by William F. Buckley, when he told Johnny Carson that, "to say that the CIA and the KGB engage in similar practices is the equivalent of saying that the man who pushes an old lady into the path of a hurtling bus is not to be distinguished from the man who pushes an old lady out of the path of a hurtling bus: on the grounds that, after all, in both cases someone is pushing old ladies around."

Your list was a good example of the type of equivocation that he was referring to.

Regarding your second list, what are we to conclude when you collect a list of failures and then point out that, ah ha - they're all failures! If I pick a bushel of apples, will you be surprised to find no oranges among them?

Cherry picking your facts does not really further your argument because it is, by definition, not a sample representative of the whole. It is just a sample representative of your view. Thus far, it seems reasonable to remain skeptical that your view is accurate, given your decision to ignore anything that does not fit neatly into it.

[Sargent]

Given the philosophies under which American foreign policy has been conducted for at least the last century (democracy, freedom, human rights, international cooperation, free trade, etc.) and the image of itself that it seeks to portray abroad (land of the free, home of the brave, truth, justice and the American Way, give us your poor..., etc.), ultimately it is very important how we are viewed by others, especially insofar as we desire effective foreign policies. Everything that is done that contradicts these philosophies and undermines the image damages our foreign policy efforts.

It is not particularly useful to say that others are bad or worse -- they don't tend to advertise these same values.

If we did not wish to be held to these standards there was a very simple path laid out nearly two hundred years ago by John Adams the Younger:

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

However, as we have chosen to eschew his wisdom, we are at great peril if we do not pursue our policies of intervening around the world with the greatest of care. Yes, it's a burden, but it was a chosen and selected burden.

If you're going to tell the world you're a Boy Scout then you need to behave like one. If you want to be a bad ass, fine. But don't put on the Boy Scout's uniform and behave like a badass -- you'll be in for world of criticism.

I would have preferred a more Adamsian approach to our foreign policy -- eg, don't invade other countries to rid them of their bad leaders -- but since that's not an option right now, in order to be effective in our foreign policies, we are saddled with having to be a good guy. Everything we do that detracts from the good guy image makes our job tougher and the policies we pursue more difficult to implement.

Regards,
Jill

[Granite_State]

Given the philosophies under which American foreign policy has been conducted for at least the last century (democracy, freedom, human rights, international cooperation, free trade, etc.) and the image of itself that it seeks to portray abroad (land of the free, home of the brave, truth, justice and the American Way, give us your poor..., etc.), ultimately it is very important how we are viewed by others, especially insofar as we desire effective foreign policies. Everything that is done that contradicts these philosophies and undermines the image damages our foreign policy efforts.

It is not particularly useful to say that others are bad or worse -- they don't tend to advertise these same values.

If we did not wish to be held to these standards there was a very simple path laid out nearly two hundred years ago by John Adams the Younger:



However, as we have chosen to eschew his wisdom, we are at great peril if we do not pursue our policies of intervening around the world with the greatest of care. Yes, it's a burden, but it was a chosen and selected burden.

If you're going to tell the world you're a Boy Scout then you need to behave like one. If you want to be a bad ass, fine. But don't put on the Boy Scout's uniform and behave like a badass -- you'll be in for world of criticism.

I would have preferred a more Adamsian approach to our foreign policy -- eg, don't invade other countries to rid them of their bad leaders -- but since that's not an option right now, in order to be effective in our foreign policies, we are saddled with having to be a good guy. Everything we do that detracts from the good guy image makes our job tougher and the policies we pursue more difficult to implement.

Regards,
Jill

Great post, I was hoping someone would drop the "in search of monsters to destroy." Read the other day that George Kennan (who had the kind of wisdom we're so sorely lacking now) popularized that quote.

I'd only question where you write "that not an option right now." Do you mean because we're stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, or something broader?

[Fuchs]

Just two details:

Article 2.4 of U.N. Charter defines international law. I know that U.S.Americans have a strange relationship to international law, but that's as I said one reason for their drop of reputation.

Nobody should attempt to tell me that the present German government is Bush-friendly. It's not.
It consists of Schröder's SPD and Merkel's CDU. Merkel is chancellor now, but unable to do much or anything against the will of the SPD.
Merkel is playing nice, but does nothing that helps Bush. In fact, she's waiting for a Bush successor and merely avoids useless conflicts in the meantime.
She was a decisive obstacle to getting Georgia into NATO.
And yes, a better U.S. government might have succeeded in convincing us to let Georgia into NATO. But this one isn't trusted any more.
Prominent politicians of all parties have openly criticized Bush during the recent visit and expressed their expectation of improvement after the election. That has never happened before.
The French government is not truly US-friendly. Sarkozy is merely erratic, which yields some superficially U.S.-friendly actions.


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.

Most of what I read here is a mix of

- "others are at fault"

- "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.)

- some ignorance about realities, using interpretations which are solely accepted in the U.S. and irrelevant in 95% of the world.

- misinterpretation using a pre-fabricated opinion and ideology instead of accepting the words that I read as what I meant

That's quite disappointing, but it's also typical for military-related U.S.-dominated environments. It's quite easily possible to discuss such matters much more fruitful in other arenas, even with Americans.
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.
Make the test. Travel around, ask foreigners whether they think that the reputation of the USA has declined and if yes about the reason.
You can actually go into forums on the internet. European or Australian ones for convenient English but few Americans.
Go into an English soccer/football forum, for example. Every forum has an off-topic are. Post your question about U.S. reputation's decline in a new thread. See what happens.

[marct]

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.

[Steve Blair]

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.

And, sadly, given the nature of the US system I don't think you're going to see many of those perceptions engaged or actually changed. Our political system focuses almost exclusively on internal perception (as in the voting public...no matter what campaign lip service might want outsiders to believe), and lacks the policy continuity to focus on anything other than getting back in office. It is what it is, and I suspect many just don't understand how dangerous that process is to focused policy. And major perception changes require focused policy.

There are times when I think the US would be better off disengaging from much international activity....

[patmc]

Fuchs, there was no assumption that you couldn't. The US is involved everywhere in the world, so of course there are failures, but many of the ones you listed were either not US failures, or failures at all. You stated that the US has no more influence than any other major power, which is clearly false by your own list, which demonstrates that we are expected to solve the world's problems. Yes, the US has lost influence in some areas, but has gained in others. Other major powers are on the rise due to population and economies, while traditional powers are losing theirs, in zero sum arena.

When multilateral attempts are made, failure can be shared by multiple parties, so "others can be at fault." I don't believe anyone on here chose those words to insult Europeans (as you did), but reality is that European defense has weakened. If other European countries could have handled Yugoslavia, why didn't they? Having a rifle doesn't mean much if you're unwilling to load or fire it.

Polling people on the streets often nets great material for late night comedy shows, but is it an accurate test for the success of US policy? The fact that world citizens even have an opinion on US policy shows our influence, which you claim we lack.

Snapperhead, when people run out of facts, they resort to name calling, so thanks for showing your cards.

Respectfully,
A psuedo-intellectual juggernaut

Just two details: 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. Most of what I read here is a mix of

- "others are at fault"

- "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.)

Make the test. Travel around, ask foreigners whether they think that the reputation of the USA has declined and if yes about the reason.
You can actually go into forums on the internet. European or Australian ones for convenient English but few Americans. Go into an English soccer/football forum, for example. Every forum has an off-topic are. Post your question about U.S. reputation's decline in a new thread. See what happens.

[Ken White]

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?'

Nobody should attempt to tell me that the present German government is Bush-friendly. It's not.

Agreed.

- "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.

- 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.

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.

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?

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...

[Steve Blair]

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.

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.

[marct]

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...

.........

[Stan]

... Nobody should attempt to tell me that the present German government is Bush-friendly. It's not.
It consists of Schröder's SPD and Merkel's CDU. Merkel is chancellor now, but unable to do much or anything against the will of the SPD.
Merkel is playing nice, but does nothing that helps Bush. In fact, she's waiting for a Bush successor and merely avoids useless conflicts in the meantime.
She was a decisive obstacle to getting Georgia into NATO.
And yes, a better U.S. government might have succeeded in convincing us to let Georgia into NATO.

Please don't pretend for a second former Minister Schröder, as a German diplomat, has done battle with President Bush by precluding Georgia's nomination to NATO (for the sake of Germany). He's been in bed with Putin for years... Remember the '3 fat pigs' I mentioned ?

One being Gazprom (or for the German government - Nordstream). In spite of overall opposition from every country between Russia and Germany, Schröder and his cronies (and invested interests) are groping around over a pipeline and Russian gas, without mere regard for the former German and Soviet States and their concerns.

Let's get the story straight while we're accusing the USG of foul play abroad.