The Decline in America's Reputation: Why?

[franksforum]

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.

[Stan]

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."

Russian high school text books ? Indeed, a profound source of unbiased thoughts there. Recall when Boris Yeltsin removed all the history books from Mother Russia (due to purported mistakes), only to be again replaced by Putin to (ahem) correct history

Check out what the North Koreans taught (still teach?) beginning with kindergarten regarding capitalistic America(ns). I agree, we are not the most popular nation on earth, but utilizing Middle Eastern disgust/thoughts, Russia's high school books and French journalists to create and substantiate a USG report seems shoddy.

[Fuchs]

This "Why?" is a rhetorical question, isn't it?

The U.S. foreign policy is the greatest problem in international affairs to date.
Iran, North Korea and even Syria combined are by comparison harmless.

You could make a representative poll in Europe:

Who shall remain leader of his country till 2020?

A) G.W.Bush.

A) The leaders of Syria, Iran, North Korea, Myanmar, Pakistan, Sudan, Turkey and Lybia.

Bush would lose, with certainty.
That's my perception.

Why? U.S. foreign policy.

[Steve Blair]

The US also exists as a handy whipping boy/scapegoat for various failings (foreign and domestic) on the part of many nations. Not to say that we don't make poor decisions at times, but we're also pretty handy for others to hang their bad decisions on.

[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.

[Steve Blair]

@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.

One could also contend that popularity polls have no relevance on the general situation. Also, I'd say that your laundry list of policy errors could equally apply to the Soviets at their peak (in spite of your assertion to the contrary), or just about any major power at any given point in time. Nothing new there.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. It's always easier to look on the US as the great evil without examining some of the poor policy decisions on the part of other nations that allowed this situation to come to pass.

[Fuchs]

Few great power in history were much liked, but many were respected and were influential with diplomacy.


Btw, when did the Soviet Union do this?
- Huge arms sales into crisis regions, to both sides.
- Cheating the world economically.
- Disrespect towards U.N.

I'm sure they did not this:
- Unnecessarily promoting a conflict with Russia.

[BRUZ_LEE]

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.

[Stan]

Few great power in history were much liked, but many were respected and were influential with diplomacy.


Btw, when did the Soviet Union do this?
- Huge arms sales into crisis regions, to both sides.
- Cheating the world economically.
- Disrespect towards U.N.

I'm sure they did not this:
- Unnecessarily promoting a conflict with Russia.

While I don't agree with you (and as Steve indicated, you're certainly entitled to your opinion), I'm interested in knowing which great powers were respected and influenced historically with diplomacy? That is, documented examples free of opinion (presumes America was never respected nor diplomatically influenced even to this day).

I think a quick look at present day will solve most of the questions regarding Russia, her sales/finance programs, economic 'blundering' (ever hear of the 3 fat pigs ?) and outright discontent with the U.N. (not that I consider that a significant or unique issue regarding the popularity of a nation).

BTW, Russia need not spy on corporations and/or individuals... They own or control all of the above.

[Ken White]

...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???

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.

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.

[J Wolfsberger]

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.

[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.

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.

Well, the problem is that during GWB's government there was no accomplishment, just ruins and wrecks visible.
It's quite obvious that this causes a decline of reputation and relations.

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.

Actually, there's a zero tolerance towards torture in the civilized world.
The tolerance for torture is also limited in the USA, that's why the government alleges that waterboarding and other stuff is no torture.

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...

Article 2.4, Charter of the United Nations, signed by the USA and in force*.

Unnecessarily promoting a conflict with Russia. -- That's funny.

Not if you have less than an ocean between yourself and Russia. The major Euroepean countries want a good relationship with Russia, and U.S. foreign policy (ABM, influence in Ukraine and Georgia) is a significant troublemaker in that area.

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...

Others respect it, U.S. doesn't => respect for U.S. declines. It's that simple.
Btw, the U.S. could leave the UN - and would lose most of what's left of its influence by doing so.
Maybe the respect for that institution is so low because the USA exploited the UN so easily for decades to further its own agenda.

Spying on corporations and individuals even in allied countries. -- and you don't? Most other nations don't???

The U.S. intelligence budget is on the same order as the defence budget of Germany. Seriously, quantity counts.
And I do strongly doubt that European intelligence services listen to domestic U.S. phone calls.

Huge arms sales into crisis regions, to both sides. -- Let me count the Leopards...

Both sides? The Greek got them, not the Turks. And that's a minimal conflict among allies. There are certainly no Leopard2 sales to Israel, Egypt and Saudi-Arabia at once. Maybe you can give a single example of Germany exporting to both sides of a crisis region?
I ask because arms sales into crisis regions are almost impossible for Germans at all...

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.

That doesn't change that certain people dislike it strongly, that's what this thread is about.

Cheating the world economically. -- Do Daimler and BMW know this?

I'm not aware what you refer to, but Daimler and BMW certainly didn't exploit the world financial system by financing their consumption with self-printed money. Daimler and BMW also didn't cause a single world economic crisis because of greed.

(Is it possible to have quotes non-italic and comment quotes in italic?)


Re-electing GWB didn't help and electing McCain would most likely increase the problems, but there's a chance that a turnaround under Obama would pretty quickly delete the troubles. This is possible because the problems are connected to policy and politicians, not to the nation by most who despise the USA today.
The Arab world is an obvious exception to this, though.

*:
"Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

[skiguy]

... to your list is that the anti-
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.

Very well said!

Hasn't our reputation in Africa significantly improved mainly because of our assistance with the AIDs crisis?

I think most of this alleged "hatred" is just jealousy, envy, and respect. JMO.

[Surferbeetle]

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

[patmc]

Does it matter if a MAJOR world power is universally LIKED because of its foreign policy? Everything is relative. You can buy popularity; you can use threats to scare; but ultimately you have to earn respect. Is there a survey of respect for America?

The US is not the Bahamas or Switzerland. We currently have the most power and influence of any state in the world. We use that power for what we perceive to be good for us, and good for the world. The mission and duty of the US government is to protect and manage OUR country. Foreign policy is an off-shoot of this duty.

The world is not a nice place. Countries lie, cheat, steal, and kill to get ahead. A democratic republic, like ours, hold its leaders accountable through free speech, media, and elections. Americans decide our leaders, not the world. If we perceive poor foreign policy, we elect a new administration; we protest; we write letters and articles, etc...

It would be great if all the states of the world united and cooperated for the common good, but that is international communism, and not the preferred course of action. America makes mistakes and does bad things at times, but that is what happens when you take action. (Right or wrong, make a plan and execute vs sitting in the back of a truck mouth breathing) Our mistakes generally stem from misunderstanding and good intentions gone wrong, versus direct hostility. Did we invade Normandy to gain access to French markets? Maybe, but the bigger reason was probably to expell Nazi Germany. Did we invade Iraq for access to oil? Maybe, but the bigger reason may be an attempt to change the middle east (if you believe Scott McClellan's new book) and make it a "better place." You don't have to like it or agree with it, and if you don't, use your voice or vote. Even better, serve in the foreign policy community to make a change.

[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.

[Stevely]

@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.

[Fuchs]

Hey, this was of course opinion and personal perception.

It may even be true that it's as you believe a typical position of Germans.
I believe if there were not so gross problems we'd look at smaller problems and point them out instead. But the political situation would be much better.

My list was no list of evil actions, but of reasons for "The Decline in America's Reputation".
I know some British and Canadians who like to emphasize the friendly fire problem, that's why I mentioned it.

And I believe you underestimate the problems caused by U.S. diplomacy in Eastern Europe. That's the backyard of the EU, and U.S. policy is a problem there. The Europeans are working on integration with the Eastern European countries, the U.S. continues to contain Russia and tries to establish bases close to it, provoking Russia thereby.


I know that I'm not diplomatic here, and my experience is that centre to right-wing Americans (and all military forums are dominated by these) tend to fiercely oppose ideas that their nation is at fault. They tend to blame others with this "you are anti-American", "they envy us" "they hate our freedom", "that is unfair" pseudo-arguments.
Left-wing Americans tend to agree more often than not.

The key is that it's not relevant whether you are good or right - the perception of others counts. And the perception of the U.S. by foreigners was a disaster for years. The deterioration in contrast to Clinton years is obvious.

[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.

[Norfolk]

I think most of this alleged "hatred" is just jealousy, envy, and respect. JMO.

I think that pretty much sums it up. When you dig deep, most of the "reasons" to hate America are mainly excuses for other things. Some legitimate grievances to be sure, and more than a few of them genuinely very serious. But on the whole, the U.S. is a far more benevolent Great Power than any before, during, or after the British Empire, which likewise endured much the same international scorn, for much the same sorts of reasons. In their day the Brits may have performed the role of Imperial Power rather better than the U.S., perhaps even better than most indeed, but they were also a good deal less squeamish than present-day Americans are in the exercise of Imperial power.