Posted on 03/02/2002 4:12:19 PM PST by Pokey78
Does everybody hate America? Maybe the world is just concerned at the lack of visionary leadership from such a powerful nation
'By what right,' an angry environmentalist demanded at a recent conference I attended, 'do Americans place such a heavy footprint upon God's Earth?' Ouch. That was a tough one because, alas, it's largely true.
We comprise slightly less than 5 per cent of the world's population; but we imbibe 27 per cent of the world's annual oil production, create and consume nearly 30 per cent of its Gross World Product and - get this - spend a full 40 per cent of all the world's defence expenditures. By my calculation, the Pentagon's budget is nowadays roughly equal to the defence expenditures of the next nine or 10 highest defence-spending nations - which has never before happened in history. That is indeed a heavy footprint. How do we explain it to others - and to ourselves? And what, if anything, should we be doing about this?
I pose these questions because recent travel experiences of mine - to the Arabian Gulf, Europe, Korea, Mexico - plus a shoal of letters and emails from across the globe all suggest that this American democracy of ours is not as admired and appreciated as we often suppose. The sympathy of non-Americans for the horrors of 11 September was genuine enough, but that was sympathy for innocent victims and for those who had lost loved ones - workers at the World Trade Centre, the policemen, the firemen.
There was also that feeling of pity that comes out of a fear that something similar could happen, in Sydney, or Oslo, or New Delhi. But this did not imply unconditional love and support of Uncle Sam.
On the contrary, those who listen can detect a groundswell of international criticisms, sarcastic references about US government policies, and complaints about our heavy 'footprint' upon God's Earth. Even as I write, a new email has arrived from a former student of mine now in Cambridge (and a devoted Anglophile), who talks of the difficulty of grappling with widespread anti-American sentiments. And this in the land of Tony Blair! It's lucky he's not studying in Athens, or Beirut, or Calcutta.
Many American readers of this column may not really care about the growing criticisms and worries expressed by outside voices. To them, the reality is that the United States is unchallenged Number One, and all the rest - Europe, Russia, China, the Arab world - just have to accept that plain fact. To act as if it were not so is a futile gesture, like whistling in the wind.
But other Americans I listen to - former Peace Corps workers, parents with children studying abroad (as they themselves once did), businessmen with strong contacts overseas, religious men and women, environmentalists - really do worry about the murmurs from afar. They worry that we are isolating ourselves from most of the serious challenges to global society, and that, increasingly, our foreign policy consists merely of sallying forth with massive military heft to destroy demons like the Taliban, only to retreat again into our air bases and boot camps.
They understand, better than some of their neighbours, that America itself has been largely responsible for creating an ever more integrated world - through our financial investments, our overseas acquisitions, our communications revolution, our MTV and CNN culture, our tourism and student exchanges, our pressure upon foreign societies to conform to agreements regarding trade, capital flows, intellectual property, environment and labour laws. They therefore recognise that we cannot escape back to some Norman Rockwell-like age of innocence and isolationism, and fear we are alienating too much of a world to which we are now tightly and inexorably bound. After my recent travels, this viewpoint makes more and more sense to me.
So what is to be done? One way to clearer thinking might be to divide outside opinion into three categories: those who love America, those who hate America and those who are concerned about America. The first group is easily recognisable. It includes political figures such as Lady Margaret Thatcher and Mikhail Gorbachev; businessmen admirers of US laissez-faire economics; foreign teenagers devoted to Hollywood stars, pop music and blue jeans, and societies liberated from oppression by American policies against nasty regimes. The second group also stands out. Anti-Americanism is not just the hallmark of Muslim fundamentalists, most non-democratic regimes, radical activists in Latin America, Japanese nationalists and critics of capitalism everywhere. It also can be found in the intellectual salons of Europe, perhaps especially in France, where US culture is regarded as being crass, simplistic, tasteless - and all too successful.
Since there is little that can be done to alter the convictions of either of those camps, our focus ought to be upon the third and most important group, those who are inherently friendly to America and admire its role in advancing democratic freedoms, but who now worry about the direction in which the US is headed. This is ironic, but also comforting. Their criticisms are directed not at who we are, but at America's failure to live up to the ideals we ourselves have always articulated: democracy, fairness, openness, respect for human rights, a commitment to advancing Roosevelt's 'four freedoms'.
Three times in the past century most of the world looked with hope and yearning toward an American leader who advocated transcendent human values: for Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and John Kennedy made hearts rise abroad when they rejected narrow 'America First' sentiments and spoke of the needs of all humankind.
It is a return to this tolerant and purposeful America that so many worried and disappointed foreign friends want to see. Unilateralist US policies on land mines, an international criminal court and Kyoto environmental protocols fall well below those expectations. Underfunding the United Nations seems both unwise and contrary to solemn pledges. Committing an extra $48 billion to defence, but not committing to amounts or percentages for next month's Monterrey conference on financing development looks hypocritical. In fact, a few of these US policies (for example, on the early Kyoto proposals) can probably be well defended. But the overall impression that America has given of late is that we simply don't care what the rest of the world thinks. When we require assistance - in rounding up terrorists, freezing financial assets and making air bases available for US troops - we will play with the team; when we don't like international schemes, we'll walk away. My guess is that every American ambassador and envoy abroad these days spends most of his time handling such worries - worries expressed, as I said above, not by America's foes but by her friends.
Finally, individual policy changes matter much less than the larger issue. There is a deep yearning abroad these days for America to show real leadership. Not what Senator William J. Fulbright once termed 'the arrogance of power', but leadership of the sort perhaps best exemplified by Roosevelt. This seems to be what EU external affairs commissioner Chris Patten wants when he voices his worries about America shifting into 'unilateral overdrive'.
It would be a leadership marked by a breadth of vision, an appreciation of our common humanity, a knowledge that we have as much to learn from others as we have to impart to them. It would be a leadership that spoke to the disadvantaged and weak everywhere, and that committed America to join other advantaged and strong nations in a common endeavour to help those who can scarce help themselves. Above all, it would be a leadership that turned openly to the American people and explained, time and time again, why our deepest national interest lies in taking the fate of our planet seriously and in investing heavily in its future.
Were that to happen, we would fulfill America's promise - and probably get a surprise at just how popular we really are.
· Paul Kennedy CBE, Professor of History and Director of International Security Studies at Yale University, is the author of The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.
Like Yale University.
No, not ouch and no it's not true in the least.
If said enviro winkie wasn't just shooting for good theater with this stupid comment he might consider God and what God says about this.
I don't know what religion he is, but Chrisitans were commanded to spread out, cover the earth and subdue it. At no time did God say anything about conservation or weenieism in his name.
We are stewards however, and he has given us resources to use. We make good use of them, respect him and prosper, and our neighbors covet us for it.
It's really just that simple.
Real easily: We have the freest economy, the most dynamic future-oriented culture, the strongest limits on government authority, the most advanced technology, and strongest traditions of liberty in the entire world. (At that's in spite of our fully-justified complaints about the counter-trends in this country that threaten these strengths.)
All other nations need do to equal or surpass us is to replace their socialistic economies with truly free markets, cut 90% of their taxes and regulations and other laws, enforce private property rights and the rule of law, protect individual rights, drastically reduce or eliminate tariffs and trade barriers, reject junk science and politically correct but irrational public policies, and embrace a problem-solving and technology-friendly worldview.
Then they wouldn't have to envy us and hate us for our success and their failures.
Anyway, I had earlier hypothesized that the Ukian people, and other funny little foreign guys, were using too many hard narcotics to think correctly.
Apparantly it's not an hypothesis but a demonstrable fact.
Huh??? Let's see, Roosevelt fought Germany, Hungary, Romania, Italy and Japan, and was a willing dupe of Communist Russia. Today, George Bush has Germany and Japan as two of our best allies, Russia basically cooperates, India is moving closer. We're in a hell of a lot better position than during WWII.
We have such a heavy footprint because we don't sit around on our big brains whining about how unfair the world is. Only an ivy (little) leaguer would sit with their european counterparts crying in their beers about big, bad America.
Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and John Kennedy made hearts rise abroad when they rejected narrow 'America First' sentiments and spoke of the needs of all humankind.
Woodrow Wilson presided over WW1
Franklin Roosevelt presided over WW2
John Kennedy faced down the USSR over missles in Cuba
I doubt very much if they spent much time worrying over whether or not someone might disapprove of their actions.
How then, can they be so admired among our leaders?
This is the last time I ever read Kennedy. If he's fallen for the phony environmental arguments hoisted against the US, he's beyond hope.
Agreed. Stewards are not kings, however, and have an obligation to maintain the estate they keep for it's rightful Ruler.
We do, and we do more every day as our technology improves.
However the King put these things here for us to use.. He placed them at our disposal and EXPLICITLY told us not to worship them. For he says he will destroy them all in his time and create a new heaven and a new earth.
He told us not to turn earth worship, sea worship or sky worship into our religion.
And as far as I am concerned we do a damn good job of managing our resources. And I care not what the earth worshipers think, the earth is their god and their religion..
They worship the creation above the one who created it and their foolishness is amazing.
These are the people who drive cars with leather seats, live in electrified houses with air conditioning, drive automobiles and work in places that produce good and services for others to consume.. And they continue to do so as opposed to showing any real leadership on the issue.
Hypocrites deserve no audience.
Of course!!! treaties should be broken if they don't suit us(or anyone else) anymore. Treaties exist to advance a nation's interests. If they fail to do that, then there is no reason for the treaty to exist. Sovereign nations always act in their own best interests.
Let's be honest Britain's treaty over Hong Kong was in both Britain and China's best interests. It allowed Britain to retain control over Hong Kong for a lot longer period then they would have been able to without the treaty. And by waiting, China received control over a much wealthier terrority then anything communism could produce.
And as far as I am concerned we do a damn good job of managing our resources
If by "a damn good job of managing our resources" you think God intends us to use His Creation and His power transmitted to us in the form of reason and will to satiate gluttonous, vain, and lustful desires, I disagree.
So if you promise someone you'll give him three hundred dollars to fix your alternator, and he does and you take your car and tell him to shove it, there's nothing wrong with that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.