RSS
Using PayPal
Doug Bandow: A Dignifiied Foreign Policy
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Saturday, Jul 30 2005, 12:11PM
I was surprised when Steve asked me to join in as a guest blogger. I remain a books and print kind-of-guy in the internet age, so it's a new thing for me. I also warned Steve that he risked having the Washington Note turned into a "Blog for Bolton" site. I happen to like John and would enjoy having him at the UN, but that's another story. And I don't want to give Steve heart failure if he checks in from whereever he is on his, er, arduous trek in foreign parts.
I was struck by a Washington Post story on Wednesday which described a violent Afghan demonstration at a U.S. base. It seems that American forces had detained of several Afghans without consulting local leaders. The article concluded:
"We have supported the Americans for years. We should be treated with dignity," said Shah Aghar, 35. "They are arresting our people without the permission of the government. They are breaking into our houses and offending the people. We are very angry."Sadly, my first thought was: where'd he get that silly idea? (A friend cattily remarked: "he doesn't seem happy about being liberated.") When does the U.S. ever treat other states or peoples with dignity? As far as I can tell, the Secretary of State is almost constantly on the road lecturing everyone else on how to live their lives.
In this case -- after a thousand people had gathered, tossing stones and attempting to bust down the gates to the base -- the U.S. gave in, subsequently turning over the eight men. But the specific controversy is not the main point. What's so disturbing is that Washington is widely perceived as imperious -- a perception based on its behavior -- which has a corrosive impact on attitudes toward the U.S. Foreign peoples and governments might have to listen to the Great Superpower, but they resent doing so. And many of them can be counted on to resist, balk, delay, and impede whenever the opportunity arises.
I recently returned from a trip to Nepal where I was speaking on economic development to audiences ranging from students to politicians. After one talk someone went up to one of my hosts and said that he liked me because I was "unAmerican." By that he meant that I wasn't acting as if I was omnipotent and telling them exactly what to do. Rather, I emphasized that I was no expert on Nepalese society and encouraged them to work on applying the principles of economic liberty, so necessary for the development of a free and prosperous society, within their own traditions and culture.
At the same time, admiration for the liberty and opportunity available in America remained strong. But the U.S. risks squandering this appreciation for America's strengths -- an incredibly valuable intangible asset -- by attitudes and policies that often are unabashedly arrogant.
-- Doug Bandow
« Previous Article - Paul Glastris: Character over Capability» Next Article - Leon Hadar: Iraq: The Shape of Things to Come
The arrogance you cite doesn't come from the ether. Where would you say it originates, who is responsible and who should correct it?
I like Bolton too, because he doesn't give a shit about anything or anybody, sorta like "imperious," unabashedly arrogant, lecturing everyone else, like he'll be doing in the UN to show the world we're the greatest and that they better not mess with us! America, Fuck Yeah!
And remember Bush says they hate us for our Freedom!
The corruption that is the Bush administration is internationally toxic. People admire America, not for liberty, but for fairness and opportunity. Bush has taken most of the fairness out of the system with his corrupt crony policies. Now foreigners look at the US and see just the corruption.
I think America is hated for its hypocrisy, that stems from bold faced lying, both foreign and domestic, much of the time with a condescending smile that reveals to the listener that America's rulers must think those they address are stupid.
Sorry, you've all got it wrong.
Don't you realize that because America is *good* whatever it does must be *right*?
The inevitable corollary to this is that if you don't like it that's your problem.
What the??? You like Bolton and would enjoy him at the U.N. but you also see how America's image is suffering from the arrogance and imperious attitudes of Condi"Mushroom Clouds" and company? Something so contradictory here that it could have come from Pat Roberts.
I think Doug is like a lot of other conservatives who are clueless about what the UN can, cannot, has and has not accomplished. Conservatives like to Bash the UN for not solving all the world's problems, preventing the latest episode of ethinic cleansing. Of course the dispute over Palestine and Israel is a big issue because the US and the majority of the UN have differing views.
Conservatives allow no recognition of the good that UN can accomplish as an honest broker in situations that require such a function to make progress. Conservatives lend no value to UN humanitarian programs such as UNICEF, or WHO.
In reality, the UN is an underfunded organization with no military, little logistical function that is dependent upon the wishes and commitments of its member states. The UN would not approve of intervention in the Balkans because it was blocked by Russia. This is why Clinton had to bypass the UN and work under the NATO banner.
Conservatives like Bolton only know how to complain about what the UN isn't. Complaining about what the UN isn't won't make it into what it cannot be. Failure to obtain diplomatic agreements means the UN is stopped in its tracks. The only functionality to be gained from the UN is by using the diplomatic and communications channels to develop agreements among nations. A unilateralist like Bolton is very poorly suited to the UN. Making a demand and complaining when other nations don't lick our boots is no way to progress.
Those who enjoy bashing the UN may find Bolton entertaining. However, bashing the UN is no way to get agreements. Not that it really matters because the Bush administration would rather fail unilaterally than work hard with the UN to try to get a policy success.
The U.S. "risks squandering this appreciation"!??
The ability of conservatives such as Doug to eventually reach the conclusions at which liberals arrived some time in the past decade- or several- and then discuss them as though they were a novel discovery is always remarkable.
Pew Global Attitudes Project
Doug, you're at least four years late to that one, and as your Bolton remark shows, you have a few years yet to go to catch up.
The Bush administration and it's choices of represenatives may have aggravated the perception that the US is imperious, but they didn't start it. It is a habit that goes down many levels of the bureaucracy and is applied not just to third world countries, but to places like Britain.
We are not unique in our arrogance, but our vast power makes it so obvious. And we teribly insecure so we must stress our success over and over. Or when we are leftist how the United States is responsible for all the flaws in the world and how under Bush we experience fascism. Oh how we suffer in the heart of the beast?
We always need to be the most important. When our insecurity mixes with that of equally insecure third worlders it can be toxic.
Reader Comments (9) - post a comment