World's perception of US poised for a change
Syed Fattahul Alim | Saturday, 14 June 2008
US Senator Barack Obama's rise as the most potential candidate in the November presidential polls of that country has drawn widespread attention from the rest of the world. The attention is due mainly to Obama's African-American background. Will America become friendlier and less warlike with a black president in the White House? Though a black president will hardly ever change the basic equations of US geopolitical priorities and interests on which its foreign policy hinge, the prospect itself has its psychological significance. In fact, never before in history except during the Vietnam War in the sixties and early seventies of the last century had America been more unpopular than in recent times, especially under the incumbent president George W Bush. The Bush era, which has been marked by War on terror, US occupation of Iraq and worsening condition of the Palestinians at the hands of the Israelis, the Israeli aggression against Lebanon and the spate of suicide bombing by Islamist militants targeting US's and West's interests. The US and the West, as a result increased their security at the airports, railway stations, markets and public places. The extremists on either side of the global divide revelled at the prospect of propagating their philosophy of hatred and xenophobia. The upshot of it all has been that the whole world in trauma.
So it is time for a change.
The Pew Research Centre of the USA has recently conducted a survey on the global attitudes towards the USA in 24 countries after Senator Obama emerged as a presidential hopeful. Howard LaFranchi, staff writer of Christian Science Monitor, reports on how the perception of the people surveyed in those countries now look at the lone superpower of the world.
"Massive protests with an anti-American tinge in Seoul, Old Glory-burning in Beirut, and uproar in Pakistan over US air strikes on insurgent targets.
Such recent events might suggest that America's image abroad remains in the cellar, where it's been since the US invasion of Iraq.
But a new survey of global opinion points to some modest but striking improvements in international perceptions of the US - with prospects for a change in the White House playing a role.
In particular, the ability of an African-American to rise through a long campaign and put a new face on American leadership appears to have softened the negatives that hardened under President Bush.
"This is the first time there's a little bit of good news about the image of the United States" around the world, says Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, which has been surveying global attitudes about the US since 2002. "This is not a sea change," he adds, but opinions "are not so consistently negative as they have been in the past."
The survey of 24 countries shows that in 10 of them - including China, Russia, India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Tanzania - US favourability ratings rose since 2007. In Japan, Mexico, and Nigeria, favourability declined.
Speaking with reporters at a Monitor breakfast Thursday, Mr. Kohut said the latest survey found a high level of interest in the US presidential elections, with a higher percentage of Japanese than Americans (83 to 80 percent) saying they were paying close attention to the US campaign. But interest was also relatively high in countries like Turkey and Egypt.
Kohut attributes part of the interest to the candidacy of Democratic Sen. Barack Obama In nearly every country surveyed - excepting Jordan, by a slight margin - the public expressed more confidence in Senator Obama than in his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, "to do the right thing regarding world affairs."
The survey finds significant numbers of people, particularly in Western Europe, agreeing that US foreign policy will change for the better next year with a new president. Kohut assumes that much of the optimism derives from the fact that, no matter who wins, Bush will be out of the White House.
"He's a real red flag for a lot of people," he says. Other factors include the fact that both candidates talk of change, and Obama in particular sounds - and looks - different from what foreigners associate with recent US leadership.
Foreign policy experts say world views of the US matter because they can play an important role in determining how closely governments cooperate with the US, and how far influential individuals will take pro-American stands. "Everybody likes to be liked, but it really goes beyond that to our interests," says Charles Dunbar, a former US ambassador to Yemen and Qatar.
Citing the example of Islamic radicalism, he says an intense hostility to the US - based partly on a perceived American occupation of Islamic lands - can lead people to gravitate toward Islamism and even to anti-American action.
At the same time, he adds, an improved US image can make it easier for foreigners perceived as "pro-American" and favour steps sometimes associated with the US, like democratization or economic reforms.
Yet Ambassador Dunbar sees potential for a "letdown" if the improved image is largely based on positive media attention on one presidential candidate, in this case Obama. The potential exists, he says, first because Obama might not win and second, because his actions as president are unlikely to meet expectations. "Policy is going to matter a great deal, and things aren't going to change that much if Senator Obama is elected," he says. For example, it will be very difficult to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
Another example is US policy towards Pakistan. Tensions rose this week over US air strikes that killed a number of Pakistani paramilitary soldiers in the border region with Afghanistan. But it was the kind of strike - targeting insurgents along the Afghan border - that Obama was presumably referring to in a debate last August when he said he would be prepared to strike targets inside Pakistan even without the government's approval.
Earlier, on April 25 Helena Cobban, a former correspondent of csmonitor wrote in the same paper on what kind of international diplomacy should America now pursue in the wake of what she said last 7 years' unprecedented decline in 'global favourability rating' of US.
What kind of relationship do Americans want to build with the world's 6 billion other people in the years ahead? This question is urgent, since the past seven years have seen an unprecedented drop in our country's global favorability rating. In today's hyper-connected world, that has huge consequences for Washington's ability to protect American interests.
To fix this problem, many experts - and even the presidential candidates - are promoting agendas to rebuild America's position of world leadership. They are right to try to repair our image abroad. But their focus on "American leadership" is misplaced. A smarter approach would be for us to build a new relationship with the world that embraces the key principles of human equality and mutual respect among all peoples.
Starting to see themselves as "merely" equal to everyone else may seem slightly scary to some Americans. But history should assure them.
I grew up in a Great Britain that was making a broadly similar shift: from the days of the globe-girdling "British Empire" to a situation in which it was just one, though still quite powerful, nation among many. That change was warmly welcomed by the citizens of the many countries that won their independence from London. But as I explain in my upcoming book, "Re-engage! America and the World After Bush," it ended up being very good for the British, too. As any recent visitor can attest, today's Britain is humming and successful.
Here's another imperfect (but also helpful) comparison. America's current relationship with the rest of humanity has much in common with that between South Africa's apartheid-era whites and their disfranchised non-white compatriots. Back then, most white South Africans argued that they were more civilized and more educated than the others; thus it was "best for everyone concerned" if they dominated national decision-making. A far-fetched analogy? Perhaps. But there are echoes of that mentality in the way some Americans still talk about Washington's role in global affairs.
And the end of the apartheid story really is a hopeful one! After fighting for centuries to maintain control, the whites finally sat down to talk with - and just as important, listen to - the African National Congress leaders. In the process, they found that those others were willing to work with them in building a new order built on equality and non-violent problem solving.
What would it mean, today, if Americans started to think and act as though all of humanity constituted a single community, with us as just one part of it? Are we ready to seek out and give fair weight to the views of the citizens of other countries on matters that affect everyone?
Climate change is an area in which we urgently need to adopt this approach. The current Bali conference negotiations give us a window to reach a fair international agreement on reducing climate-wrecking emissions. But what does "fairness" entail?
We cannot ask emerging countries such as China or India simply to forgo the economic growth that has brought such benefit to Americans and Europeans for 150 years now. Chinese and Indian leaders have already declared that unacceptable. Instead, we must work together to negotiate emissions caps that may be painful in the short run, but give us all the time and the tools we need to transform our economies into ones the Earth can sustain.
In a world built more truly on principles of equality, might US interests get swamped by the hostile and dictatorial tendencies of China or other emerging nations? Such a fear is exaggerated (and harmful). The US has several important protections for its independence: its geographical sturdiness; the UN's principles of non-aggression and respect for state sovereignty; and, at the military level, its continuing deterrent power.
Consider, too, what happened in the cases of the British Empire and South Africa. After decades of colonial bloodshed, all those once-fearful leaders finally realized that if you offer respect and equality to other people, then they will accord it back to you. There is certainly a lesson there!
Today, America's relationship with the world's 6 billion non-Americans is more vital to our wellbeing than ever before. Let's work on making it the most constructive relationship we can.
So it is time for a change.
The Pew Research Centre of the USA has recently conducted a survey on the global attitudes towards the USA in 24 countries after Senator Obama emerged as a presidential hopeful. Howard LaFranchi, staff writer of Christian Science Monitor, reports on how the perception of the people surveyed in those countries now look at the lone superpower of the world.
"Massive protests with an anti-American tinge in Seoul, Old Glory-burning in Beirut, and uproar in Pakistan over US air strikes on insurgent targets.
Such recent events might suggest that America's image abroad remains in the cellar, where it's been since the US invasion of Iraq.
But a new survey of global opinion points to some modest but striking improvements in international perceptions of the US - with prospects for a change in the White House playing a role.
In particular, the ability of an African-American to rise through a long campaign and put a new face on American leadership appears to have softened the negatives that hardened under President Bush.
"This is the first time there's a little bit of good news about the image of the United States" around the world, says Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, which has been surveying global attitudes about the US since 2002. "This is not a sea change," he adds, but opinions "are not so consistently negative as they have been in the past."
The survey of 24 countries shows that in 10 of them - including China, Russia, India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Tanzania - US favourability ratings rose since 2007. In Japan, Mexico, and Nigeria, favourability declined.
Speaking with reporters at a Monitor breakfast Thursday, Mr. Kohut said the latest survey found a high level of interest in the US presidential elections, with a higher percentage of Japanese than Americans (83 to 80 percent) saying they were paying close attention to the US campaign. But interest was also relatively high in countries like Turkey and Egypt.
Kohut attributes part of the interest to the candidacy of Democratic Sen. Barack Obama In nearly every country surveyed - excepting Jordan, by a slight margin - the public expressed more confidence in Senator Obama than in his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, "to do the right thing regarding world affairs."
The survey finds significant numbers of people, particularly in Western Europe, agreeing that US foreign policy will change for the better next year with a new president. Kohut assumes that much of the optimism derives from the fact that, no matter who wins, Bush will be out of the White House.
"He's a real red flag for a lot of people," he says. Other factors include the fact that both candidates talk of change, and Obama in particular sounds - and looks - different from what foreigners associate with recent US leadership.
Foreign policy experts say world views of the US matter because they can play an important role in determining how closely governments cooperate with the US, and how far influential individuals will take pro-American stands. "Everybody likes to be liked, but it really goes beyond that to our interests," says Charles Dunbar, a former US ambassador to Yemen and Qatar.
Citing the example of Islamic radicalism, he says an intense hostility to the US - based partly on a perceived American occupation of Islamic lands - can lead people to gravitate toward Islamism and even to anti-American action.
At the same time, he adds, an improved US image can make it easier for foreigners perceived as "pro-American" and favour steps sometimes associated with the US, like democratization or economic reforms.
Yet Ambassador Dunbar sees potential for a "letdown" if the improved image is largely based on positive media attention on one presidential candidate, in this case Obama. The potential exists, he says, first because Obama might not win and second, because his actions as president are unlikely to meet expectations. "Policy is going to matter a great deal, and things aren't going to change that much if Senator Obama is elected," he says. For example, it will be very difficult to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
Another example is US policy towards Pakistan. Tensions rose this week over US air strikes that killed a number of Pakistani paramilitary soldiers in the border region with Afghanistan. But it was the kind of strike - targeting insurgents along the Afghan border - that Obama was presumably referring to in a debate last August when he said he would be prepared to strike targets inside Pakistan even without the government's approval.
Earlier, on April 25 Helena Cobban, a former correspondent of csmonitor wrote in the same paper on what kind of international diplomacy should America now pursue in the wake of what she said last 7 years' unprecedented decline in 'global favourability rating' of US.
What kind of relationship do Americans want to build with the world's 6 billion other people in the years ahead? This question is urgent, since the past seven years have seen an unprecedented drop in our country's global favorability rating. In today's hyper-connected world, that has huge consequences for Washington's ability to protect American interests.
To fix this problem, many experts - and even the presidential candidates - are promoting agendas to rebuild America's position of world leadership. They are right to try to repair our image abroad. But their focus on "American leadership" is misplaced. A smarter approach would be for us to build a new relationship with the world that embraces the key principles of human equality and mutual respect among all peoples.
Starting to see themselves as "merely" equal to everyone else may seem slightly scary to some Americans. But history should assure them.
I grew up in a Great Britain that was making a broadly similar shift: from the days of the globe-girdling "British Empire" to a situation in which it was just one, though still quite powerful, nation among many. That change was warmly welcomed by the citizens of the many countries that won their independence from London. But as I explain in my upcoming book, "Re-engage! America and the World After Bush," it ended up being very good for the British, too. As any recent visitor can attest, today's Britain is humming and successful.
Here's another imperfect (but also helpful) comparison. America's current relationship with the rest of humanity has much in common with that between South Africa's apartheid-era whites and their disfranchised non-white compatriots. Back then, most white South Africans argued that they were more civilized and more educated than the others; thus it was "best for everyone concerned" if they dominated national decision-making. A far-fetched analogy? Perhaps. But there are echoes of that mentality in the way some Americans still talk about Washington's role in global affairs.
And the end of the apartheid story really is a hopeful one! After fighting for centuries to maintain control, the whites finally sat down to talk with - and just as important, listen to - the African National Congress leaders. In the process, they found that those others were willing to work with them in building a new order built on equality and non-violent problem solving.
What would it mean, today, if Americans started to think and act as though all of humanity constituted a single community, with us as just one part of it? Are we ready to seek out and give fair weight to the views of the citizens of other countries on matters that affect everyone?
Climate change is an area in which we urgently need to adopt this approach. The current Bali conference negotiations give us a window to reach a fair international agreement on reducing climate-wrecking emissions. But what does "fairness" entail?
We cannot ask emerging countries such as China or India simply to forgo the economic growth that has brought such benefit to Americans and Europeans for 150 years now. Chinese and Indian leaders have already declared that unacceptable. Instead, we must work together to negotiate emissions caps that may be painful in the short run, but give us all the time and the tools we need to transform our economies into ones the Earth can sustain.
In a world built more truly on principles of equality, might US interests get swamped by the hostile and dictatorial tendencies of China or other emerging nations? Such a fear is exaggerated (and harmful). The US has several important protections for its independence: its geographical sturdiness; the UN's principles of non-aggression and respect for state sovereignty; and, at the military level, its continuing deterrent power.
Consider, too, what happened in the cases of the British Empire and South Africa. After decades of colonial bloodshed, all those once-fearful leaders finally realized that if you offer respect and equality to other people, then they will accord it back to you. There is certainly a lesson there!
Today, America's relationship with the world's 6 billion non-Americans is more vital to our wellbeing than ever before. Let's work on making it the most constructive relationship we can.