Restoring Respect for America
Among the gravest problems that will face the next president is the growing global hostility to the United States. The decline in America's standing in the world has been steep, especially in Western Europe and the Muslim countries. Between 1999/2000 and 2006, favorable opinions of the United States in Germany, Great Britain, and France declined 41, 27, and 23 points, respectively. In Indonesia and Turkey, two of the world's largest Muslim countries, favorable views of the U.S. fell by 45 and 40 points.
The United States is now considered the country that poses the most severe threat to world peace. In a survey earlier this year of 15 countries, the American intervention in Iraq ranked as "the greatest threat to world peace," well ahead of Iran and North Korea (and narrowly surpassing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). One indication of how far the United States has fallen is that in a survey of eight Western nations even China, hardly a beacon of democracy and human rights, has a higher favorability ranking than the U.S. Of the five nations studied (including Japan, Germany, and France), the United States ranked last.
The standing of the United States in the Muslim world, estimated at 1.3 billion people (roughly one-fifth of the world's population), is nothing short of disastrous. In none of five major Muslim countries surveyed in 2006 did even a third of the population hold favorable views of the United States; in Turkey, a putative U.S. ally, the figure was a dismal 12 percent. For some people, this hostility to the United States can translate into approval of terrorism: in 2004, 46 percent of Pakistanis and 70 percent of Jordanians agreed that "acts of terror/suicide bombings against Westerners and Americans are justified."
The increasing global hostility to the United States is a serious threat to both our influence in world affairs and our national security. Americans intuitively grasp that having many enemies and increasingly strained relations with our traditional friends is not in the national interest. In a November NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, "regaining respect for the U.S. around the world" ranked as the second most important "kind of change that is needed" under the next president; 59 percent of Americans ranked it as a "major element" and another 22 percent declared it "important." Revealingly, "working well with leaders of countries" was the top-ranked quality people were looking for in the next president.
To be sure, no individual can single-handedly restore America's reputation--anti-Americanism was rising well before George W. Bush took office and has deep roots. Yet by background, by temperament, and by political philosophy, one presidential candidate--Barack Obama--emerges as best suited to begin the arduous task of restoring America's moral standing in the world.
As a candidate, Barack Obama is not without flaws; he is at times a surprisingly uninspired public speaker, he is relatively inexperienced, and his appealing aura of humility is suspiciously polished. Nevertheless, his strengths for the job at hand are considerable. Obama's multi-cultural background is well-known: Kenyan father, Kansan mother, multi-racial Hawaiian upbringing, and four formative years in Indonesia. Less well-known is the fact that while some economically advanced Western countries have elected a woman as prime minister or president, not one has ever elected a non-white to the nation's highest office. For many people in the developing world, the image of a black man--and one with Hussein as his middle name--in the White House would be electrifying.
But Obama's unusual background is not the only reason why he is particularly well-suited to the task of reversing America's declining international standing. By all accounts, Obama is an extraordinary listener--a man who intently and patiently attends to what others, including those with whom he profoundly disagrees, are saying. Temperamentally, his inclination is to seek common ground, to reach consensus if possible. In a world wracked by ideological and cultural divisions, Obama's commitment to treating his adversaries with dignity and respect is an invaluable quality.
Last, and arguably most important, is Obama's political philosophy. While he firmly believes that the use of force is sometimes necessary in international affairs, he is also convinced that the United States is most effective in exercising global leadership when it lives up to its own highest values. For this reason, Obama has stated unequivocally that he would close Guantanamo, adhere to the Geneva Conventions, and "reject torture without exception."
Among the major presidential candidates, Obama was the only one to oppose the Iraq War from the beginning; "even a successful war against Iraq," he said in an extraordinarily prescient speech in October 2002, "will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." Obama's opposition to the Iraq War flowed naturally out of a vision of America's role in the world that reflects a deep awareness that, as the sole global superpower, our actions are scrutinized around the globe more intensely than those of any other country and will inevitably either enhance or undermine one of our most precious assets: our moral standing.
In the end, the next president will face no task more important than restoring the legitimacy on the global stage that Americans not long ago took for granted. In many parts of the world, the stark reality is that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, not the Statue of Liberty and the Declaration of Independence, stand as the most powerful symbols of who we are as a nation. If we wish to reverse this, no step could be more effective than electing Barack Obama as our next president.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I think that if our troops were all back on our
soil, and other countries had to like, stand up
and start thinking and doing for themselves and
they couldn't apply and get america-fare, that
like, a lot of things would probably sort themselves out, AND a lot more people would actually start having more respect for us as a country.
The only way for America to reduce hostility towards us globally is to do two things:
1. Israel must be cut off; all aid, all military shipments, all economic, diplomatic and political support must be withdrawn and we must lead the way internationally with sanctions against that rogue nation and to disarm them of their nuclear stash.
2. Remove ourselves from Iraq & pay war reparations to rebuild what we destroyed.
3. Actually do what we set out to do in Afghanistan: destroy the Taliban.
4. Dismantle religous & foreign special interest groups.
5. Destroy the religious rights choke hold on this nation.
Obama in '08
The headline should have read "Obama Only One to Restore Respect for America", because that was the content of the article. I would like to know if a post is just another paean to a particular candidate so I can choose whether to read it or not. Having read it, however, I am not sure that you've made your case if all you've got to go on are the statements of someone who was completely outside the process at the time the resolution was passed in Congress and that person's mult-cultural heritage. Obama tels us he wants to bring us all together, and you point out some of the ways you think he could do that successfully. I think, though, that in order to bring people together everyone concerned has to want to be brought together. Nothing about the Republican Party suggests that they want to reconcile with anyone. In fact, everything they say and do seems to say that they are perfectly happy with their current course. At this point I think America's best chance to repair its image abroad may be to start with what's going on right here in our country and that is going to take a fight, not a good listening session.
I agree with the writers that the US is in a deep hole re its foreign relations and it is essential that it stop digging and climb out of it. If the US fails to do so, the fallout from Bush's blunders will not only continue to hamper our foreign policy and national security. It will also increasingly have a negative effect on our economy.
I also agree that it is likely that a President Obama will enjoy an initial PR honeymoon period among Muslims.
But the US needs more than a PR honeymoon. It needs to establish a rational, consistent, and understandable strategy for the ME from Israel to Pakistan. A strategy that our traditional allies can sign onto. Obama may be able to do this but to date he hasn't proven it to me with his statements on the topic.
I think Biden and, to a somewhat lesser degree, Dodd are the only candidates in either party that have demonstrated an in-depth and fact-based understanding of this.
"Among the major presidential candidates, Obama was the only one to oppose the Iraq War from the beginning;"
Once again we are faced with the Corporate News slant of pre picking the "acceptable" candidates. By the inclusion of "major presidential candidates" you have parroted the MSM idea that only the pre-selected will get coverage. It re-enforces the idea that our only choices are from column A and column B where the names on each column have been screened for their acceptability by the Corporate Press. We do not need to fall inline at this site. If you wish to cull out Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul then please go to CNN or Fox with your opinions. Thank You.
What I find interesting is how the US makes itself out to be judge, jury and executioner of all the worlds misdeads. We set higher standards for other countries and their attrocities but when it is time for the US to look in the mirror and hold ourselves accountable for our misdeads, we look the other way. Our President and his administration tells the world that the treaties agreed upon in the past, is for everyone else, but not the US. If we, as a nation does not hold this administration accountable for its own attrocities, then we are telling the world that we will "impeach" a President for lying about an extra-marital affair, but when it comes to raping and pillaging other nations for its natural resources and other various deceptive attrocities all in the name of the "War on Terror" we are willing to look the other way. That in itself would make the US the laughing stock of the Global Community!!
I do believe that Washington DC needs an enema and the US could use an "Extreme Makeover", but I do not feel that Obama is the person for that job. We have seen what 8 years of being lead by a person with "limited" (and I feel that I am being too kind to W by using the term "limited") experience can do to a country. What we need is a leader that has experience and is already known on a global level. With this in mind, I truly favor Biden or Edwards to take the helm and try to get us going in the right direction. This country can be great again, if only we hold ourselves to the same high standards that we expect of everyone else in the Global Community.
the post was informative until it got to the about obama being the best choice. the basic premise is good - just not the conclusion
“AP) Pakistan criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes against terrorists hiding in this Islamic country”
You say that between the Clinton Administration and NOW, major nations’ opinions of the USA have declined 30 to 40 points and that Obama should be elected as he is most likely to improve the situation, particularly in Muslim nations because his middle name is Hussein. This week there was a story that Bill was the most admired man in the world (ahead of Gore)) and Hillary was again the most admired woman in the world (ahead of Oprah) A statue honouring Clinton was erected in the Muslim state of Kosovo because he was instrumental in the UN NATO operation that resulted in the return of million Muslim Kosovars to the homes from which they had been driven by the Serbs. A street was named honouring General Wesley Clark (now supporting Hillary) who commanded the NATO forces involved. Hillary visited Kosovo when it was not considered safe for the president to go..
Only the world admired Clintons plus others like General Clark, Gore and Carter can improve the reputation of the USA. It take years to mend what Bush destroyed and a while to repair the damage Obama has done.
Obama is our only hope to restore respect for the U.S.? Then we are in big trouble. I believe that it takes more than cosmetics and a "multi-cultural background
Joe Biden on Pakistan
http://www
http://www
Joe Biden on CIA tapes
http://www
http://www
Joe Biden on Iran and Impeachment of Bush
http://www
http://www
Global Corporatism is certainly the Main Culprit in league with the U.S. government who will stoop to anything for MONEY. Name a place where we have gone to "help" where self-interest and rape of resources has not occurred? Why would anyone trust an exploiter and crooked robber? Peace
I agree with "Hopeless"
I agree with your article that an Obama Presidency will be the only hope we have at gaining back some form of respect in the world.
However, I also agree with SUNDIALSVC4, that if we do not punish and impeach all those, in all branches of our government, who played a role in instigating and allowing the destruction, torture and killing within our nation, and the world, then we have no right to ask the world's forgiveness, never mind a second chance!!!!
Unless the neozioncons, like abrams, wolfowitz, bolton, pipes, etc are thrown out of the govt;
unless there is serious, significant, rational national discussion about the blind support of isreal;
unless the govt stops invoking the bush doctrine;
unless the govt agrees to international standards for climate, pows, cluster bombs and land mines;
etc
There will be no change!
There's a glimmer of hope, although improbable, and not by pinning hopes on one candidate, toward restoring respect for us. After Super Tuesday, February 8, progressives could urge people to mass de-register from both major parties, make no contributions and declare that they will not vote for Neogoon and money-annointed winners unless the parties come up with an explicit bipartisan agreement to limit our panMiddle East crusade for secular “democracies” there.
9/11was like a painful insect bite. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have been like swinging a sledgehammer at insects. Bin Laden's bleeding us dry over there, so he doesn't have to fight us here. If you feared more dangerous bites, you'd put on protective clothes; maybe drain a swamp. Want to see real swamps of Islamofacism?- Look at theocratic monarchies in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE.
Puppet secular regimes are like flashy, expensive lemons. “Iraq Violence Down” press releases, and “security” are a joke: the Sadr militia is on truce, and Islamists have shifted troops to the Afghan and Pakistan fronts. “Boom”goes poor Bhutto, the instant she speaks against Islamists.
Want to really defend America? Drive 55, and conserve otherwise! Improve preventive health care for the poor, where bioterrorists could start plagues. Expand the National Guard. Have it actually guard our borders. Deploy nuclear and other screening in foreign ports we get cargo from. Expand the Coast Guard. Post them on every ship coming to us.
This won't happen while paying $800 billion upkeep on the Iraq lemon. Pride is a sin in both Testaments and Koran. Think the Democratic party is more worth saving? Free trade's great expansion of resource consumption is probably what pushed the earth over the tipping point to the worst global warming scenario. And free trade was totally bipartisan. It's an inconvenient truth, but Gore broke the Senate tie that passed NAFTA. Now, while Democrats slither over spilled blood to another turn on the “Bribes R' US” throne, “staying the course” serves only so that Republicans can claim Democrats “lost” the Middle East.
Crash the parties!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
