I've been seeing more and more being written about the changing U.S. role in the world in recent decades. As the only superpower in the post-Cold War system, the United States has enjoyed the ability to act in its own self-interest without much cost. But decades of manipulation and meddling in other countries' affairs, along with its more recent antisocial behavior (rejecting Kyoto and the ICC) has stained its international image. In her book, The Idea that is America, Anne-Marie Slaughter points out that the world has certainly noticed our arrogance. The attitude of American exceptionalism has managed to squander much of the international empathy we received following the 2001 terrorist attacks. A 2007 Pew Research Center survey of global opinions revealed an “increasing disapproval of the cornerstones of U.S. foreign policy.” With a new administration entering the White House in less than a year, some are anxiously anticipating how this will affect America's foreign policy. Chances are, says The Economist, there will not be much of a change in our self-reliant approach. But the U.S. would be wise to reconsider its stewardship of power in anticipation of long-term global developments. Fareed Zakaria writes in his upcoming book, The Post-American World, that emerging powers such as Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) will ultimately force the U.S. to adapt its foreign policies amid unfamiliar economic, social and political dynamics. So why not begin now? Doing so will ultimately benefit the U.S. as well as the rest of the world. For there is much at stake (climate change, free markets, spreading democracy), and cooperation – rather than unilateralism - is crucial. It is time for the United States to once again function as part of the whole.
31 March 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
DISCLAIMER B: I have not studied or read up on this issue. I have prejudices and biases, just like everyone else.
I have a couple of questions:
1) How does one decide what is "true" in international reporting? Everyone, including the news media, has biases: what makes their bias more valuable (dare I say "true"?) than mine? And whose opinion is being reported? I'm sure many rulers dislike aspects of American foreign policy, but do their people share this dislike? News broadcasts seem to indicate that a majority of Americans significantly disagree with the current administration; yet at the same time they want us to believe that this is not the case in most other countries. Are those contentions accurate?
2) The last statement made was that American needs to function as part of the whole. This statement seems to presume that "the whole" is right. Is it? On what grounds is it right? And what about other nations? Are the Muslim nations functioning as part of the whole? At first glance it seems that the US relationship to the whole is remarkably similar to the Muslim relationship to the whole, i.e.: domination.
Yes, American foreign policy is arrogant. I think that our exportation of cultural ideals via movies and TV is appalling and very detrimental. (The media does not seem to agree with me on this point.) Yes, we cling to the right to be the exception. No, this is not nice (or good).
On the other hand, I'm not quite convinced that the whole (meaning the rest of the world) is Right and therefore worthy of being agreed with. Nor am I quite convinced that the US is the only country that is not supporting the whole.
Post a Comment