America: Showing a Better Heart to the World


By Philip Jones, Associate Professor and Director of Global Security
and Intelligence Studies, Embry-Riddle

Philip JonesThe United States is winning few friends these days, despite widespread sympathy after the events of Sept. 11. We may, in fact, be making more enemies. Certainly, as recent polls show, this is the case in the Muslim world. But even in Europe, among our tried and true friends, there is an edginess and, at times, sharp opposition to the foreign policy directions Washington is taking. Too often of late, America is viewed as an immature, self-absorbed if not selfish, arrogant, go-it-alone colossus, manipulated by multinational corporate interests. This particularly is the case among the younger generation in Europe, China, and elsewhere.

One reason for this is a natural fear of the concentration of military and economic power in the world's single superpower. Many countries thrived in the period of Cold War bipolarity, when the strategic reach of each superpower was contained and countervailed by the other. This is not so any longer. The United States stands forth as the hegemonic power in this period of history, the "indispensable state" in so many critical disputes, and the one country capable of enforcing an international pax Americana. One is not surprised to see other major states combine against the United States when they believe their national and strategic interests are at stake. How strongly they combine will depend in part on how great they perceive the threat to be.

Another reason for the growing disenchantment with the United States lies in the signals we are sending. Let's be honest about this. In many critical areas of world concern, Washington is taking positions that appear singularly self-interested, isolationist, and directly opposed to emerging consensus among our own people, not to mention our allies, friends, and other states. We are taking awkward, barely credible positions on issues of profound concern to informed world opinion: on the environment and climate change (backing out of the Kyoto Treaty), on arms control (refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty), and on international peacekeeping operations (inconsistency). Our leaders give the impression not only of not knowing much about the wider world, but also of not caring - except, as after Sept. 11, when WE need world support.

As an American with wide international contacts, frankly I am concerned, even embarrassed by the current tone and trend of our foreign policy. We seem to have veered away from so many of the best traditions of American diplomacy. One recalls the clear-sighted pragmatism of our founding fathers, their understanding of covenanted relationships, their support for commerce and friendship with all nations on the basis of good faith and respect for treaties, and their belief in the rule of law and the necessity for orderly change. Over the past 100 years, the United States has been a champion of the codification of international law, the establishment of international organizations, the principles of self-determination and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the necessity of supporting nation building and international economic development. None of these things any longer seem to be priorities of our foreign policy.

This is not an argument for weakening U.S. foreign policy, but for a multidimensional approach. We need to maintain a strong military posture, keep in view an understanding of our strategic interests, make a quantum leap in our human intelligence-gathering capabilities, and support our reasonable economic interests. Those are all important, even critical, objectives. But we need to do more than that. Raw power, whether in the service of military objectives or economic interests, is not a sufficient basis for foreign policy. Also important is an assertion of our better values, our altruism, and our willingness to fund sustainable international development and work within an international framework on issues of global warming, arms control, and peacekeeping. We need to remember that development is not necessarily the same as Americanization and that market capitalism, for all its strengths, can have severely damaging effects on traditional societies.

President Bush's decision to expand the Peace Corps and increase funding for foreign assistance are a good start toward a revived multidimensional foreign policy. Not only does the Peace Corps provide American pragmatism and technical know-how at the grass roots, but it profoundly educates American volunteers about the cultures, languages, and aspirations of diverse peoples around the world. Another good step is the decision to ensure the recovery and development of Afghanistan. Perhaps there we can start to reverse the broadly accepted belief in the Muslim world that the United States is an enemy of Islam and cares little for the future well-being of Muslim peoples.

The views expressed in "Perspectives" are those of the writer and not necessarily those of Embry-Riddle.