Al Hunt writes his usually sane piece in the WSJ today. Illegitimate US foreign policy is the topic.
POLITICS & PEOPLE
By AL HUNT
The Faux Foreign Policy Leadership
online.wsj.com
MADRID -- Perhaps it's only semi-rational paranoia, but as one of six Americans waiting several hours in a train station, there seemed to be glares of hostility; and this is one of the few major countries that was with us in the Iraqi war.
Don Rumsfeld hasn't declared whether Spain is part of what he considers the increasingly irrelevant "Old Europe" or the "New Europe," supportive of America. Unfortunately the Spanish people seem to be lining up: A clear majority now disapprove of the United States and attribute it to the policies of the Bush administration.
Of course, the always-assertive American defense chief also neglected to tell the people of Poland, clearly part of any "New Europe" how they feel. A survey last month showed that Poles, by a 55% to 36% margin, oppose sending forces to help the U.S. in post-war Iraq.
The Paul Wolfowitz-Richard Perle school further assures us, don't worry about the Syrians or the Saudis, with strong American leadership, moderate and more democratically-inclined Arab countries will be supportive. But a Pew survey of 20 countries, conducted after the ouster of Saddam Hussein and more than a year and a half after the Sept. 11 terrorism, suggests otherwise. In Morocco and Jordan, Osama bin Laden is one of the most popular world leaders.
Well, Europe and the Middle East are unique, the apologists declare. Okay, let's take Latin America. One American political consultant was in Venezuela this summer to help forces aligned against the miserable regime of President Hugo Chavez. The Venezuelan president is on the ropes, with less public support than Richard Nixon had during Watergate, but this politico says there's one thing that could bail him out: "if the Bush administration came out against him."
Businessmen traveling around Asia recently report pervasive opposition to American foreign policy. One longtime Asian businessman laments there is a more vociferous anti-American sentiment in the region than anytime in the past 30 years -- "America is viewed as an arrogant bully."
Of course, we still have our "special relationship" with the Brits; Tony Blair's unwavering and courageous support of American policy just might cost him the prime ministership. And President Bush may have looked into Russian president Putin's heart, but during the Iraqi war that was trumped by the former-KGB agent's head, which followed the anti-U.S. attitude of his constituents.
The Don Rumsfeld Field of Dreams Foreign Policy -- lead and they will follow, or, if they don't, who cares -- isn't working. Around the globe, the Bush foreign policy is described as "arrogant" or complaints abound about "treating us with contempt" or "humiliating us."
ALONE?
Is the U.S. doing a positive or negative job in reconstructing Iraq and taking into account the interests of the Iraqi people?
Positive Negative
U.S. 59% 32%
Spain 28 64
Turkey 23 63
Russia 10 78
Indonesia 12 83
Source: Pew Global Attitudes Project, April-May 2003
To be sure, some of the resentment is natural against the world's only superpower. The Bush administration has some impressive successes to brag about: a Middle East peace process is on track, for now at least; relations with China, the only country that could be another superpower in the next generation, have improved; the president's recent trip to Africa was a success; and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein or Mullah Omar in power.
Pollster John Zogby, in soundings mainly in the Muslim world, finds solid support for American science and technology, education and American-made products. But attitudes turn overwhelmingly negative when it comes to American policy.
Some of the anti-American resentment centers on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. But it goes deeper. The neo-conservatives, the dominant force in this administration's foreign policy, overestimate what America can do by itself, disdainfully viewing diplomacy and coalitions as signs of weakness.
This view has proven disastrous in post war-Afghanistan and post war-Iraq. The failure to make a serious effort at nation-building after driving out the despicable Taliban has resulted in an Afghanistan that borders on complete anarchy. The abject failure to plan for after Saddam is a policy disaster.
These mistakes entail considerable costs; America is going to bear the burden for Iraqi reconstruction. Important issues -- from terrorism to weapons proliferation to disease control -- can't be waged unilaterally. Moreover, there will be a commercial and economic reaction to American unilateralism, despite our economic clout.
What the Cheney-Rumsfeld crowd ignores is basic politics. Over the long haul, it is virtually impossible for political leaders to sustain positions at variance with most of their people, especially as the world moves to more representative political systems. To pretend we will pay no price for rampant anti-Americanism around the globe is to ignore history and politics. The contention that this isn't unique -- citing the Vietnam War and controversies over putting nuclear missiles in Germany in the 1980s -- is incorrect. Opinion then was divided; it isn't today.
One potential improvement would be for President Bush to become more engaged; too often he views these issues through the political-public relations prism of Karl Rove. I don't begrudge George W. Bush's 35-day vacation at his Texas ranch, but he ought to spend more time around the world, courting friends and alliances. Mr. Bush has been in Crawford three times more than abroad. The vice president, the major voice in national security debates, has taken a total of one trip, to the Middle East, a conspicuous failure. He doesn't even do funerals.
If re-elected, Mr. Bush also might try to persuade Colin Powell not to leave. Unlike most of his administration counterparts, he appreciates that leadership is very difficult without friendly followers. |
