I disagree - the most successful nations tend to form solid, long-term relationships that are certainly based on self-interest but also a genuine respect and friendship that evolves over time. I saw that in most countries I served in as a diplomat.
More important, there are certain countries in the world that other countries simply can't ignore. We can ignore Uruguay or Tanzania most of the time, but the key players in the world economic and political scene are unavoidable - NATO, the G8, oil nations, major trading partners, etc.
Broader issues decided in international fora depend on having several dozen nations at least favorably disposed to your point of view. Fact is, most small countries would like to have big, rich friends if they don't get squashed in the process.
But given a choice of "with us or against us" zero-sum xenophobic unilateralism, the majority will say why put up with this crap and look for other friendships and alliances.
Most Americans seem to approach foreign affairs like domestic politics - you bash your opponent and pander to your supporters, win the elections by 5-10% and get to have your way for several years.
Marginal "victories" in foreign affairs are irrelevant. If they are won at the expense of long-term relationships they become a major negative. |
