The century was not quite a year old when the terrorists struck on Sept. 11, stabbing at the two mightiest emblems of American power and leaving more than 3,000 people dead.
The dreadful event resulted in an outpouring of sympathy and a flurry of support for the US from nations around the world, whose leaders immediately made it clear that they would readily assist Washington in whatever course of action it chose to take in order to pursue the perpetrators.
The sympathy is still there. The support, however, may have evaporated. The reason for that may be America’s increasing penchant, since Sept. 11, to see the world through the distorted lens of the war on terrorism and, in a unilateral sense, to be dismissive of the international consensus on issues of primary concern to what is now effectively the global village.
Nations from Europe to the Arab world, from South Asia and the Pacific Rim, and from South America to the Russian Federation, have become progressively more estranged from US foreign policy on questions as far apart as the environment and the Middle East. The widespread perception appears to be that the US has opted to go its own way regardless of the consequences, meanwhile repeating the refrain that those who do not see eye to eye with it are in essence against it.
Several months ago, even Colin Powell, a man given to metaphors in his speeches suggestive of peace and international cooperation, told servicemen at an air force base outside Rome how President Bush negotiates differences with allies. "He tries to persuade others why that is the correct position," he said. "When it doesn’t work, then we will take the position that is correct." And as if to add a Freudian dimension to that posture, Assistant Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage more recently stated: "We’ve got influence, power, prestige and clout beyond any nation in the history of the world." All of which, he added, somewhat smugly, "brings forth a certain amount of envy."
Who is to determine here "the position that is correct" and whether the perception of other nations — sadly not as richly endowed as the United States — is envy, not caution?
Surely, in international affairs, assertions of truth and ethical judgment do not derive their objective validity from any one moment of immediacy in history, promulgated by any one big power husbanding "influence, power, prestige and clout." Rather, validity in this context is never independent from a historically emergent, consensual system of thought, backed up by a well-developed, tried-and-true set of notions, rooted in values, priorities, goals and a sense of right and wrong, that guide our human affairs, and that we employ daily, almost unconsciously, without the slightest hint of metaphysical anxiety.
Today, the US, with its obsessive preoccupation with the war on terrorism, with its projected war on Iraq, and with the primacy it has placed on its interests in the world, has narrowed the range of the global dialogue of cultures to rote discourse and to surface pieties — where you are simply with me or against me, with no middle ground allowed — and shown that it places little stock in the needs and opinions of other nations. "It is less important to have unanimity than it is to be making the right decisions and doing the right thing," said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently. Few countries around the world, however, believe Washington is making the right decisions and doing the right thing.
As European, Arab and Muslim countries express despair, for example, at how US foreign policy has swung sharply in favor of Israel, and equal despair at America’s plans to attack Iraq, Washington has found it increasingly difficult to assemble the kind of support that it had garnered in the wake of Sept. 11.
In a front-page article in the Washington Post last Sunday, Glenn Kessler, one of the paper’s senior news analysts, wrote: "Indeed, the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon may be one of the few around the world confident that it sees eye to eye with the administration."
The end result is that the ties that Washington has with several countries, including traditional allies, are now strained.
And talk about being dismissive! President Bush has decided, as a case in point, to skip the United Nations Summit on Sustainable Development in South Africa, where nearly 100 world leaders have attended, including those from the Group of Seven industrialized nations, in effect sending the message that the US does not consider the issue an international priority and that, heck, Washington thinks little of these gatherings anyhow.
Even the language that officials have used in recent months is replete with hawkish war metaphors — metaphors having to do with "gaining and losing ground," "indefensible claims," the president’s point being "right on target," "shooting down" arguments against toppling Saddam Hussein, and the rest of it — sanctioning the perception that the world is to be changed by force of arms, as opposed to force of reason.
Last week, a senior administration official was quoted as saying: "The US is an overwhelming presence right now. There’s no doubt about that. Everybody will tell you that. I sometimes think that there’s an unwarranted fear that the United States will use that power in the way that other overwhelming powers did."
Unwarranted? One hopes so. When you consider that the overall US military budget, of nearly $400 billion, is larger than the next 25 nations combined, our fear had better be unwarranted. (e-mail: [email protected])
