|
|
 |
|
| Thought Leaders: Diplomacy |
Err America
Julia E. Sweig
08/01/06
|
Resentment of the U.S. around the world, especially among our allies in Europe,
Asia and Latin America, runs deeper than Iraq or Guantanamo. More widespread
than old-fashioned anti-Americanism, what I call “Anti-America” is rooted in
long-standing resentments over history, power, politics and prosperity. George
W. Bush’s policies and the war in Iraq simply had the effect of stripping back
the bandage that covered these latent wounds.
For all our power, we have
become increasingly disconnected from the historical political and cultural
dynamics that make other countries tick. Our elites in government, the private
sector and media have developed a bad habit of learning about the world mainly
from their peers abroad who share a similar class or interests. These elites
have learned to tell Washington or Wall Street what they want to hear in order
to manipulate U.S. power to achieve their aims.
This dynamic leads to bad
policy and harms our interests—although the U.S. private sector hesitates to
admit that global disaffection with our country can hurt business. Consumer
surveys and other evidence suggest that anti-American attitudes may translate
into a rejection of all things American, including our products. We may soon
learn that the effects of global arrogance and bad policies are not confined to
distant lands.
During the 20th century, what Henry Ford called the “American
century,” the world looked up to the United States. We were seen as largely
credible in our domestic projects at home and in advancing our values abroad.
Even so, the seeds of today’s backlash were sown during the American century.
After the Cold War, globalization and Americanization became synonymous. Where
countries have failed to connect competitively to the global economy, fair or
not, the United States and its companies take the blame. The intimacy of our
Cold War alliances and our expectations of permanent deference also bred
resentment. These historical issues have collided with the explosion of
technology and democracy to create a new landscape in world politics, just as
the United States has emerged as the single superpower.
We see ourselves as
fair rulers whose policies effectively advance U.S. interests and promote the
common good. But we confuse power with legitimacy. We cannot see our power from
the perspective of the powerless, and this clouds our judgment. We can no longer
disregard a fundamental fact of global politics: Other countries do not define
their interests as we define ours.
Corporate Diplomats
Especially in an
increasingly democratic and connected global environment, where governments must
be responsive to their domestic publics, elites and shareholders no longer call
all the shots. The United States must tend to a vastly more diverse set of
stakeholders to preserve its credibility and to recover that precious intangible
commodity we have lost: the benefit of the doubt. We must show that our ears and
eyes are open, no longer only to those who tell us what we want to hear, but to
those who do not.
Efforts to engage in private diplomacy (like that pioneered
by Business for Diplomatic Action which counts on its board ExxonMobil,
McDonald’s and Microsoft) and educate Americans as better listeners and world
citizens are small steps in the right direction.
Yet, we face the work of at
least a generation to recover our credibility. The U.S. body politic is in a
particularly insular and xenophobic mood. The immigration and Dubai Ports World
debates sent a message abroad that our traditionally open society, the very
feature that has made us special, may be a thing of the past. As the single
superpower, the United States is expected to provide global public goods to
solve problems related to security, poverty and development, climate change,
genocide and energy. But the government faces constraints—fiscal, political and
ideological.
Our titans of industry have long committed their resources to
the global common good. Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, Ted Turner, Bill Gates and
Gordon Moore have each poured significant resources into world issues. Such
generosity has symbolic and substantive impact. Bill Clinton’s Global
Initiative, connecting those with resources to projects that address the world’s
most serious challenges, is a more recent innovation that sends exactly the
right message—beyond governments—of hope and credibility.
Leadership from the
private sector, especially from those with great wealth, can begin to turn
around the United States’ declining image abroad and the fear that our citizens
have of the world beyond our shores. With persistence, we can prevent
“Anti-America” from becoming the challenge of the 21st century.
 | Julia E. Sweig is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author
of Friendly Fire: Losing Friends and Making Enemies in the
Anti-American
Century. |
|
|
|
|
|
