Americans are uncomfortable as thugs by Rami Khouri

Americans are uncomfortable as thugs
By Rami G. Khouri
Daily Star staff
Saturday, November 10, 2007

An intriguing dual process is taking place in the United States these days that deserves to be better appreciated around the world. On the one hand, presidential hopefuls in both parties jump over each other to be more supportive of Israel, more aggressive against Iran, and more blind to the real sources and nature of terrorism that targets the US and others in the world. On the other hand, more sensible Americans are charting a more constructive, realistic and mutually beneficial approach to engaging the world.

The poverty of the foreign policy public debate in the US is driven in large part by the Bush administration's agenda setting, leading to much sloganeering and macho muscle-flexing, and little serious debate of the big foreign policy issues that now link the United States so tightly to complex conditions in the Middle East and Asia. This is tinged with occasional glimpses of frightening racism beneath the surface, vis-ˆ-vis Arabs, Iran and Muslims in general.

A more accurate reflection of ordinary Americans' greater sense and compassionate values was offered this week with the publication of a bipartisan report by a group of respected Republicans, Democrats and independents that proposes to the next American president a new policy for engaging the rest of the world - on the basis of optimism rather than fear.

The report, entitled "A smarter, more secure America," was produced by a bipartisan panel sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, co-chaired by former Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage and former senior Defense Department official and now Harvard professor Joseph S. Nye, Jr. ( www.csis.org) Its basic message is that the United States' image and influence are in decline around the world, and if the US wishes to maintain a leading role in global affairs it "must move from eliciting fear and anger to inspiring optimism and hope."

It proposes a policy based on the use of "smart power" that combines America's vast and appealing "soft power" assets (culture, education, media, sports, business, technology, etc.) with traditional "hard power" tools like diplomacy, economic sanctions and military force. This would allow the US to "build the framework it needs to tackle tough global challenges," by focusing on five critical areas: alliances, partnerships and institutions; global development; public diplomacy that builds long-term, people-to-people relationships; economic integration; and, technology and innovation, especially for energy security and climate change.

The bipartisan nature of this report and its recommendations are important because they suggest that a majority of Americans would probably prefer a more realistic and less aggressive foreign policy. Most Americans are not comfortable with the US playing the role of the world's policeman, and would like to reverse the steady and severe decline of America's standing in world public opinion.

I was intrigued by what prompted the bipartisan agreement in the report and what it might mean, so I went to see Joseph Nye at Harvard a few days after the report was published. I asked him how he interpreted the consensus on the report. He replied: "I think there has been a reaction in public opinion and in the political elite against the excesses of the early years of the Bush administration. The assertive unilateralism advocated by neo-conservatives has led us into a very painful mess. The sense of how we develop 'smart power' is broadly shared across both parties. This bipartisan commission pretty much agrees that we've been exporting fear rather than hope and that we have not used our soft power instruments of attraction, and relied too much on our hard power."

When I asked him if the Iraq war was the main cause of this shift in prevailing American perceptions, he replied that, "Iraq was a very important part of making Americans realize that we stubbed our toe, but it's more than Iraq. There's a greater realization that we made a mistake in not moving more quickly on the Arab-Israeli peace process, that our unilateralism was patronizing our friends, and that we were not paying enough attention to questions of legitimacy in policy, such as by getting approval from the UN instead of moving unilaterally."

This is not only a refreshing change in American views of how to engage with the world, but also a more accurate reflection of how the majority of Americans thinks - in sharp contrast with the fear-anger-and-revenge-driven cowboy and cartoon militarism of the current administration.

The American democratic system is easily abused by lobbies and special interests, and takes time to reverse its own distortions and occasional misadventures. But it usually does so in the end. This report is a sign that sensible Americans are tired of the Bush administration acting like thugs around the world, and treating Americans like amoral simpletons.

Rami G. Khouri is published twice weekly by The Daily Star.