While George Bush struggles in domestic public opinion, the US seems to be improving in its standing in the world. As they say, read the whole thing, but here are some highlights:
The public opinion poll was conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, hardly a bastion of neocon zealotry. (It's co-chaired by Madeleine Albright.) Over the last three years, Pew surveys have charted surging anti-Americanism in response to the invasion of Iraq and other actions of the Bush administration. But its most recent poll — conducted in May, with 17,000 respondents in 17 countries — also found evidence that widespread antipathy is abating.
The percentage of people holding a favorable impression of the United States increased in Indonesia (+23 points), Lebanon (+15), Pakistan (+2) and Jordan (+16). It also went up in such non-Muslim nations as France, Germany, Russia and India.
What accounts for this shift? The answer varies by country, but analysts point to waning public anger over the invasion of Iraq, gratitude for the massive U.S. tsunami relief effort and growing conviction that the U.S. is serious about promoting democracy.
We'd all want the United States to be even more well liked in the world, but this is a good sign. As Bernard Lewis has put it (and I paraphrase), "It's difficult to rich, powerful and successful, and be loved by those who are poor, weak, and unsuccessful." But it all starts with baby steps I suppose. I want to comment concerning "growing conviction that the U.S. is serious about promoting democracy." For decades, particularly during the Cold War, the US supported many undemocratic regimes in the name of a larger global strategy. I don't have a problem with this. Sometimes you have to support rotten governments because the alternative is worse. This is what the US concluded in such places as El Salvador, the Philippines, and (wrongly it turned out) South Africa. But when you make such deals with the devil, it is incumbent on you to clean up the mess at the earliest possible moment. This what the US did in Panama with Noriega (who used to be on the CIA payroll) and more recently with Sadaam Hussein. But support for unsavory regimes, which is no doubt sometimes necessary (see our current support for Musharraf in Pakistan), means that the US can rightly be held by much of the world as having a double standard. I think Bush is finally getting across to parts of the world that he is serious about promoting democracy around the globe, starting in the Middle East. The Bush administration has concluded that the best way to keep American safe is to promote democracy and total inclusion into the global economy. I think that policy is fraught with peril, but is the least bad of all options. I was part of a panel at my place of employment to watch and discuss the film Fahrenheit 9-11 (neither the film nor my opinions were endorsed by the university). One of the left leaning panel members described the Bush policy I just outlined (promoting democracy) as "ethnocentric". I found that an odd argument to be coming from an American. Since when is the idea that "the yearning for freedom beats in every human heart", as Bush likes to say, an "ethnocentric" view? Since when is the idea that all peoples deserve democracy "ethnocentric"? Which peoples in the world don't deserve democracy? It used to be right-wing racists who would claim that some people aren't fit for democracy. Now, the idea that democracy is just for some and not for others might be true, but it does put one at war with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, which claims to be true for all people for all times. And the one can claim that the self-evident truths of the Declaration are self-evident falsehoods, but I am not sure I'd want to run for office on that plank.
Recent Comments