| Foreigners don't hate America, they hate Bush. |
| People in the middle east (and around the world) don't hate America. They are, as they have always been, fascinated with America. They admire Americans and given the chance, most would love to visit America. They think of America as the home of Levis, Elvis, hamburgers and rock & roll. What they hate is the aggressive and arrogant policy of the Bush administration. They disapprove of our unquestioning support of Israel and they certainly disapprove of our unilateral invasion of Iraq. To change the way foreigners regard U.S. policy, we must change the way we interact with other countries on the world stage. We should reject initiatives that exert brute force on foreign countries, no matter how benign we consider the endeavor. Instead, we should look for every opportunity to help people in other countries when they are in acute need, such as the victims of the recent tsunami and earthquake. Devoting a fraction of what we spend on militaristic adventures to humanitarian aid would make serious inroads in reversing the damage to our reputation that the Bush administration has caused. Americans may fight evil... but that does not make us inherently good. And paradoxically, that very recognition makes national greatness possible. Knowing that we, too, can be corrupted by power, we seek the constraints that empires refuse. And knowing that democracy is something we pursue rather than something we embody, we advance it not merely by exhorting others but by battling the evil in ourselves. The irony of American exceptionalism is that by acknowledging our common fallibility, we inspire the world. In his first eight months in office, President Bush aggressively reasserted American freedom of action, repudiating no fewer than six international agreements or institutions. And after 9/11, he began depicting this freedom to act alone as a means not merely of safeguarding American interests but also of liberating American virtue so it could remake the world. It has not turned out that way. On global warming, an America liberated from international restraint has acted irresponsibly; in our antiterrorist prisons, we have acted inhumanely. And from the moment the United States invaded Iraq, the Bush administration's complacent certainty of its own benevolence has blinded it to the dangers of colonial rule. While the authors of the Marshall Plan avoided remaking Europe's economy, for fear of sparking nationalist resentment, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, L. Paul Bremer III, unilaterally rescinded Iraq's import tariffs on foreign goods. Bremer may have thought he was acting on Iraq's behalf, even without its people's consent. But that is only because he lacked the self-consciousness and humility to see that he was not. As Larry Diamond, a more reflective C.P.A. official, noted: "American political leaders need to take a cold shower of humility: we do not always know what is best for other people, even when we think it is their interests we have in mind. And as I saw during my time in Iraq, it was frequently our interests that were driving decisions we were trying to impose." Where Bush ... goes wrong is in believing that America can unilaterally declare a moral standard while exempting itself. For President Bush, freedom is a one-way conversation. The United States calls on other countries to embrace liberty; we even aid them in the task. But if they call back, proposing some higher standard that might require us to modify our actions, we trot out John Bolton. For the rest of the world, freedom requires infringements upon national sovereignty. But for the United States, sovereignty trumps all. A government that leaves its people to fend for themselves in the face of rising economic insecurity will face grave difficulty asking them to support enlightened policies aimed at helping people in other corners of the globe. That is the hidden backdrop to the great popular revolt against the Dubai ports deal earlier this year — an isolationist, nationalist spasm by a public that feels the government is more concerned with the interests of foreigners than with its own. Source: "The Rehabilitation of the Cold-War Liberal" By PETER BEINART - NY Times - April 30, 2006 -- Peter Beinart is editor at large of The New Republic. This essay is adapted from "The Good Fight: Why Liberals — and Only Liberals — Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again," which will be published in late May by HarperCollins. |
No one has submitted a comment on this statement yet.
Be the first and submit your feedback below.
Submit your comment below |