View Full Version : Should the United States act with humility in international affairs?
Should the United States act with humility in international affairs?
John R. Bolton, Incharacter.org
No...
“A United States infused with humility works right up until Europeans — and we ourselves — need real protection."
For individuals, humility is typically considered a desirable virtue, in contrast to its opposite number, pride, often deprecated and broadly perceived as a less-desirable personal characteristic. Both humility and pride are, of course, simply different aspects of situational self-awareness, divergent points along the continuum of behavior toward other people. Humility connotes modesty and respect for others, while pride is seen as masking arrogance, and is frequently accompanied by a swaggering cohort of other undesirable attributes.
It is therefore far from surprising that Dwight Eisenhower normally wins the contest for "most popular" over Lyndon Johnson. Alternatively, Winston Churchill once described his political opponent, Labour Party leader Clement Attlee, as "a modest man with much to be modest about." Churchill's humility was obviously not his strongest suit; he insisted even to his own family, "I am a great man." Indeed he was. Humility in the face of Hitler and Nazi Germany, despite Gandhi's advice not to resist a fascist invasion of Britain, would have rendered Churchill an abject failure in history.
Accordingly, the appropriate balance for individuals is unresolvable. And yet, notwithstanding the imponderables involved in appropriately sizing and judging humanity one by one, we have nonetheless long analogized large political entities - from empires to kingdoms to nation-states - to individuals. We do it in many ways, large and small, perhaps because it is easier to grasp international complexities in familiar terms, or perhaps for propaganda purposes to enhance or delegitimize the holders of various anthropomorphic attributes.
Assigning human characteristics to political organizations, however, is essentially false and misleading, and often dangerous. All nations have interests, and some have values, and their respective interests and values frequently conflict. Some, like Woodrow Wilson and his followers (Barack Obama comes to mind) see essentially all conflicts as resolvable through diplomatic means, essentially advocating humility as a way of international life, especially for the most powerful, like their own country. Others, notably Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, see conflict as a more inherent human quality, to be avoided when possible but accepted when the costs to core values and interests would be too high. The Wilsonians see this as the sin of pride replacing humility, with necessarily adverse consequences, although they cite no evidence that humility ever deterred belligerence. Indeed, in the international arena, humility can be fatal.
And this is the real question: both the Wilson-Obama and Roosevelt-Reagan schools want international peace and security, but they diverge significantly on methods. Thus for both analysts and policy makers, at least in American terms, what we should want is cold-blooded realism. Instead of constantly wondering whether we are highly enough regarded by friends and foes, whether in their universities or their salons, we should worry about whether we and our global friends and allies are adequately protected. International politics is not domestic campaign politics, and public opinion polls rarely determine outcomes. Our inquiry is far from simply a military calculation, but necessarily encompasses political and economic factors to ascertain whether our "big stick" is in fact big enough.
Realism is not some midpoint between humility and pride, but a professional attribute of statecraft, something necessary at the national government level in ways personal characteristics simply are not. Without realism, as in Wilson's case, the consequences are rarely favorable and are often deeply wounding to our national interests. And even where it is present, it is only a necessary and rarely a sufficient condition for success, as the consummate realist Richard Nixon (rarely characterized as having deep humility) found in Vietnam. Nor would humility have fared better as national policy in Vietnam; it may simply have advanced the date of the Communist victory and ensuing subjugation of South Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge's mass murder in Cambodia.
Of course, no one disputes that optics and political posturing can have their benefits, so that an ostensibly low-key approach may be desirable in appropriate circumstances. It was, after all, Theodore Roosevelt who advised that we should "speak softly," and he actually won a Nobel Peace Prize for accomplishing something, brokering peace following the Russo-Japanese War. But beneath the optics must lie the hard reality, which almost inevitably involves assertive advocacy of American interests. This does not mean an overly prideful approach or insufficient humility; it simply has nothing to do with these individual human attributes.
Despite the Europe-centric notion that America was an isolationist country out of the global mainstream until World War I, we have faced threats and challenges throughout our history, generally with a deep understanding of the calculus of power, what the Marxists like to call the "correlation of forces." Today, despite the current economic turmoil, we still find ourselves incredibly strong, in both comparative and absolute terms, and this strength helps define the choices we face. Those favoring the halo-surrounded path of humility argue that our strength is too prideful and is actually a source of many current challenges, and that less strength and more humility will reduce those challenges. This is certainly the predominant view in Europe, and seemingly also now prevails in Obama-era Washington.
The more realistic view is that American weakness, not our strength, is provocative, as the Europeans should better understand after almost sixty-five years of sheltering under the American umbrella. A United States infused with humility works right up until they - and we ourselves - need real protection. It is realism's virtue never to forget that lesson.
...
John R. Bolton, a diplomat and lawyer, was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006 and is a former undersecretary of state for arms control and international security. He is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
http://incharacter.org/pro-con/should-the-united-states-act-with-humility-in-international-affairs/
ZonieDiver
03-24-2010, 12:11
The more realistic view is that American weakness, not our strength, is provocative, as the Europeans should better understand after almost sixty-five years of sheltering under the American umbrella. A United States infused with humility works right up until they - and we ourselves - need real protection. It is realism's virtue never to forget that lesson.
"The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee." --Regis Philbin
Scimitar
03-24-2010, 13:28
I am not even close to being an expert on international studies, however an observation...
...as an American incognito, I have the somewhat unique pleasure of sitting around coffee tables in a number of countries and being the fly on the wall while upper middle class + non-Americans discuss America. They think there isn't an American in ear shot...A benefit of having been raised overseas is I can jump between accents...
...A least subjectively we have most definitely lost the MSM public relations war...The majority (I mean 80%) of folks when speaking freely and honestly dislike America at least in the political realm and many 30%+- down right despise her...and honestly they're not THAT smart not to carry that opinion over to any and all interactions with her.
Are they all sheeple with no real understanding of how the world really works...sure....do they secretly believe that if you just walk up to that man with the waist coat and the dead-man’s trigger and just offer him a hug, it'd fix everything...well let me say this...it continually shocks me what people believe actually goes on out there.
However here's my point...whichever way you play it... the US "comes across" as a down right real arrogant SOB...sure it's MSM BS...perception is reality... who cares if their right or wrong...peoples mass opinion of us will ultimately seep thru into the realm of politics in the democratic countries at least...politicians have to, to a certain degree, "represent" the "opinions" of their constituents.
Humility in international relations...sure it's a bad ideal...but honestly when I'm sitting watching T.V. overseas and I see some American saying..."We're the BEST country in the world"...are they right...personally I think they are...but saying it out load just makes us look like a dick.
I love America cos I can succeed and no one hates me for it...Google “Tall Poppy Syndrome”…but a lot of the rest of the world doesn't play that way...better to treat an immature adult like a child then to treat a child like an adult.
I simply can't believe that we can't do a better job with our International PR image...my experience...people hated Bush until we voted him in a second time... then they just hated us. P.S. I'm a Republican thru and thru.
We’re a smart country with a hell of a lot of resource at hand; surely we can project one image to the MSM while we project another to political leaders? I can’t believe it's because we've tried our best and failed...my gut is we just don't care "Fuck 'em, they can think what they want"...well honestly that reminds me of a CEO friend I was talking to recently, we were discussing politics in the Board Room, he said "Surely we can have a Boardroom with no politics", I said "Please don't be naive".
"Fuck 'em, they can think what they want"...it most certainly feels like we think like that..."Please don't be naive"
DISCLAIMER: I agree with none of the foreign opinions....but it's what I see...a lot of.
Just MOO
Scimitar
The Reaper
03-24-2010, 13:52
I simply can't believe that we can't do a better job with our International PR image...my experience...people hated Bush until we voted him in a second time... then they just hated us. P.S. I'm a Republican thru and thru.
We’re a smart country with a hell of a lot of resource at hand; surely we can project one image to the MSM while we project another to political leaders? I can’t believe it's because we've tried our best and failed...my gut is we just don't care "Fuck 'em, they can think what they want"...well honestly that reminds me of a CEO friend I was talking to recently, we were discussing politics in the Board Room, he said "Surely we can have a Boardroom with no politics", I said "Please don't be naive".
"Fuck 'em, they can think what they want"...it most certainly feels like we think like that..."Please don't be naive"
DISCLAIMER: I agree with none of the foreign opinions....but it's what I see...a lot of.
Just MOO
Scimitar
Where do people get their perceptions of America and our military?
What do the MSM print about the US and the military?
How many movies have you seen that reflect positively on the US military since the Vietnam War?
Our own media constantly presents the "America is bad" image for global distribution.
You could never print the bald truth elsewhere, here we allow them to make bad shit up.
TR
I am not even close to being an expert on international studies, however an observation...
...as an American incognito, I have the somewhat unique pleasure of sitting around coffee tables in a number of countries and being the fly on the wall while upper middle class + non-Americans discuss America. They think there isn't an American in ear shot...A benefit of having been raised overseas is I can jump between accents...
...A least subjectively we have most definitely lost the MSM public relations war...The majority (I mean 80%) of folks when speaking freely and honestly dislike America at least in the political realm and many 30%+- down right despise her...and honestly they're not THAT smart not to carry that opinion over to any and all interactions with her.
Are they all sheeple with no real understanding of how the world really works...sure....do they secretly believe that if you just walk up to that man with the waist coat and the dead-man’s trigger and just offer him a hug, it'd fix everything...well let me say this...it continually shocks me what people believe actually goes on out there.
However here's my point...whichever way you play it... the US "comes across" as a down right real arrogant SOB...sure it's MSM BS...perception is reality... who cares if their right or wrong...peoples mass opinion of us will ultimately seep thru into the realm of politics in the democratic countries at least...politicians have to, to a certain degree, "represent" the "opinions" of their constituents.
Humility in international relations...sure it's a bad ideal...but honestly when I'm sitting watching T.V. overseas and I see some American saying..."We're the BEST country in the world"...are they right...personally I think they are...but saying it out load just makes us look like a dick.
I love America cos I can succeed and no one hates me for it...Google “Tall Poppy Syndrome”…but a lot of the rest of the world doesn't play that way...better to treat an immature adult like a child then to treat a child like an adult.
I simply can't believe that we can't do a better job with our International PR image...my experience...people hated Bush until we voted him in a second time... then they just hated us. P.S. I'm a Republican thru and thru.
We’re a smart country with a hell of a lot of resource at hand; surely we can project one image to the MSM while we project another to political leaders? I can’t believe it's because we've tried our best and failed...my gut is we just don't care "Fuck 'em, they can think what they want"...well honestly that reminds me of a CEO friend I was talking to recently, we were discussing politics in the Board Room, he said "Surely we can have a Boardroom with no politics", I said "Please don't be naive".
"Fuck 'em, they can think what they want"...it most certainly feels like we think like that..."Please don't be naive"
DISCLAIMER: I agree with none of the foreign opinions....but it's what I see...a lot of.
Just MOO
Scimitar
My feeling, having spent a whole lot of time overseas, is that even when presented with images of the contrary (Tsunami relief in Indonesia, earthquake relief in Pakistan, Haiti, help with mudslides in Central America, etc etc etc...) they still hate us.
No nation on this earth provides as much humanitarian aide in terms of contributions by the government and by individual civilians opening their checkbooks both in terms of outright dollars, and per capita, than the people of the USA. No one even comes close. When something goes wrong somewhere we are 9 times out of 10, the first on the ground to help.
Yet those complaining about us, don't want to acknowledge that, because it would put a stake through the heart of their argument.
I am getting to the point of agree with the "Fuck them, I don't care what they think" way of international relations.
When was the last time Hugo Chavez sent any sizable contribution to any nation in need? When was the last time the nut job in Iran did the same?
Our friends know that we are their friends. Our enemies should know that we are their enemy. Anyone that thinks it is in their best interest to sit on the fence, can just get out of the way as far as I am concerned.
Expatriate
03-24-2010, 14:39
My feeling, having spent a whole lot of time overseas, is that even when presented with images of the contrary (Tsunami relief in Indonesia, earthquake relief in Pakistan, Haiti, help with mudslides in Central America, etc etc etc...) they still hate us.
Any conception that this was not true was immediately dispelled following an International Relations lecture I attended. The bulk of the professor's hour long spiel consisted of her attempting to demonstrate that US aid efforts in Haiti were being provided in order to covertly turn Haiti into a sort of imperial territory........
I did not attend any of the following lectures provided by the same woman. Just not worth bothering to even try and decipher the warped logic this argument exhibited.
I agree with Scimitar. Having spent a great deal of time and years living abroad, mostly in central america and the caribbean, gone to college and traveled europe...I've been around ALOT of people with liberal leanings. Most if not nearly all my friends (save those ex-miltary folks) are liberal, and pretty much believe the things scimitar was talking about. Another frightening fact is how many actually believe that the U.S. government perpetrated 9/11 and that the conservative "conspiracy" is true. These people; European, south american, asian, etc. all believe that we are some sort of evil empire. Whenever I tried to persuade them otherwise, they would simply consider me a "lost soul". It's always amazing to me, that liberal people who claim to be fair, and unbiased, are usually less educated on the facts, and the other side of the argument. They watch a youtube 9/11 conspiracy doc. and take it as gospel...then claim that fox news is biased. blows my mind. When I began living abroad I was open minded and slightly subdued with my american pride...but after a year or so, i brought out the "im american, so what, go fuck yourself" attitude big time. We should all be proud of our country, not ashamed. Screw those pussies who wear canadian flags on their packs:mad:
though, I will say this. When we travel, we are ambassadors. Being a "loud american" is the surest way to get ripped off, jerked around, and otherwise mistreated abroad. I keep my mouth shut unless people ask my opinions. " Walk softly, and carry a big stick"... smarter words were never spoken.
ZonieDiver
03-24-2010, 14:51
Any conception that this was not true was immediately dispelled following an International Relations lecture I attended. The bulk of the professor's hour long spiel consisted of her attempting to demonstrate that US aid efforts in Haiti were being provided in order to covertly turn Haiti into a sort of imperial territory........
I did not attend any of the following lectures provided by the same woman. Just not worth bothering to even try and decipher the warped logic this argument exhibited.
Said aid was given AFTER the U.S.'s "earthquake machine" caused the earthquake JUST so we could go in and give aid in order to make it an "imperial territory"! She is probably on to something. More likely, she is ON something. :D
craigepo
03-24-2010, 15:00
Stop expecting so much from humanity, enlightened or otherwise. We killed Christ and Gandhi. Do you really expect the masses to understand geopolitical strategy when we can't even get brotherly love right?
Scimitar
03-24-2010, 15:43
I agree with Scimitar. Having spent a great deal of time and years living abroad, mostly in central America and the Caribbean, gone to college and traveled Europe...I've been around ALOT of people with liberal leanings. Most if not nearly all my friends (save those ex-military folks) are liberal, and pretty much believe the things scimitar was talking about.
The scary thing here newbie is that I almost always walk in the Right wing part of the world. I expect the ultra-lefties to think this way. But I'm talking about Commercial Street here.
When we start losing the right wing, I become concerned.
Look, we've all seen what the spin Doctors can do; it just seems to me as a nation we haven't bothered hiring any of them. "If we don't care what they think", why would we waste money on making sure our message gets out there?
Scimitar
Scimitar
03-24-2010, 15:50
Stop expecting so much from humanity, enlightened or otherwise. We killed Christ and Gandhi. Do you really expect the masses to understand geopolitical strategy when we can't even get brotherly love right?
I agree 100%. But it feels like we sit here saying "The truth will come out eventually". From my experience it doesn't. That’s naive.
Are 90% of them Sheeple who get mezmorized by MSM...sure....so what are we doing about it to spin it back in our favour. We're sure getting spun against?
This question is far above my pay grade, but from down here I'm not seeing a lot of effort? I see no concerted, cohesive, strategic effort to manage our image over the mid to long term in at least the democratic part of the world, where people vote with their opinions - educated or otherwise.
Scimitar
Poor folks hate "The Bossman"
People hate anyone they seem to think is better than them. "The Bossman" only got that way by steppin' on little folks on the way up.
Yeap, they'll all sit around on the porch drinkin' beer, smokin' some weed and telling each other that - while "The Bossman" is still at working, cleaning up the place, working orders and updating the books.
greenberetTFS
03-24-2010, 18:32
My feeling, having spent a whole lot of time overseas, is that even when presented with images of the contrary (Tsunami relief in Indonesia, earthquake relief in Pakistan, Haiti, help with mudslides in Central America, etc etc etc...) they still hate us.
No nation on this earth provides as much humanitarian aide in terms of contributions by the government and by individual civilians opening their checkbooks both in terms of outright dollars, and per capita, than the people of the USA. No one even comes close. When something goes wrong somewhere we are 9 times out of 10, the first on the ground to help.
Yet those complaining about us, don't want to acknowledge that, because it would put a stake through the heart of their argument.
I am getting to the point of agree with the "Fuck them, I don't care what they think" way of international relations.
When was the last time Hugo Chavez sent any sizable contribution to any nation in need? When was the last time the nut job in Iran did the same?
Our friends know that we are their friends. Our enemies should know that we are their enemy. Anyone that thinks it is in their best interest to sit on the fence, can just get out of the way as far as I am concerned.
Very well stated, I can agree with you completely.............:D;):D
Big Teddy :munchin
Personally - and based upon my experiences - I think the USA should act with the appropriate level of dignity required of its perceived status among the world's nations.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Well...I guess that's one technique.
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
rubberneck
03-24-2010, 22:27
We're sort of like the guy with the rugged good looks of John Wayne, the money of Bill Gates, the brains of Einstein and the endowment of John Holmes. Most of them desperately want to be us, but hate us because they know can't. Nothing we can ever say or do in the conduct of our international affairs will ever be enough to satisfy those who look at us and only see their own shortcomings.
I know that might sound flippant and superficial but I have seen enough in my short 40 years on this planet to know that no matter how much we do to improve the lives of other people in this world it is never enough. No amount of PR spin will make much of a difference. I suggest that instead of trying to get people to like us we should seek to grow comfortable in our own thick skin.
BrainStorm
03-24-2010, 22:29
Avoiding our responsibilities in the world reminds me of an oil filter commercial on television many years ago with the tag line, "Pay me now or pay a lot more later."
Also, weakness invites aggression. It was my children's job to test their parents. And they did it well. It was our job to set the limits. Don't set limits and you have unruly and/or gangster children and then adults. I don't see much difference in the world at large.
Wearing the 'white hat' of humanity, humility, and magnanimity in world affairs does not necessarily equate to weakness.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
BrainStorm
03-24-2010, 23:00
Wearing the 'white hat' of humanity, humility, and magnanimity in world affairs does not necessarily equate to weakness.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
We are in violent agreement.
alfromcolorado
03-25-2010, 05:18
It always amazes me how people travel around the world and find people that hate us. But to be honest, it seems to be the extreme right or the extreme left that voices that opinion in most cases.
I won't profess to be the world's biggest traveler, but having served in the military and for the military my whole adult life, I have managed to hit a few places in a few continents. And one thing about contracting, you can afford to go a lot of places on vacation too.
Now understand, I don't badmouth my country and never will... But I don't badmouth other people's countries either.
For some reason I just haven't run into these huge majorities of people in the world that hate America. Some might not understand what we are doing, but hell, they don't always understand what their OWN country is doing.
I think the major mistake all people of the world make, is they don't understand why other people in other countries don't understand the world they way they do.
Just a thought.
Al
Nobody's Opinion
Utah Bob
03-25-2010, 07:33
If historians, several thousand years in the future, examine the period of the American influenced world and determine, "They were a powerful country, but humble and benevolent", I'm okay with that.
BrainStorm
03-25-2010, 08:44
If historians, several thousand years in the future, examine the period of the American influenced world and determine, "They were a powerful country, but humble and benevolent", I'm okay with that.
We are not a hegemon and our first order of business always seems to be how can we exit the soonest and leave it a better place.
I am frequently more troubled by what we choose not to involve ourselves in rather that what we do. There are numerous tragedies, especially in Africa that make you cry for want of some benevolent interference.
frostfire
03-25-2010, 10:32
Having recently talked with upper and lower class folks across the ocean and shared a flight with a lady from Deutschland who shared her opinion on good 'ol USA, I have to say it's between rock and hard places. We are hated for being a gung-ho cowboy type, we are also hated for toothless tiger policies/initiatives. I agree with afchic and alfromcolorado.
However, I also believe that stop saying "we're the best country on earth" is not bad idea either. "Before honor is humility"
BrainStorm
03-25-2010, 11:15
However, I also believe that stop saying "we're the best country on earth" is not bad idea either. "Before honor is humility"
Depends on where you say it. If you say it there it is insulting. If you say it here it is patriotic.
People will NEVER unanimously like us, and they never have. Though there have been periods of time (post ww1/2, pre-internet etc.) where the world view of the U.S. was much better...there were always people who didnt care for us and there always will be. We consume to much as a nation (i.e. require too many resources) to not be constantly stepping on toes. So in that respect, "screw em", we need oil, and gas, and minerals etc.. and we will get them to survive. (Though it would be nice to reduce our dependence on the above). wherever there is money to be made, there are also friends and enemies to be made. It's a fact.
What makes me a patriot, is that despite our differences, despite the fact that people will always hate us for one reason or another, we strive to make the world a better place. We send our fathers, sons, daughters, mothers to foreign lands to sacrifice for the FREEDOM of others. We are not perfect, no one is. But Europe, for instance, chooses to try and be isolationist (publicly), not wanting to intervene in others "business", and accusing us of being "world police". But when you have our level of power, you must stand up for your ideals. We should remain humble, and strive to do what is right, while doing what is necessary...Do the same as you travel and you'll be fine, you cant really ask for anything more. my un-needed 2cents.
It was my children's job to test their parents. And they did it well. It was our job to set the limits. Don't set limits and you have unruly and/or gangster children and then adults. I don't see much difference in the world at large.Is paternalism part of the solution or is it part of the problem?
BrainStorm
03-25-2010, 14:44
Is paternalism part of the solution or is it part of the problem?
Lack of it certainly seems to be a problem. How's that working out for those in Darfur, among other places worth mentioning as well?
תיקון עולם
תיקון עולםBrainstorm--
IMO, your conflation of paternalism with tikkun olam is creative if not persuasive.
MOO, Bush the Younger was correct when he said:Too many nations continue to follow either the paternalistic notion that treats African countries as charity cases or a model of exploitation that seeks only to buy up their resources. America rejects both approaches.*
YMMV.
_________________________________________________
* Source is here (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=76798&st=&st1=).
There is no humility in international affairs. There are ideals and interests.
US projects power because we are powerful. Some aspects of our culture dominate regardless of whether that is the intent or if we like it. To pretend we are not powerful, or to act contrary to our ideals and interests, invites derision. We do good abroad but it goes unnoticed or under-appreciated because of our overwhelming power and cultural reach. Other nations do good but because they are not projecting power and culture, only ideals - they are humble. The US is not some quiet giant but we are benevolent and, I think, usually well-meaning.
Did you know that during his tenure Pres Bush gave $32 billion to Africa for AIDS? The largest health initiative ever initiated by one country to address a disease. US provided more than half of the "international community's" assistance for HIV/AIDs. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) has provided anti-retroviral treatment and care for nearly 11 million people affected by HIV/AIDS, including 3-4 million orphans and vulnerable children. PEPFAR has saved hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of lives and prevented mother-to-child transmission.
THAT is Nobel-worthy.
US is a beacon to citizens of other countries. We give out more green cards than all other countries combined. They might like to bash us, but they still want to come here to educate their children and to find their dreams.
I believe we should suspend foreign aid or military sales to any country whose leaders stoke anti-American sentiment, i.e. Pakistan, KSA, the new Iraq for G*d's sake. Having foreign leaders tell US one thing in private while they tell their domestic audiences something entirely different so they can stay in power may have worked in the pre-internet era, but no more. As we saw on 9/11, such duplicitousness does not work in the long run.
So, I agree with John Bolton in the article. Stone cold realism.
Instead of constantly wondering whether we are highly enough regarded by friends and foes, whether in their universities or their salons, we should worry about whether we and our global friends and allies are adequately protected. International politics is not domestic campaign politics, and public opinion polls rarely determine outcomes.
FWIW, George Washington put it this way in his farewell address. Source is here (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp).Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it - It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
IMO and as a former FAO - I have to beg the question of why shouldn't the US act with a modicum of humility in global affairs? :confused:
Richard
FWIW, George Washington put it this way in his farewell address. Source is here (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp).
From the same address, Washington also said this about foreign entanglements - short version: avoid them.
Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
robert2854
03-25-2010, 18:46
I agree with Brush Okie-but I think there is a better chance that we furnish the world with a health care plan, on our dime
From the same address, Washington also said this about foreign entanglements - short version: avoid them.Agreed. However, non-entanglement reflected a conscious rejection of the prevailing model of international relations centering around geopolitical interests (realism).
This new vision, according to Samuel Flagg Bemis, was best exemplified by John Quincy Adams. Adams, Bemis tells us,more than any other man of his time he was priviledged to gather together, formulate, and practice the fundamentals of American foreign policy--self determination, independence, noncolonization, nonintervention, nonentanglement in European politics, freedom of the seas, freedom of commerce--and to set them down deep in the soil of the Western hemisphere. On that solid ground, they stood and prospered for a century to come.*
__________________________________________________ ___
* Samuel Flag Bemis, John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1949), p. 567.
BrainStorm
03-25-2010, 19:11
The challenge of deciding whether to be proactive or reactive in world affairs in a time of such effective asymmetric warfare capabilities is a problem way above my pay grade. I just can't relate these times to those of Washington and Adams.
Yet we know when we ignore some pretty obvious provocations it has gotten into terrible trouble later.
And yet, when we do act, I can see no lack of either humility or humanity. We do so reluctantly, and we try to leave as quickly as possible and we try to leave it a better place when we do. I can see nothing to regret when we act in this way. I do however regret when we fail to act and millions die for lack of everyone's failure to act. There are far to many examples of that in my lifetime alone.
IMO and as a former FAO - I have to beg the question of why shouldn't the US act with a modicum of humility in global affairs? :confused:
Richard
Richard, I think that is the (debatable) point of the article. Bolton's thesis is that assigning human characteristics to a country is essentially false and misleading, and often dangerous. He argues that humility does not deter belligerence and, in the international arena, humility can be fatal.
On a personal level, humility can be an asset, especially when working with people from other cultures as you and others on the board probably know much better than me. That is how we get to the place where "they like us" as individuals even though America's favorability may be low in their country.
Building trusted networks through cultural exchange (including a large dollop of humility) between people is one of the most important aspects of many foreign assistance programs, even though the stated objective may be security, training, etc.
But a country is not a person. GW Bush on behalf of USA humbly donated billions for AIDS and other humanitarian projects in Africa. Did it make a difference in the way the "international community" viewed us. I say no.
Another example is our response to the earthquake in Haiti. We were reviled for projecting our imperialism while the US military made a very deliberate effort to stand off in the Gulf. I think we acted with humility but we still got bashed.
From the OP: A low-key approach to statecraft may be desirable in appropriate circumstances. It was, after all, Theodore Roosevelt who advised that we should "speak softly" . . . but beneath the optics must lie the hard reality, which almost inevitably involves assertive advocacy of American interests. This does not mean an overly prideful approach or insufficient humility; it simply has nothing to do with these individual human attributes.
But a country is not a person. GW Bush on behalf of USA humbly donated billions for AIDS and other humanitarian projects in Africa. Did it make a difference in the way the "international community" viewed us. I say no.
I don't agree with Bolton or strictly money as a leverage on this point. Given our status, we will be watched critically by the rest of the world and judged by our words, actions and deeds. It will not be fair and our excesses make better news than our good deeds. While GW Bush did allocated a lot of money to African charity, should that be the metric or should effectively spent money be the metric? The CDC was hampered by much of their AIDS work when their budgets were cut in Africa in lieu of faith based initiatives which included very large sums of money towards comic books about AIDS. Serious relief workers were dumbfounded. Instead of more drugs, they were shipped comic books. Had I not been there, I would not have believed it. We don't always spend money smartly. So when we do something dumb, it matters more than when another country does. We are kept to a higher standard. I am ok with that.
I never tire of defending American policy abroad, as I believe as a citizen, I have a duty to represent and defend my country as well as I am able. I do tire of our naivete at grand gestures with weak follow through. Reputation is earned for people and countries -- every day. So much has changed in the last 40 years. I have a piece of the Berlin Wall in my kitchen. The world is not anti-American. The Berliners loved us. I think the majority are not jealous but they are skeptical and critical. That should just make us strive to be even better. Humility is not a weakness. Resting on our laurels is. (IMHO)
The challenge of deciding whether to be proactive or reactive in world affairs in a time of such effective asymmetric warfare capabilities is a problem way above my pay grade. I just can't relate these times to those of Washington and Adams.Two points often missed in contemporary political discussions of the founding fathers and the early republic is that, thanks to the Seven Years' War and the War of American Revolution, they were well aware of what we call today "asymmetric warfare"--albeit from the other side of the spectrum--as well as "world wars" (not to be confused with "total" war).
The second point, which historians are rediscovering (for the second time again) is that Americans closely followed international affairs, especially those centering around the Atlantic world. Americans understood that America was intimately connected with international affairs (which is why Washington's guidance to avoid entangling alliances resonated).
Thus, while we most often trace our current status as a modern global power to more recent events (usually the Spanish American War), it may well be that revisiting the days of Washington and Adams, when Americans were painfully aware of the limitations of American power, can help us address today two perennial questions: What is America's role in the world? And, How should it fulfill that role?