Posts
To get a better sense of the mood in the United States on how the country should behave overseas, it is worth looking at a recently-published Politico poll. The poll illustrates an intense distaste among Americans for military intervention abroad, but also a remarkable change in perceptions of America’s role in the world, particularly with respect to democratic values.
The poll shows, first, that a substantial majority of respondents, 89%, consider a presidential candidate’s position on foreign policy important in their electoral choices. That means that those who claim the United States is isolationist must be careful. American foreign policy behavior may indeed indicate greater reluctance to be involved overseas, but the public still regards foreign policy as an important electoral issue.
On a series of foreign policy challenges today, respondents indicated a very clear refusal for the United States to become implicated. On Syria’s war, only 15% supported more involvement, while 42% sought less involvement and 26% supported the current level of involvement.
Figures on Iraq were similar. Only 19% supported more involvement, while 44% sought less involvement and 23% supported the current level of involvement. Somewhat ironically, given these figures, 42% believed that events in Iraq affected American national security “a lot.”
In Afghanistan, 77% supported the American decision to withdraw all troops by the end of 2016. And even on Ukraine, only 17% of respondents advocated more American involvement, while 34% sought less involvement and 31% approved of current levels.
In several examples, the difference between less involvement and maintaining current levels of involvement seemed academic. In Syria, for instance, it is not easy to determine how Washington can do less than what it is doing, or even why its involvement, largely limited to general statements that are not implemented, represents too much for many Americans.
But perhaps the most revealing question was the one that asked respondents which of two statements came closest to their own view: “US military actions should be limited to direct threats to our national security” or “As the world’s moral leader, the US has a responsibility to use its military to protect democracy around the globe.” Sixty-seven percent cited the first statement, while only 22% did the second.
If only one in five Americans feels the US has an obligation to protect democracy, which implicitly includes humanistic values, then this indicates a significant change from the Cold War years. At the time, there was great support for vast American deployments around the globe to confront the Soviet Union.
This also suggests that the global norm of a Responsibility to Protect faces major obstacles, with the world’s most powerful nation, also its leading democracy, having no appetite to expand its acceptance. Coming from a country that mobilized enormous resources for over half a century to contain Communism, portrayed as anathema to democratic values and principles, this turnaround is quite stunning.
But what does it tell us about the United States? Doubtless, that there is fatigue with costly foreign ventures at a time when the American economy is still struggling. Indeed, 45% of respondents cited the economy as the issue that concerned them the most. A mere two percent said foreign policy was their priority, while another two percent said terrorism was.
But more profoundly, something fundamental appears to have changed in how Americans view themselves in the world. While many may still regard their country as a wellspring of democracy and humanistic values, they do not transfer this to their nation’s behavior abroad. That is why Americans have watched the carnage in Syria without batting an eyelid. And it is why they look at Iraq with similar unconcern.
Those who suggest that Americans simply have an aversion to the problems of the wider Middle East because they do not identify with the peoples of the region may be partly correct; or they may not be. However, American attitudes toward the crisis in the Ukraine greatly qualify such a view. No one, it seems, European or Arab, is worthy of American intervention.
It’s easy to criticize what comes across as American self-centeredness, but Americans are hardly alone in displaying such behavior. European societies also seem less and less tolerant of foreign undertakings as they, too, struggle with weak economies. Moreover, the level of horror in the Middle East has reached such breathtaking levels that the region’s problems can often seem overwhelming. Why would anyone in their right mind want to enter such a viper’s nest?
That’s true, even if one can make a good case that American and European indifference has contributed to a worsening of the situations in Syria and Iraq. But in the end it is the Arabs themselves who must resolve their own problems, especially as they have long condemned Western interventions in the region.
More disconcerting is the fate of values. If democratic and humanistic values can be so readily abandoned internationally, and by the states that best embody them, then all talk of a global order based on international law and respect for human rights is an illusion. It means states will accept a free-for-all, a global state of nature, where no one prevents barbarous crimes.
Americans and Europeans may not realize that this is what they are contributing to, but they are doing so unambiguously.
The poll shows, first, that a substantial majority of respondents, 89%, consider a presidential candidate’s position on foreign policy important in their electoral choices. That means that those who claim the United States is isolationist must be careful. American foreign policy behavior may indeed indicate greater reluctance to be involved overseas, but the public still regards foreign policy as an important electoral issue.
On a series of foreign policy challenges today, respondents indicated a very clear refusal for the United States to become implicated. On Syria’s war, only 15% supported more involvement, while 42% sought less involvement and 26% supported the current level of involvement.
Figures on Iraq were similar. Only 19% supported more involvement, while 44% sought less involvement and 23% supported the current level of involvement. Somewhat ironically, given these figures, 42% believed that events in Iraq affected American national security “a lot.”
In Afghanistan, 77% supported the American decision to withdraw all troops by the end of 2016. And even on Ukraine, only 17% of respondents advocated more American involvement, while 34% sought less involvement and 31% approved of current levels.
In several examples, the difference between less involvement and maintaining current levels of involvement seemed academic. In Syria, for instance, it is not easy to determine how Washington can do less than what it is doing, or even why its involvement, largely limited to general statements that are not implemented, represents too much for many Americans.
But perhaps the most revealing question was the one that asked respondents which of two statements came closest to their own view: “US military actions should be limited to direct threats to our national security” or “As the world’s moral leader, the US has a responsibility to use its military to protect democracy around the globe.” Sixty-seven percent cited the first statement, while only 22% did the second.
If only one in five Americans feels the US has an obligation to protect democracy, which implicitly includes humanistic values, then this indicates a significant change from the Cold War years. At the time, there was great support for vast American deployments around the globe to confront the Soviet Union.
This also suggests that the global norm of a Responsibility to Protect faces major obstacles, with the world’s most powerful nation, also its leading democracy, having no appetite to expand its acceptance. Coming from a country that mobilized enormous resources for over half a century to contain Communism, portrayed as anathema to democratic values and principles, this turnaround is quite stunning.
But what does it tell us about the United States? Doubtless, that there is fatigue with costly foreign ventures at a time when the American economy is still struggling. Indeed, 45% of respondents cited the economy as the issue that concerned them the most. A mere two percent said foreign policy was their priority, while another two percent said terrorism was.
But more profoundly, something fundamental appears to have changed in how Americans view themselves in the world. While many may still regard their country as a wellspring of democracy and humanistic values, they do not transfer this to their nation’s behavior abroad. That is why Americans have watched the carnage in Syria without batting an eyelid. And it is why they look at Iraq with similar unconcern.
Those who suggest that Americans simply have an aversion to the problems of the wider Middle East because they do not identify with the peoples of the region may be partly correct; or they may not be. However, American attitudes toward the crisis in the Ukraine greatly qualify such a view. No one, it seems, European or Arab, is worthy of American intervention.
It’s easy to criticize what comes across as American self-centeredness, but Americans are hardly alone in displaying such behavior. European societies also seem less and less tolerant of foreign undertakings as they, too, struggle with weak economies. Moreover, the level of horror in the Middle East has reached such breathtaking levels that the region’s problems can often seem overwhelming. Why would anyone in their right mind want to enter such a viper’s nest?
That’s true, even if one can make a good case that American and European indifference has contributed to a worsening of the situations in Syria and Iraq. But in the end it is the Arabs themselves who must resolve their own problems, especially as they have long condemned Western interventions in the region.
More disconcerting is the fate of values. If democratic and humanistic values can be so readily abandoned internationally, and by the states that best embody them, then all talk of a global order based on international law and respect for human rights is an illusion. It means states will accept a free-for-all, a global state of nature, where no one prevents barbarous crimes.
Americans and Europeans may not realize that this is what they are contributing to, but they are doing so unambiguously.
No comments:
Post a Comment