you want the world to like the US again here's how

[Non_Comformist]

You've heard it. Maybe you've said it. The world hates the US. The unspoken conclusion of which is then that there the US musy be doing something wrong.

Fact. The US is the economically and militarily most powerful nation in the world and it's not even close. The US has the power to dominant any country in the world. The world is economically dependant in a large way on the success and growth of the US economy. Additionally our culture is in many ways the dominant cultural moventment in the world. This goes from something as significant as women's rights to the insigificant like music, movies and televsion.

Fact. It is impossible to ever have 100% certainty of the intentions of another. This is true for an individual, nation or state. We can only make assumptions (read guess) using the avialable information and hope.

What does this have to do with the world hating the US? Simple the rest of the World, quite rationally fears the US. We have the means to end their way of life by either military force or economic and cultural influence. This is a possibility because they cannot know our intentions. Especially when the nation is lead by someone who has shown the will to act on its own. As we did in Iraq. As Master Yoda said fear leads to hate.

However there is another side to this. Just because the US is able to do these thngs, and just because others fear the US intentions, and just because some hate us does not infact mean US policy is unjust. .

The reason the US ging to war in Iraq seemed to antagonize an already growing anti US sentiment was not because is was an illegal or unjust war. But simply because it showed that the US was willing to act in its own self interest even if doing so went againt the popular opinion of the world. This simpy reinforced the already present fears. My point here is not in support of the war but simply that this anti American sentiment is not proof of it being unjust or unnessary.

How could the US decrease this fear around the world.

There would be two ways to do this. First would be to simply scale back the size and influence of the military. Basically to limit the our ability to protect our interest around the world and consequently those of our Allies.

The second would be to give at least partially authority or influence of the military to some international body such as the UN. The US would simply be unable to act without the approval of most or perhaps some of the world.

Similar solutions could be developed for the US's economic influence as well.

Or we could simply live with being hated, in the most powerful nation on earth which is able and willing we needed act in its own self interest even when this conflicts with the popular opinion and interest of other nations.

[lastchance]

Just a point I want to bring up. The US isn't always going to be the most powerful country. While terrorists are a threat, it's not likely they bring down the US. However, there is a rise in Europe and China which means that either of them could overtake the US in the next 50 years or so, especially as the baby-boom generation grows older.

Just some food for thought. There is a pretty delicate balance here. You have to act out of self-interest, but your self-interest may be in having the support of others.

[TomCollins]

Explain why I should care what the rest of the world thinks. They should fear us. If players didn't fear Doyle Brunson, he wouldn't be the poker player he is. So a little fear is good.

[MMMMMM]

Pretty insightful post.

I don't think the U.S. should do either of the things you mention as possible solutions, however.

Also, I think the decent democratic nations of the world have nothing to fear from the U.S., and in fact benefit greatly from a strong U.S. That doesn't stop the French from getting miffed and uneasy, though.

The despotic governments of the world do however have something to fear, at least potentially, so their sentiments are understandable. But since they are WRONG in the first place;-) it's tough toenails for them.

[Non_Comformist]

[ QUOTE ]
Explain why I should care what the rest of the world thinks. They should fear us. If players didn't fear Doyle Brunson, he wouldn't be the poker player he is. So a little fear is good.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm not argueing that you should care, only that if you do it has consequences

[Non_Comformist]

[ QUOTE ]
Just a point I want to bring up. The US isn't always going to be the most powerful country. While terrorists are a threat, it's not likely they bring down the US. However, there is a rise in Europe and China which means that either of them could overtake the US in the next 50 years or so, especially as the baby-boom generation grows older.

Just some food for thought. There is a pretty delicate balance here. You have to act out of self-interest, but your self-interest may be in having the support of others.

[/ QUOTE ]


I would assume that if these other countries were to become most powerful, they will then act in their own self interest and you will see a large anti-european or chinesse movement here at home. For many of the same reasons. I would use Japan and the 1980's as an example.

If China did not have to fear a US response, how do you think thay would handle Tiawon? Would this change based on the popular opinion of the UN?

[Non_Comformist]

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty insightful post.

I don't think the U.S. should do either of the things you mention as possible solutions, however.

Also, I think the decent democratic nations of the world have nothing to fear from the U.S., and in fact benefit greatly from a strong U.S. That doesn't stop the French from getting miffed and uneasy, though.

The despotic governments of the world do however have something to fear, at least potentially, so their sentiments are understandable. But since they are WRONG in the first place;-) it's tough toenails for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think we should do either of those two solutions either.

[lastchance]

First, it's Taiwan, and I have no idea how China would handle Taiwan. Very, very odd the way it's going right now... I suppose China would try to annex Taiwan, and it might and probably would work, for there is quite a bit of support for reunification in Taiwan right now, especially when, and if, China gets its economy going.

Yeah, you act in your own self-interest, and you don't always placate others, but you do make some decisions because their support is greater than the EV you gain for what you are going to do.

US policy should be to keep it's interest ahead of it, but there is a great equalizer right now, and any one of 5 to 10 countries could blow us all to kingdom come.. Have to be very careful. US power is mighty, but right now, the only edge over many countires is economic power.

In terms of hard power, 15 to 20 nukes equalize that in a hurry.

[Non_Comformist]

[ QUOTE ]

In terms of hard power, 15 to 20 nukes equalize that in a hurry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sad but true.

[MMMMMM]

"In terms of hard power, 15 to 20 nukes equalize that in a hurry."

That's why we need a missile shield capable of stopping 15-20 nukes, even if it would be overwhelmed by thousands of nukes.

[ACPlayer]

WHere dies Taiwan and China fit into the despot --> democratic scale? Where do our friends in Saudi fit in?

Our policies are not governed by whether they are democratic or despotic, they are governed by commercial interests. The administration has no interest in spreading democracy -- this is the spin that the gullible buy into.

[ACPlayer]

They may fear him but they like him. The trick is to take the honey and leave them smiling --- other wise you get terrorist tactics as they try to get the honey back by any means.

[MMMMMM]

I don't know just where those countries would fit in on the scale.

Democracy and free societies generally out-innovate and out-produce totalitarian regimes or unfree societies. Thus seeking to spead freedom may--or should--be more than just spin, because we trade and do more business with free countries as a general rule, to our benefit (and theirs).

I don't recall the exact figures or exactly which country but I read that one of the Scandinavian countries has a higher GDP than all the Arab countries combined (or all combined sans Saudi Arabia, I don't recall which way it is). Anyway even the Saudi GDP is small compared the largest Scandinavian country's GDP, if memory serves (and I only read it once some time ago but please feel free to check up on it). China is an anomaly in this regard, but it holds pretty true the rest of the world over. Also, if you divide the Chinese GDP or look at it in terms of fractional GDP per capita it may not look quite so astounding.

[TomCollins]

You can't please all of the people all of the time.

You especially can't convince religious zealots.

[ACPlayer]

..

[CarlSpackler]

[ QUOTE ]
"In terms of hard power, 15 to 20 nukes equalize that in a hurry."

That's why we need a missile shield capable of stopping 15-20 nukes, even if it would be overwhelmed by thousands of nukes.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, the missile shield is the best thing Bush has done in his first term. This is an absolute must for our country.

On the other hand, he completely botched the whole Iraq affair. The thing few people mention, or fail to realize, is that it was in Iraq's best interests not to attack the US, or give weapons to people who would. They had their hands full with the threat from Iran, and Sadaam was smart enough to know that any link between Iraq and an attack on us would be the end of his regime. Iraq was actually disarming during the weapons inspections--a historic event. We had Iraq completely contained, and they were not an immediate threat to us. This is what the rest of the world knows, and why most countries hate us right now. Most other countries think like this: If the US acted irrationally in dealing with Iraq, what's to stop them from doing the same thing to another country? Obviously, there is a great deal of fear in the equation here.

[MMMMMM]

First you asked where certain countries fit in on the despot/democracy scale, and I responded that I didn't know or was unsure.

Next you asserted that the apparent U.S. interest in promoting democracy overseas was merely "spin", and I pointed out that the U.S. actually stands to gain in the long run by promoting democracy, because democratic free societies generally have more growing broad-based economies and thus make better trade and business partners for the U.S.A. This fact somewhat belies your assertion that the U.S. promotion of democracy overseas is only "spin".

Let's now add that the U.S. rarely wars with other democracies, so there is a potential "peace dividend" as well which suggest that promoting democracy overseas would also be beneficial in other ways.

[ACPlayer]

First you asked where certain countries fit in on the despot/democracy scale, and I responded that I didn't know or was unsure.

We will let your ignorance pass and concentrate on the rest of your message.

Next you asserted that the apparent U.S. interest in promoting democracy overseas was merely "spin", and I pointed out that the U.S. actually stands to gain in the long run by

The last part of your statement has little to do with the first part. We may stand to gain frrom it, but the question is are we pursuing that path.

because democratic free societies generally have more growing broad-based economies and thus make better trade and business partners for the U.S.A.

I dont need a lecture on themerits of democracy or capitalism. Sprcially if you dont know what countries are democratic and have free markets.

The point was that our policies are not dictated by democracy but by momentary convenience and commerce. Hence the question about Taiwan (clearlly democratic) vs China (relatively despotic), about Saudi (hardly democratic but a great "friend").

You may think that we are principled but the rest of the world knows better.

[MMMMMM]

Whether or not we are "principled", you have merely asserted, without offering any evidence or reasoning, that the U.S. interest in promoting democracy is only "spin". I at least offered a couple of pragmatic reasons based on our long-term interests why this may not be so.

[ACPlayer]

You are being obdurate.

I offered China and Saudi as two despotic regimes who currently get plenty of favoritism from us - China and Taiwan have been in the news recently and even though you may not know this already -- Taiwan is relatively democratic.

I could also mention Egypt, Israel (but that debate you dont want to listen to) Russia (in the battle against the Chechens), etc. So, take off the blinders. You clearly, and self confessedly, know little about democracy in the world.

[Felix_Nietsche]

so screw 'em. As for the self-hating Americans that like to march in peace rallies and burn the flag. Screw them to.

By the way, which country in the world has the most people waiting in line to be naturalized citizens.... Mmmmmmm....
Actions speak louder than worlds. As for the European democratic socialist states. Wake up!! Adam Smith won and Karl Marx lost. Stop suckling at the government *** (breast) and get rid of your welfare states and be rich like us Americans...

Nuff said....

[MMMMMM]

That we do business with despotic regimes does not imply that we wouldn't do more business with them if they weren't totalitarian. So again, I think we have a long-term interest in promoting democracy and freedom.

You have offered no reason or evidence that my suggestion is wrong.

[nicky g]

"As for the European democratic socialist states. Stop suckling at the government *** (breast) and get rid of your welfare states and be rich like us Americans..."

Several of the Scandinavian states, which have the most pronounced social democratic tendencies, are richer per capita than the US.

[ACPlayer]

For the last time ---

the fact that we should promote and do biz with democracies (which we both agree should be the principle) is overridden by the FACT that we dont practice what we preach and by the FACT that we are perceived as doing things not our of principle but for material convenience (china, Saudi) or other prejudices (Israel).

It is an image problem based on a correct interpretaion of our policies.

No more from me on this.
\

[MMMMMM]

Well we didn't make it such a point to promote democracy until George W. Bush got into office /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I am just pointing out that the current "promotion" has more going for it than just spin, namely our true long-term interests. And without the USSR to constantly be countered, there is less reason to prop up despotic regimes (although some regimes such as in Pakistan will probably still be supported as long as they appear to be aiding the war against terror).

[ACPlayer]

Pakistan is a great example, thanks.

Do you not think that most people realize that we are cozing up to Pakistan, who by all rights is part of the enemy, for a short term advantage? We are going to leave Musharraf with more power to brutalize and de-democrtize that country. We are going to alienate another group of muslims who will from the minarets call for the destruction of America.

Hence the cynicism, the dislike and the distrust. We dont operate on principle. This is why they dont like us and dont know where we are coming from.

[MMMMMM]

That is why, even though I think the Libertarian platform seems misguided on a couple of planks (foreign intervention and immigration), that in the long run it just might work as a whole if every plank were put into practice.

[Utah]

Hi nicky g

Can you please site a study?

Thanks

[nicky g]

Actually I was just looking at stuff on this. As far as I can see of the Scandinavian states only Norway does, so not several as I posted. I thought at least Sweden did too but I was confusing that with the fact that the UN put it above the US on its human development index, which is here and has GDP per capita figures.
UN Human Development Indicators (http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2004/pdf/hdr04_HDI.pdf)

I will give you that Norway's oil wealth probably doesn't hurt, and I will concede that by and large those countries are not richer, although still very rich.

I would argue that the fact that places like Northern Europe and Canada are almost as wealthy and by and large also have longer life expectancies and far less severe social problems associated with poverty and inequality, not to mention that they work a lot less (in a book called How Markets really work, John Kay argues that the difference between per capita income in the US and France are proportionate to the extra time US workers work) are worth a lot. But that is a different argument.

[daveymck]

I think there are a few reasons why people in the World hate america (I know there is a book out but I havent read it).

One I think has been highlighted in this thread most Americans dont care about anything or anyone outside of America this means a lot of US policy in the past has been more about whats best for us (well you) rather than whats best for everyone.

Globalization the the spread of American companies has also caused it with ost countries feeling some of their identity is being lost by being overun by corporate america whether it be in food, music, film and other media (we get most us shows over here from Friends to ER and beyond). This is more a world probelm but the fact is most of these companies are US based/founded so the US gets blamed.

Also the american attitude gets up a lot of peoples noses, the Land of the Free, better than everyone else, were bigger and more powerful than you is alwasy going to attract hatred and knockers, whether its the biggest country, football team, best actor whatever there are always lines of people who want to hate and knock them down. Again I think this attitude has been shown in this thread by some of the responses from the US based people.

There is a lot from this side of the pond we looking from the outside can criticise, for example gun crime, lack of free health care for all, the lack of "green" policies etc etc etc. But most of the things we have the same issues here as well, the main thing I think that would change a lot of the hate would be if America learned humility instead of the current "Kill em All" attitude coming from the States. BUt I think the attitude is part of the American Psyche certainly from looking from the outside seems to be a huge part of the way American Society is right through the from school onwards.

[ACPlayer]

Globalization the the spread of American companies

THis is a very good point. Globalization is a form of economic colonization of the world. We all know from even American history -- how well colonization goes down with people.

[MMMMMM]

If it didn't benefit the host countries too, it wouldn't thrive. Next point.

[daveymck]

[ QUOTE ]
If it didn't benefit the host countries too, it wouldn't thrive. Next point.

[/ QUOTE ]

But is having a Mcd's on the corner of every street in the world, with low pay, low food quality and no invesment in the community or work force really thriving for the host countries.

[ACPlayer]

That is not correct. The portugese, brits and french probably said the same thing over a glass of port, ale or burgundy in the days of their colonial imperialims.

It will thrive in the short term because:

1. In many countries the local govt oficials directly benefit from this colonization.
2. Countries accept this without realizing the consequences -- examples GMF, certain chemicals (DDT in the past), cigs, coke).
3. We negotiate deals with hosts at the point of an economic gun (changes to patent laws is an example).


It will not thrive in the long term as people realize that they are being bonded into servitude and that all the capital wealth is flowing out of the country.

[MMMMMM]

There's lots more to it than MCD's everywhere, even if that is the most visibly appararent effect.

[MMMMMM]

Come off it, ACPlayer, colonialism is a very different matter and you know it don't you?

Bonded into servitude, my foot. They wouldn't be taking the jobs if they had better income opportunities in those countries; nor would they be taking them if they would be better off without them.

[ACPlayer]

I said it is a form of economic colonization. Study the capital flows of colonization.

I stand by that comment.

[daveymck]

[ QUOTE ]
There's lots more to it than MCD's everywhere, even if that is the most visibly appararent effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course but its the visible effect and thats what people look at and then blame America.

I think the threat form Globalization and the potential contraction of many markets down to a couple of competitors is probably more dangerous thna any plans the US government comes up with. The fact is these huge global companies are becoming more powerful than any government and ultimatley they are not democratic and when choices are reduced consumers have no choice to go elsewhere.

[ACPlayer]

THis is all off the top of my head but here goes ....

In the past verious countries have gone out looking for trading opportunies and have ended up "colonizing" that country. For example the East India Company established initial trading contact with India (I think in Calcutta). Slowly, these companies gained access to resources of that coutry and started to use these to benefit their masters at home (in the case of India in Britain, but this holds true for Dutch colonies in South Africa, French in Indochina etc). As they got more wealth the home country had to start defending these companies, in those days by sending out the army -- now perhaps by sending lawyers to international committees, though it is reasonable to say that we are sending our army to iraq to defend our oil economic intetests.

The capitall and hence the wealth of that nation started to flow out of that country even though these companies employed locals for the jobs.

Now, when Coca Cola establishes an operation in Malawi, Africa it is looking to draw capital out of that operation ans send it back to me (I happen to own some KO) -- and yes that is what I want. But is Malawi really better off because its children get to spend their money on coke rather than the essentials of life?

So, if you look at capital flows, globalization is colonization. A way to get wealth out of a country to benefit the invading corporation. Our government actively defends this wealth transfer and does so aggressively.

[daveymck]

Most of these companies will invest in an area make the locals all reliant on either working for them or providing services to them, then when they find a cheaper labour market they shut it down and bugger off to where the labour is cheaper.

Its happened in many places across the UK and I suspect the US as well where corporations move their main manufacturing or downsize and go off to other countries leaving a wasteland broken town behind.

There will probably be a cycle as demand for jobs in India and similar countries goes up and prices and wages rise some of these companies will end up opening back up in the US or UK when the wages are cheap in 10-15 years time.

[Utah]

Hi nicky,

Thanks. That is quite interesting. There are a lot of issues relating to this and I wish I had more time. I did a little research and found this, which puts the U.S. even lower.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/other.html#IntlGDP

[ACPlayer]

There are two separate but inter-related thing here.

The moving of jobs allows corporations to find the most profitable resources. Becuase corporations have little public policy goals, the loss of jobs in a town is irrelevant. Historically this is a good thing for capitalism. However, in the present globalization there are three untested variables:

1. As we move jobs overseas we bring up the standard of living in those countries. Of course it helps our economy as the profits are brought back into the US and the costs of goods goes down. It is however not clear if this is sustainable and will allow the US population as a whole to continue to grows its standard of living.

2. Whiler we can exercise political and economic clout to manage the biz environment in the foreign countries, what happens if as a result of political upheaval those countries "nationalize" our corporate assets and start to tax and/or retain profits by other means.

3. What does it mean for our society when the power moves from the people of the land to the corporations of tha land? Our society was formulated to directly benefit the people-- the govt is moving towards directly benefiting corporate interests and letting any benefits trickle down to the people. THis is already happening as a result of the corporate lobbyists.

[Non_Comformist]

Hi,

Good point however I think you would agree that there are too many factors at work so it hard to know what role the economic systems play. One such example being immigration, another being homogenious populations.

[Non_Comformist]

These are all true, however the "kill em all" attitude is not new, nor is any of thedomestic problems nor are self interested foriegn policy decisions. What has changed is that the US now for all purposes has no rival and therefore a policy of "kill em all" could be carried out. This causes to people to fear the US whether or not America has these intentions. I of course beleve that it doesn't but that is irrelevent.

I think your piece on US Corporations is dead on. People feel that their identity (national, ethnic, etc) is being challenged or overrun. This has always and will always result in a strong backlash.

[chabibi]

An important point about the war in Iraq is that it set a precedent to all those other rogue nations in the middle east. I have served in some of the worst places in the world, namely Gaza the west bank and Lebanon I can tell you from first hand experience that the only thing that is respected in the Middle East or the entire Arab world is military might. by overthrowing saddam the US has sent a clear message don’t f**k around unless you want to get f**ked. Military superiority is the only reason Egypt and Jordan both signed peace agreements with Israel. In the Arab world fear = respect

[Cooker]

I am a graduate student in physics, and there is a professor on our campus that worked for the government for a while on the feasiblity of the missile defense shield project. The best scientists working on this issue say that it is not even going to be close to possible with technology that is expected to become available in the next 20 years (with generous estimates that the rate of advances in propulsion and computer guidance systems will remain constant). I wouldn't get your hopes up for a system that can stop 1 missile any time soon, much less 15-20 missiles.

Also, these simulations assumed they would be shooting down missiles that are currently 10-20 years old, not more modern missiles which might even have counter-measures for some defense systems.

Just an interesting missile related story. The Iraqi Scud missiles made famous in the first gulf war were actually so poorly made that they would often go into an end over end spin which resulted in them flying in erratic patterns. This actually made them much more difficult to hit, because their trajectories could not be easily calculated. It has basically been stated now that the Patriot was a failure and couldn't hit the Scud. However, the Scuds frequently detonated inappropriately and missed targets due to flying erratic trajectories, making the patriot appear effective, when in fact it was mostly defective.

In short, I wouldn't get your hopes up for a working missile defense system, and it is actually probably just throwing good money after bad. However, a working missile defense system would be a very valuable commodity.

[ACPlayer]

Is that why the Palestinians respect the Israeli's?

[nicky g]

"Military superiority is the only reason Egypt and Jordan both signed peace agreements with Israel."

No, US bribery is the only reason they signed those accords.

[chabibi]

like it or not israel is winnig its war on terorism. military superiority will be the only thing that will force the palestinians to abandon their dreams of driving the jews in to the sea and maybe finally make peace

[Bubbagump]

[ QUOTE ]
Globalization the the spread of American companies has also caused it with ost countries feeling some of their identity is being lost by being overun by corporate america whether it be in food, music, film and other media (we get most us shows over here from Friends to ER and beyond). This is more a world probelm but the fact is most of these companies are US based/founded so the US gets blamed.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about this Dave. I doubt very much that MacDonalds would be opening eateries in the UK and other countries if people in these other countries weren't eating Big Mac's.

Same goes for music, cars and just about every other US export I can think of. Corporations go wherever they think they can turn a profit. I don't see anybody boycotting US imports in their countries in attmpts to protect their cultural identities.

Bubbagump