Soul Rebel
24th March 2003, 22:17
How does the world see us?
By David B. Andrews
Record-Journal
Whenever I'm about to make a momentous decision, I want to have my friends and family on board. It's not that I'm incapable of asserting myself and getting the job done. Rather, I find more lasting satisfaction in knowing that I have the goodwill, support and general approval of those with whom I live out my daily life. It sends a message that I value their opinions. It increases the likelihood that they, in turn, will come to me for counsel and support in the future.
As it is, I'm concerned that President Bush doesn't share my bliss in this regard. I'm persuaded that our international partners are becoming more distant, more estranged. They're less behind American policy than in the past.
From what I read and hear, I'm left with the uneasy and worrisome sense that the world sees Uncle Sam as becoming more arrogant, more unilateral - characteristics not conducive to perpetuating or developing lasting friendships.
I hope that yet-to-be-written history books will prove me wrong.
Friends and family question one another just as certainly as political commentary receives a direct national response. Are you conservative, liberal, moderate, left, right, up, down or sideways? Do religious affiliations, beliefs and practices - or lack thereof - influence both mind and tongue? It should be a healthy, robust and amicable debate.
Bush's actions and posturing in the arena of global politics suggest that a strong-handed approach is what he thinks is best to demonstrate American resolve. While acting with conviction is admirable, asserting this nation's power and influence to the point where it becomes repugnant to other nations which share the planet is decidedly destined for varying degrees of indignation.
While most Americans want to solidly back the administration and display an unswerving allegiance to all salient principles for which the United States stands, they should also naturally want the preponderance of world opinion to embrace that which is in everyone's long-term best international interest.
When it comes to pointing the finger of blame for world-wide tension and hostility, there's plenty of accountability to be shared. It does not begin or end at the door to the White House.
What we're witnessing, however, is the dilution of international relations. From NATO to the U.N., from Wall Street to OPEC, the picture of unity appears to be increasingly out of focus. While America's dominant role has long been regarded as a mixed blessing, our allies - both strong and marginal - are more at arm's length with Washington's tactics and policies.
Succinctly stated, we are becoming more isolated in the ocean of world-wide politics.
Regardless of who's to blame, all should be concerned by the threats of terrorism, nuclear proliferation, biological and chemical warfare. The diplomacy which attempts to deal with them and the aftermath of confrontation is every nation's responsibility. These are shared problems that do not abate - ones that will take a higher degree of international cooperation, mutual respect and solidarity of purpose to address for the sake of world order and lasting peace.
America's pride should not be wounded by the arrow of international disunity among former and current allies and organizations established to preserve that peace. To be wise as owls and peaceful as doves has merit in diplomacy's theatre. The Bush administration would be wise to heed those outspoken words of America's global neighbors as it fashions policy which will either give flight to peace or deepen the growing resentment of America's aggressive, unilateral approach to problem-solving.
Although the drumbeat over the Iraqi situation has become deeper-toned and accelerated in Washington, its summons - no matter how just - has not yet rallied the international support the cause deserves. Building a greater world consensus is imperative. We'll need unswerving unity when it comes to facing escalating threats of nuclear and other forms of confrontation with nations beyond Iraq.
Questioning the Bush administration's policy and tactics is not "un-American." It's distinctly American. It shouldn't be about division within the ranks of Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. Long after the current administration departs, the future of international relations and stability will largely hinge on how this country asserted its power and influence during these critical times. Will this administration's legacy leave a stamp of arrogance and triumphalism on the pages of that yet-to-be-written history book?
The president's plate is overflowing with relentless and pressing issues. It's no easy task to decide how best to proceed. Is it better to buy Turkey's co-operation with billions of American dollars in a zeal for war or help domestic economic problems which have states awash in red ink and more citizens suffering from unemployment? Should we act in an essentially unilateral fashion or decrease war's drumbeat and strive to build greater international consensus?
Being American is a "label" we have in common. Americans should prevail upon government to take greater heed of the world's message. Time is our ally, too. There's no present need to force American agenda on a largely unreceptive or unconvinced world.
I'm not in doubt about the threats posed by terrorism, Iraq, N. Korea as well as an extensive litany of other serious, entrenched problems.
I am, however, doubtful that we will see an increase in peace and prosperity until Uncle Sam more represents that kinder, gentler nation which our president's father envisioned - a nation which values (more than just needs) international support.
Owls and doves teach grand lessons.
David Andrews is editorial assistant for the Record-Journal.
By David B. Andrews
Record-Journal
Whenever I'm about to make a momentous decision, I want to have my friends and family on board. It's not that I'm incapable of asserting myself and getting the job done. Rather, I find more lasting satisfaction in knowing that I have the goodwill, support and general approval of those with whom I live out my daily life. It sends a message that I value their opinions. It increases the likelihood that they, in turn, will come to me for counsel and support in the future.
As it is, I'm concerned that President Bush doesn't share my bliss in this regard. I'm persuaded that our international partners are becoming more distant, more estranged. They're less behind American policy than in the past.
From what I read and hear, I'm left with the uneasy and worrisome sense that the world sees Uncle Sam as becoming more arrogant, more unilateral - characteristics not conducive to perpetuating or developing lasting friendships.
I hope that yet-to-be-written history books will prove me wrong.
Friends and family question one another just as certainly as political commentary receives a direct national response. Are you conservative, liberal, moderate, left, right, up, down or sideways? Do religious affiliations, beliefs and practices - or lack thereof - influence both mind and tongue? It should be a healthy, robust and amicable debate.
Bush's actions and posturing in the arena of global politics suggest that a strong-handed approach is what he thinks is best to demonstrate American resolve. While acting with conviction is admirable, asserting this nation's power and influence to the point where it becomes repugnant to other nations which share the planet is decidedly destined for varying degrees of indignation.
While most Americans want to solidly back the administration and display an unswerving allegiance to all salient principles for which the United States stands, they should also naturally want the preponderance of world opinion to embrace that which is in everyone's long-term best international interest.
When it comes to pointing the finger of blame for world-wide tension and hostility, there's plenty of accountability to be shared. It does not begin or end at the door to the White House.
What we're witnessing, however, is the dilution of international relations. From NATO to the U.N., from Wall Street to OPEC, the picture of unity appears to be increasingly out of focus. While America's dominant role has long been regarded as a mixed blessing, our allies - both strong and marginal - are more at arm's length with Washington's tactics and policies.
Succinctly stated, we are becoming more isolated in the ocean of world-wide politics.
Regardless of who's to blame, all should be concerned by the threats of terrorism, nuclear proliferation, biological and chemical warfare. The diplomacy which attempts to deal with them and the aftermath of confrontation is every nation's responsibility. These are shared problems that do not abate - ones that will take a higher degree of international cooperation, mutual respect and solidarity of purpose to address for the sake of world order and lasting peace.
America's pride should not be wounded by the arrow of international disunity among former and current allies and organizations established to preserve that peace. To be wise as owls and peaceful as doves has merit in diplomacy's theatre. The Bush administration would be wise to heed those outspoken words of America's global neighbors as it fashions policy which will either give flight to peace or deepen the growing resentment of America's aggressive, unilateral approach to problem-solving.
Although the drumbeat over the Iraqi situation has become deeper-toned and accelerated in Washington, its summons - no matter how just - has not yet rallied the international support the cause deserves. Building a greater world consensus is imperative. We'll need unswerving unity when it comes to facing escalating threats of nuclear and other forms of confrontation with nations beyond Iraq.
Questioning the Bush administration's policy and tactics is not "un-American." It's distinctly American. It shouldn't be about division within the ranks of Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. Long after the current administration departs, the future of international relations and stability will largely hinge on how this country asserted its power and influence during these critical times. Will this administration's legacy leave a stamp of arrogance and triumphalism on the pages of that yet-to-be-written history book?
The president's plate is overflowing with relentless and pressing issues. It's no easy task to decide how best to proceed. Is it better to buy Turkey's co-operation with billions of American dollars in a zeal for war or help domestic economic problems which have states awash in red ink and more citizens suffering from unemployment? Should we act in an essentially unilateral fashion or decrease war's drumbeat and strive to build greater international consensus?
Being American is a "label" we have in common. Americans should prevail upon government to take greater heed of the world's message. Time is our ally, too. There's no present need to force American agenda on a largely unreceptive or unconvinced world.
I'm not in doubt about the threats posed by terrorism, Iraq, N. Korea as well as an extensive litany of other serious, entrenched problems.
I am, however, doubtful that we will see an increase in peace and prosperity until Uncle Sam more represents that kinder, gentler nation which our president's father envisioned - a nation which values (more than just needs) international support.
Owls and doves teach grand lessons.
David Andrews is editorial assistant for the Record-Journal.