Seppo=septic=septic tank, rhyming slang for Yank. Not helpful terminology, IMO.
The OP was asking what would other parts of the world like to see as US foreign policy.
If you take on the reponsibility of world policeman, and reap the economic rewards from doing so, then morally it would be correct to ensure that the world is treated with at least a smattering of consideration.
That it often is not creates resentment.
“Seppo” is the Australian shortened version of old British slang for a citizen of the United States of America. Seppo = Septic Tank = Yank. Lame I know - and few under 40 will have heard of it.
As others have pointed out we are asked in the OP for views on foreign changes the US should make. It is a cop out I know but I do not think any foreign policy changes would prove robust unless some radical changes happen in the US political culture and political system. From the outside the US looks pretty much lke a one-party state - OK the faces change but the policies really do not. The more the media and political culture plays up the supposed differences between liberals and conservatives the more that becomes evident, at least to me.
My wish list is not based upon what is good for governments, or “national interests”, but rather what is good for the people:
-
Reconfirm US committment to multilateralist action in the political field, including the UN, and act fully in accord with those principles.
-
Support the International Court of Justice and act accordingly
-
Break the strategic alliance with Israel, equalise economic and military aid to the states in the region and seek a role as honest and independent broker between the parties in cooperation with others.
-
Publically commit to the principle that from now on your foreign military adventures, whether War is declared or not, are properly authorised by your Congress, in advance of policy decisions making them inevitable - and still subject to (1) above of course.
-
End economic sanctions upon Cuba.
-
Sign up to the Mine Ban Treaty. Being the only NATO member bar Turkey on this issue is not attractive. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0218/p11s02-coop.html Particularly relevent whilst living here given the mine legacy.
-
Refocus on sorting out Afghanistan, politically and economically. Make a difference for the good somewhere for Pete’s sake. That is the one place the US have gone in with broad international support with the possibility of achieving something positive.
If the OP is genuinely looking for foreign views of the US’s foreign policies than Americans probably shouldn’t be bitching about those views. Quite simply, if you believe in free speech, you’re going to have to accept it from all corners (of course, you can point out reasoned disagreements with any statement). Just don’t say “Look what we’re up against”, because that is immediately divisive and elitist.
That said, I would love to see the US do pretty much the same things as everyone else: police itself. Pull back from the “world’s only superpower” ideology and accept membership in a community of nations, none of whom supersedes the others. This actually goes for every country, not just the US, because most do look out for their own interests first, leaving the rest as secondary concerns.
Accept the World Criminal Court (or whatever the title is) as valid. Sign the landmine treaty. Join in Kyoto, or something like it. Don’t unilaterally decide to do things which affect anyone else. In orther words, work with the world, not despite it. I hold out little hope of this actually happening in my lifetime (and I hope to have a good 50 years or so left), but who knows what may come in the future.
It would quite a bit. The death penalty is held to be a relatively accepted thing in the US, but in the rest of the industrialized world, it is a barbaric practice demonstrative of human rights abuses and is a sign of a backwards, pre-industrial society. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights drafted by the UN explicity bans government executions. In Europe, the question isn’t, “why is capital punishment bad,” but rather, why is it good. Without getting into the specifics of that debate, suffice it to say that us getting rid of capital punishment would certainly improve relations with Europe.
Also, part of it is setting an example. As the world’s only superpower, practicing capital punishment gives an excuse for other countries that may not be so just to practice it. We have a certain responsibility to set a good example, and doing things like executing people, kicking out UN election teams, blatantly violating international law, etc doesn’t exactly do wonders for promoting international cooperation.
Well said. In a sense, we have to view the world as a community of nations - and if we truly support democracy and freedom, we have to treat other nations as equals, not as second class citizens. When the majority of them are doing something, we have to respect that. Not blindly follow, mind you, but at least take it into consideration. If the world votes to ban capital punishment, as I was discussing above (and they did with the UDHR), we have to respect that and work with it.
OK, I will.
Who or what prevented the Japanese from invading Australia during WWII? I ask the question as one Seppo who lived in Oz for a number of years, still has friends in Oz, and quite a few of them taught me Australian history from an Aussie point of view.
:wally
I just read the UDHR (it’s posted just besides me) but didn’t find such a reference. The article 3 states refers to a right to life and the article 5 bans torture and cruel or degrading punishments, but nor the death penalty nor government executions are mentionned. And the contrary would have been surprising since when the UDHR was signed, most if not all the signatories still had the death penalty in their books.
Quite right, the relevent International Treaties are as follows:
***The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty * ** (adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1989)
***The Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty * ** (adopted by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States in 1990)
***Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [“European Convention on Human Rights”] concerning the abolition of the death penalty ** * (adopted by the Council of Europe in 1982)
***Protocol No. 13 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ** * [European Convention on Human Rights] concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances (adopted by the Council of Europe in 2002)
Only the last provides for the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances, including time of war or of imminent threat of war irrespective of prior or subsequent reservations of the signatories.
The first is the most international - for a list of countries signed up see:
What Brutus said.
Basically, what seems to be getting asked for is, "US, don’t do what we do. We use the UN as a tool of our own interests, and ignore it the rest of the time. You can’t do that. Just pay the bills and shut up.
Don’t interfere in our internal domestic policies. We will try to do that with yours, especially with the death penalty, but you can’t do the same back.
Abandon Israel. Everything that is wrong in the Middle East is their fault anyway, and if you just let the other nations of the Middle East wipe her out, the problem will be solved."
Essentially, it’s “quit standing up for your own interests. It gets in the way of us getting ours.”
And frankly, it isn’t worth it. Maybe Catalyst lies awake nights worrying that the French don’t like us, but others don’t. And if you were looking for an apology for being the biggest and baddest, not just today.
Regards,
Shodan
Sisyphus’ Stone
[Moderator Hat ON]
Quit it or Pit it. Also, calling people “septic tanks”, regardless of the shortening, is not allowed.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
[Moderator Hat ON]
duckster, the Putz smilie is considered a direct persoanl insult in GD. Don’t use it.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
My apologies.
This would make a lot of difference. I saw a headline on a story in a paper today that illustrates it perfectly. The headline read that the prisoner abuse had cost the US the moral high ground.
Now that is definitely a soi disant description of the US position. I don’t think many other countries would agree that we ever had the ‘moral high ground’ and for us to proclaim that we ever did occupy it must be pretty galling.
And there are probably lot of other examples of a self-assumed superiority by US political leaders. In fact I see it all the time - “After all we saved the world from Hitler, didn’t we?”
Nope, but then then the others wake up one morning and find their skyscrapers collapsing, and wonder, “why would anyone possibly want to do this to us? I know, they must hate Freedom!” Just because you don’t give a shit about anyone around you doesn’t mean that this protects you from the effects of their emotions towards you.
Actually, we’re not the biggest by a long shot, though I may agree with you on being “baddest.” Your elitist flagwaving is half of what makes people want to kill Americans, so I’d thank you kindly to knock if the fuck off and stop endangering us all. The short-visioned approach to a God-granted Pax Americana isn’t going to lead you to much glory, other than inside your own deluded mind.
This is IMO a good example of the sort of thinking that has lead to anti US attitudes thoughout the world. What passes for US diplomacy comes across as arrogant and unconsiderate, and that naturally causes ill feeling.
I will just reiterate what others have said here - the two things the US can do is treat other nations with consideration and respect, and be willing to be a little more multilateralist.
Note that the first doesn’t mean you have to change a single policy, you just change the presentation as it were - make it look like you’re making a real effort diplomatically, rather than making it look like you’ve decided what to do come what may, and the diplomacy is an afterthought, a formality. It doesn’t cost you anything in concessions or actions, but will bring benefits.
With the second, you would just have to be a little more multilateralist, it wouldn’t mean you automatically do whatever anyone else (or even the UN) says. There seems to be a real suspicion of international agreements in the current administration, which means that unless the specific international protocol would bring the US clear and immediate direct benefits, it won’t sign up to it. This applies even if the agreement wouldn’t affect the US, but would be of benefit to others. Case in point is the ICC - it wouldn’t have jurisdiction over US soldiers or citizens (as they would be tried in the US legal system), it would help others, yet the US still refused to sign up to it.
In short, you wouldn’t have to do anything that harms your own self interests, in fact these actions would be of great benefit to the US. Contrary to some other posters however, i don’t think US domestic policies has anything to do with it - that is your own affair, and is widely regarded as such.
I love how some people have such a comic book black-and-white view of the world that it is either “do not cooperate with the UN” or “do everything that the UN says,” as if there is no middle ground of case-by-case basis. They make it seem as if cooperating with the UN on any level means giving up national soverignity completely and becoming a faceless sub-state of a global government that will determine policy.
Two very good points.
When I lived in Oz, the manner and approach to the way I was treated by the Australians was contingent upon the latest US foreign policy blunder and attitude. While I didn’t take such verbal attacks personally, (the death threats being another matter), it does give pause for reflection on how America is viewed by the world community. After all, having the inside edge on how America, and Americans, think, feel and act, observing my home country from afar offered a totally different view.
At the same time, other countries need to step up to the world stage and tackle many of the issues publicly. America may continue to be the world’s big bully cop, but it has a number of supporting countries which continually hide in its shadows. It is about time they stand up and be counted, especially when the going get rough.
Yes, each country must make their own decisions. However, America must also start calling out its fair weather friends. It goes both ways.
With all due respect, Shodan, no one (I hope) is saying that the US should stop being a force on the international stage and should instead lay down and shut up. What we’re all saying (at least those of us who aren’t obviously angry at the US for something or other, not naming any names…) is that it would be nice, as Zagadka points out, if the US worked with the rest of the world.
This, of course, goes for every other country too. It should be assumed, in a mature and reasoned debate, that one accepts the weight of his/her own criticism as applying equally to all parties, not just the one being discussed. If I say that the US should join the ICC, I certainly couldn’t justify saying China should not have to, or any other nation. It’s assumed that I mean the US should join because everyone should join. Having a “love us or hate us, we don’t care” attitude doesn’t do much good for anyone. Things get pretty lonely after a while.
Quick question:
- When Germany started World War II, were the Germans worried about being nice and being fair to other countries?
- When England was an empire that occupied a large part of the globe, were English people worried about being nice and fair?
- When Napoleon started to conquer Europe, were French people worried about being nice and fair?
… <and the list goes on and on for centuries>
In any of the above cases, did moral principal outweigh national interest?
During the British Empire, did British citizens consider themselves equal or superior to the rest of the world? Same question for French, Russians, Germans, etc.
Not that I agree with what the U.S. is doing around the world, but people should not be shocked by this behavior. It has been going on for millenia, and has happened as recently as the twentieth century.
Unless people come out and condemn their own countries for what they did in the past, they have no moral authority to condemn the U.S. Again, I’m not saying that what the U.S. is doing is right, but, morally, you cannot condemn it if you celebrate your own country’s past horrendous behavior during national holidays.