People (especially decision-makers) respond to incentives. They make expected-value calculations every time they embark on courses of action that they believe will bring about the fruition of their goals. The United States takes some action when its expected outcome is better than the expected outcome of some other action. These outcomes are, of course, weighted by the probabilities that the actions will succeed.
The United States has goals. Despite nebulous and almost certainly bogus rhetoric about “national interest,” I do not know what these goals are and do not find our leaders’ articulations of these goals credible since they have no incentive whatsoever to tell us the truth. We can only assume that their behavior is somehow goal-directed.
So now people are asking what we can do to change. My answer?
Absolutely nothing.
Europe, the rest of the world that opposes the United States’ foreign policy, and the American electorate have been roundly ineffective in restructuring the incentives of the administration of the United States such that its current course of action no longer maximizes its utility. The United States cannot credibly commit to taking actions that *don’t[/]i maximize its utility. Barring some change, like the replacement of this administration by the electorate or serious and credible threats from the rest of the world, there will be no change, and there shouldn’t be any change.
The world is what it is. America involved itself in this colonial mess based on its beliefs about the state of the world. If the world cannot respond such that America updates its beliefs and pursues policies that others find more palatable, it won’t. It would be irrational to expect that it would, and promises to this effect simply would have no bite.
Rational actors do not credibly commit to promises that they do not have keep and that do not maximize their utility. We simply don’t have to sign any of Europe’s feel-good treaties, as much as Americans and Europeans worldwide may bellyache about it. If we did sign them, no one would believe that we would uphold their terms credibly, since no one has the power to compel the United States to account for violations of such agreements. So would signing these worthless pieces of paper improve European opinion of the United States? Of course not, Europeans aren’t stupid. They will see it for the ploy that it would be, and will wait for the US to abrogate its treaty responsibilities the minute they become inconvenient.
This is not an endorsement of American foreign policy in any way. My personal beliefs as an American and as a citizen of the world have nothing to do with my denunciation of the illogic of the responses to this question. I find myself siding with the more right-wing posters not because I believe their opinions are politically or morally justified but because, like me, they see no reason why we should deviate from our current course absent a worldwide restructuring of incentives.
It would depend on your point of view. Wouldn’t you agree?
From my point of view, US support was extremely high after 9/11 because we were unjustly attacked. Sympathy, therefore, was extended to the innocent party. Then, on the other hand, we get people like Zagadka telling us that we were attacked because we are jingoistic, elitist flag-wavers. Not to mention the Palestinian assholes rejoicing in the streets because we were attacked.
Fine, they’re assholes. Skip ahead. We would like the fricking Taliban to hand over the Chief Rectum of al-Queda. They decline. So we invade.
And we get a whole batch more European assholes protesting that we actually want to get the Rectum instead of sitting on our hands negotiating for the next five years or so.
Fine, they’re assholes too. Skip ahead again. As a result of 9/11, we are far more aware of the threat of international terrorism and of terrorist states. We therefore decide, once and for all, to resolve the problem of the threat posed by Iraq. He has been sitting on his ass thumbing his nose at the inspection regime for the last dozen years. So we go to the UN Security Council, and get them to pass a resolution warning Iraq to cooperate or face “serious consequences” if they are found in material breach of the inspections. They are found to be so. And the UN and Europe decides they don’t really want to do anything for the next dozen years, except help Saddam steal from the oil-for-food progams and torture and kill his own people.
And we get a whole batch more European (and American) assholes protesting because we actually think the UN ought to enforce its own resolutions. And therefore the US is a big bunch of bullies. Boo hoo hoo.
The same sort of thing happens all the time. Libya sets off some terrorist bombings and kills some Americans. Nobody in Europe does jack shit about it. And when we send the planes over to try to teach Ghaddafi a lesson about messing with the big dog, the effing French refuse us permission to use their effing airspace!
The US finds out we have been abusing some Iraqi prisoners. Indefensible - no rational person could deny that. And it causes US popularity to drop precipitously thru out the Arab world and Europe.
But where the hell were all those Arabs and their complaints when Saddam Hussein was feeding people thru plastic shredders?
Waaaaah, says the international community - the nasty, naughty US shows no regards for human rights. The same effing week the same international community seats the fucking Sudan on the UN Human Rights Commission.
Haiti has yet another coup, and kicks the latest voodoo-hoodoo out on his ass. Instead of letting them string the litle twit up to the only remaining functioning lamp post in Port-a-Prince, the US intervenes and flies his sorry ass off to Africa. In return, we get blamed for the coup and the world is told that it was a plot to get money for the World Bank.
As I said, look at Rwanda. The US does not send in its troops, it does not try to fix the situation, it does not act like the big bully you all are complaining about. And 800,00 people are slaughtered.
And what does the international community and the UN do about that? Absolutely diddley-fucking squat, that’s what they do.
What I am asking is, what exactly are the warm good wishes of the international community worth?
OK, we don’t do anything without playing “Mother May I” with the UN. And the French and Russians go on helping Saddam steal food and medicine from the Iraqi people, and therefore the US is Miss Congeniality in the UN General Assembly. That, and $7.50, will buy me a cup of coffee at Starbucks, but it sure doesn’t do much for the cause of human rights.
What exactly can we expect to get from the EU, if we agree to consult before we change our undershorts or take out the garbage? Can we expect them to overlook their own best interests to do us a favor? I have seen no indication of their doing so to date. Why would they start now?
And so they had better not be too disappointed if we decline to do the same. You now say the death penalty wasn’t really what you wanted from us, so I guess internal domestic policy is going to remain our own business. Fine - I can’t imagine a serious US politician suggesting that we should poll the Dutch before deciding to give some crackhead murderer the Needle. But as for the rest of it -
Here’s a hijack. The damn thread was supposed to be about what Europe wants from us. Instead, here is what you can expect from us. Sorry, but here it is.
The US will cooperate with you when it is in both our best interests to do so. We will even sacrifice on your behalf if the occasion is important enough. See WWII and the Marshall Plan (and the Balkan war) for examples. But if we get nothing in return, if you want this to be entirely a one-way street where we supply the money and the military and you call the shots, that would be a No, Thank You. You wanna trade? We’ll trade. You wanna actually put some effort into making the UN something other than the world’s most expensive comedy club? We can do that too. Should we assist each other in security issues? It better go both ways, bubba, or it don’t go noway at all.
It’s like some business deals I have been offered.
“You put up all the money and take all the risk. And we’ll split the profits - 50/50”. No thanks. Mrs.Shodan didn’t raise any little boys dumb enough to go for a deal like that.
If you really believe this, then you are more naive than I thought (hint: think about U.N. resolutions against U.S. allies such as Israel and Turkey. Does the U.S. want these enforced?)
This goes straight to the heart of the issue raised in the OP. When a country thinks of itself as the big dog it behaves in a way that reflects that belief, and such a behavior is bound to piss the other dogs off.
And when a country can get away with acting like the big dog…
If it acts like a big dog and smells like a big dog…
Unless the state of the world changes such that it is no longer utility-mazimizing for the US to act like the big dog, everyone else had better watch their bones.
Well, with all due respect, it seems hopeless to you, friend Shodan, because you’ve spent forty-five minutes writing warmed-over rightist hyena drool. And this will indeed be a hopeless debate, just like our last one was. But we must nevertheless trudge on, in the hope that perhaps, someday, communication will be possible.
Not so. Zagadka has in no sense said or even implied that 9/11 was a result of the American propensity for jingoism, elitism, and/or flag-waving. He/she has indicated that this attitude, found among a large proportion of the US population, generates a great deal of animus against the US from abroad. This is simply a fact, whether you like it or not. If you’re really looking to provoke a fight, wave your flag in everyone’s face and parade around yelling “We’re number one!” like an idiot.
The problem isn’t unique to America. The French, for example, also have a particularly virulent, chauvinistic style of patriotism. (Sorry, clair. No offense, I hope.) Many Europeans are also irritated by that fault in the French national character. But still, it pales in comparison to an American 4th of July celebration.
Yes, indeed. The world is full of them.
What’s your point?
I think the US was in something of a bind after 9/11, because as a state, it is only equipped to confront other states. Numerous experts have pointed out that a terrorist network is considerably more difficult to respond to. It doesn’t have a specific geographic territory to defend and is essentially undeterrable. However, after the massive attacks on 9/11, the US government had to respond militarily. The Bush administration couldn’t launch the “War on Terrorism” the way it’s being run today; it needed to show the public that it was capable of responding with strength, in some way, to the worst attack ever perpetrated on American soil.
There were some protests here in Europe, especially among the left, against the invasion of Afghanistan. But they were fairly marginal. I wasn’t sure myself at the time what to make of everything, but I was in a state of shock. At any rate, when the Taliban refused to extradite bin Laden, the US launched an invasion with the full support of Europe and NATO, despite the protests of the European anti-American left. Sweden, for example, gave the US its complete support.
It’s worth noting that the US allowed a large number of high-ranking members of al-Qaida to flee Afghanistan in the last days of fighting, even going so far as to open a safe air corridor for their passage to Pakistan. It seems strange to me that one so fervent about fighting terrorism as yourself would not criticize the Bush administration for that decision.
Aye, but there’s the rub.
You cannot simply state, “They were found to be so.” This is, in fact, not true. The truth is, they were never found to be in material breach, especially with regard to the inspections. On the contrary, the Saddam regime bent over backwards to accommodate the inspection process. And this is simply the rub. If we are going to talk about Iraq, we’re going to have to resolve that question.
How artfully you must prance around the fact that NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WERE FOUND IN IRAQ after the invasion. Prior to the invasion, many of us tried to warn you that the evidence of Iraq’s possession of WMDs was extraordinarily flimsy. We were accused, by people such as yourself, of “denying reality.” Yet, we were not, obviously, as time has shown. Rather, it was people like you, Shodan, who were engaged a systematic denial of the facts of the matter.
No, not so. Not by this point. Those Palestinians, dancing in the streets? Definitely assholes. Those leftists, protesting the invasion of Afghanistan? Maybe assholes – at least some of them, anyway. But now – those of us protesting the invasion of Iraq on trumped-up and false charges? No longer assholes. By this point, many quite non-assholish people are beginning to wonder what the US is up to. With good reason.
In addition, I just want to correct an implied historical falsehood in your story here. When the UNSC passed Resolution 1441, they did so with an explicit promise from the US that it contained “no hidden triggers.” The US government promised that the phrase “serious consequences” did not equal “military invasion.” The US did not have the right, by that resolution, to unilaterally decide whether or not Saddam was in “material breach.”
It then turned around and used the phrase “serious consequences” to as a justification for the invasion. In other words, the government flatly lied to the world community. It is a matter of historical record. And guess what, Sho? When you lie to a community, your standing in that community tends to glide downwards.
See your friend and fellow right-wing Bush supporter, New Iskander. He thinks such acts are perfectly legitimate. And there are lots of people out there like him, I’ve been given to believe, over there in the Land of the Free. And all of those people support Bush.
Are you sure that’s the sort of company you want to keep?
Okay, skipping a bit:
A lot, especially if one seeks to lead. How can the US hope to be a leading advocate of freedom, democracy, and so forth, if it doesn’t give a bloody shit about the opinion of the rest of the world?
Well, invading the country to the tune of 87 + 25 billion bucks (so far), bombing its economy and infrastructure into tatters, and leaving it tottering on the brink of civil war hasn’t done much for human rights either, sir. How can you talk about human rights in Iraq after the latest pictures from Abu Ghraib?
You assume that Europe and the US have no common interests to pursue together. Not true.
So much babbling and so little substance!
Tell me, with regard to the UN: who pays for it? The US?
Well, I certainly condemn my own country (Germany) for what it did when Germans started WWII - most Germans do. There is no national holiday celebrating Hitlers birthday or crap like that. But, even if there were: why would I therefore be unable to critisize the USA? I’m not a nNazi, I do not equal my country. The way the OP is phrased it may be difficult to make this distinction in this debate. When I critisize the US foreign policy in this thread I can not do so as “Germany” but as myself.
I think it is indeed impossible for the US to appease the world without endangering itself. In our current system all Nationstates compete against each other (for resources - be it cheap labour or oil or water, markets, power,…). The EU uses the UN as tool against US domination, the US use theyr superior miltary power to secure their interests. How can they get along? IMO they can’t. The people on the other hand could - we just had to give up the division of our world into Nations and live together as one.
Don’t be so hard on yourself! You had a legitimate point in there somewhere, I bet! Kinda hard to tell, though, since you pack it in so much useless filler.
As usual, the US is the single largest contributor, though I suspect we will get some ‘but relative to GDP, Upper Slobovia blah blah blah’ soon.
I wasn’t aware that the UN was the only place for smaller nations to resolve international disuputes or to engage in international relations. In fact with or without the UN some nations are going to have a greater influence then others.
Sounds like most other nations that make up this community.
Seems to be pretty much exactly what he is saying.
That many people in the world are assholes, and many of the assholes are anti-American, and rejoice at our suffering, and cannot be appeased. Some people do, indeed, hate America, and freedom, and democracy, and secular government, and it is a waste of time to care about what they think.
That is my point.
Yes, I can state it. Because it is the exact and literal truth.
This is simply unworthy of a detailed response.
To characterize the behavior of Saddam Hussein for the twelve years after the first Gulf War and the invasion as “bending over backwards to accomodate the inspection process” is far too stupid or far too dishonest to debate. If you sincerely believe it, you are not in contact with the same reality as the rest of us. If you don’t, there is another word for your behavior that is forbidden in GD.
This is contemptible. We have Sisyphus’ Stone, who begins his post by calling Americans the moral equivalent of “nigger”. We have Zagadka, who resorts to personal insults. And we have the above blatant misrepresentations.
And these are the people whose good opinion the US should try to obtain. :rolleyes:
I agree with you on that point. There are strains of virulent, irrational, anti-Americanism here in Europe, for example, especially as you move towards the far end of the spectrum leftwards. I suppose the same is true in the US.
But I’m arguing that you have differentiate between this irrational hatred of the US, on the one hand, and a well-grounded criticism of US actions abroad, on the other. You cannot merely hide behind the assertion that all criticism of the US is an expression of irrational hatred.
I apologize; I was unclear. I posted late last night and I miswrote. What I meant to say was that Iraq was never found to be in “material breach” of Resolution 1441. That’s my point, since it was on the basis of the threat of “serious consequences,” should Iraq fail to comply with 1441, that the US and Britain sought legal justification for the invasion. (I clarify this argument a bit further down in my post.)
Having clarified that, I must say you’re awfully quick to accuse others of “not being in contact with reality,” especially considering your pre-war assertions.
Interesting post Maeglin - I assume you’re equating human affairs to a self-regulating system.
If this is the the case though, why are you eliminating human agency from the equation ? “What we can do to change” is probably the principal mechanism that allows this system to self-regulate.
Your interpretation of utility may be too focussed on short-term economic advantage. I believe long-term survival is going to require collaborative efforts on a world-wide level.
I also question your qualification of the US (or any other nation !) as a “rational actor”. What’s being debated here is what the US can do to become a more rational actor.
My personal take is that the US needs to realize that the “big dog” position is largely illusory. Military power is of limited use, if we ever get involved in any major military conflict, everyone will lose. Economic power is largely about international co-operation. Though the US has pretty substantial natural resources per population, I believe the collapse of international co-operation would seriously hurt everybody.
Since the end of WWII a large part of the world (“the west”) has been loosely grouped under the umbrella of US leadership. This leadership position was granted by those nations in the aftermath of the war and in the pursuit of a shared value system and shared goals.
Now, in the post cold-war shuffle, the leadership seat (if any) seems to be coming up for grabs again. In order for the US to retain that role, it will have to nurture its alliances with its allies, or make some new friends !
Alternatively, the US could abdicate its leadership role in favor of say China, or some new Russia-centered coalition.
Personally I would hate to see the US brought down by its hubris.
Face it, we might study World History, but let’s not pretend we ever learn from it! As long as there are greedy leaders with hidden agendas and self-directed interests (gee, like look what contractors are in Iraq), we are doomed to be led astray from any form or world order.
What we’re witnessing in Iraq is just 21st century Imperialism. But, the nice guys are too nice to be Imperialists, so we disguise it and muddy the waters so no one will be the wiser. Let’s face it, canyou really shove your ways down someone else’s collective throats? Can’t our wise? leaders see they are not welcomed! So, what’s really changed now that we removed Saddam? Undermining the UN was the first mistake to show the world what “great guys” we are, IMHO - Jinx
With self proclaimed moral leadership comes higher expectations. I am far more shocked and angered when a priest sexually abuses a child than I am when some low-life degenerate does the same thing or worse.
Would you deny that some of this hatred (especially in non-Arab countries) is possibly a consequence of our own behavior? Or do you believe it is a response that arises without cause?
The problem with this argument is that historically the US has only championed democracy and freedom at home, and tended to support oppressive dictators in peaked caps and mirrorshades in the rest of the world. I think you’d be surprised how many new friends the US would make if this were seen to change.
Iraq could have been a chance to make that statement, but unfortunately it’s not shaking out that way.
Re UN funding :
Happy to oblige !
The US is certainly assessed for more dues than any other single nation, however…
Throughout the 90’s the US carried a debt of ~1 or 2 billion USD (about 4 years of dues) which it used as a bargaining chip - eg to attempt re-instatement on the Human Rights Commission. (Is this debt fully cleared yet ?)
On a per capita basis Europeans pay more UN dues than Americans do.
Upper Slobovia, while remaining woefully in arrears on its dues, has offered to send its cavalry and grenadiers on a peace keeping mission to Iraq.