Think Again: America's Image

U.S. standing in the world matters, Americans care about it, and a weakened stature continues to hamper U.S. policy. Twenty prominent political scientists have recently completed a year-long study of the issue and clear away the underbrush of misunderstanding.

BY PETER KATZENSTEIN, JEFFREY LEGRO, THE APSA TASK FORCE ON U.S. STANDING IN WORLD AFFAIRS | OCTOBER 5, 2009

"Obama has solved the problem."

If only it were true. Many associate America's low standing with the presidency of George W. Bush. The American public's satisfaction with the U.S. position in the world fell from a high of 70 percent in 2002 to a low of 30 percent in 2008. Members of the international community were of like mind. In 2008, only 31 percent of Germans, 22 percent of Egyptians, 41 percent of Chinese, 19 percent of Pakistanis, and 47 percent of Mexicans had a favorable opinion of the United States. In 2009, however, favorability ratings of the United States increased sharply in most parts of the world.

This improvement is widely hailed as a result of an ‘Obama effect' -- the new president's approach coupled with the idea that his mere election has improved America's global image. But scratch a little bit below the surface and you will find a faultline that threatens the Obama presidency. Standing goes beyond favorable opinion polls.

Consider, for example, that even as respondents see the U.S. in a more positive light, there are strong indications of continuing, deep global dissatisfaction with American economic and military policies. Foreign opinion shows significant disapproval of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the lack of U.S. multilateralism, U.S. neglect of others' interests, U.S. economic impact, and overall U.S. influence.

The danger for Obama looms in the pressure between two tectonic plates. On the one side are high expectations and optimism that Obama will address global complaints about U.S. policy. On the other side, U.S. interests, domestic politics, and the difficulty of global problems will prevent him from acting the way others might like in many areas. The result could be a political earthquake of reaction against America that sends the country's standing reeling again.

Similar declines in standing have occurred before in U.S. history (for example during the Vietnam war and early Reagan years) and by some measures (e.g. the level of agreement with U.S. votes in the U.N. General Assembly) the latest plunge in standing started before the Bush administration. It is worth noting that the recent improvements in standing preceded Obama. Falling favorability ratings in most countries bottomed in 2007 and then began to improve.

BRENNAN LINSLEY/AFP/Getty Images

 

Peter Katzenstein is Walter Carpenter Jr. Professor of International Studies at Cornell University and was president of the American Political Science Association (APSA) in 2008-2009.

Jeffrey W. Legro is Compton Professor of World Politics, chair of the Department of Politics, and a faculty associate of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. They headed an APSA task force that produced a recent report "U.S. Standing in the World: Causes, Consequences, and the Future."

FEARINPUBLIC

1:25 AM ET

October 6, 2009

I kinda like Obama

For me, I think Obama is still doing a pretty good job in the office..lets see if he still can improve a lot..

besides.. he doesnt even have fear in public speaking

 

SAILOR BILL

10:33 AM ET

October 6, 2009

The Obama Dilemna

American standing improved in 2007-8 because the impending jettison of Bush was clear and unmistakable. We all looked forward to the incoming improvement, no matter who won. Considering the devastation of the Bush Regime, anyone would have been some improvement (did I say that?) While it was clear that more of the same with McCain was obvious, the specter of his demise in office was gloomily overshadowed by the bizarre notion the Palin could actually see Russia from The White House. these jokesters are gone now for the most part, save for the media's fascination with thier afterlives. Thankfully, the rest of us are well past that nightmare.While many republicants and thier blind followers still regale the ressurection of the now deceased notion of right wing leadership, the rest of go about the work of rebuilding America in the wake of thier outrageous bumbling in world politics. Obama has shown himself to be the only viable person in America with the intestinal fortitude to take on the ravages of republicantism, and they can't handle the truth. His pragmatism will prevail as it is steadily remaking the face of this shamed nation.

 

EXOTTOYUHR

4:10 PM ET

October 6, 2009

The evolution of Saturday Night Live...

"While it was clear that more of the same with McCain was obvious, the specter of his demise in office was gloomily overshadowed by the bizarre notion the Palin could actually see Russia from The White House."

Have you heard the news yet that "I can see Russia from my window" was a statement by Tina Fey, not Sarah Palin? And as to "more of the same," do you really think that a survivor of torture would have continued the policies of the Bush administration?

 

COMPASSIONFORBOTHSIDES

4:39 AM ET

October 7, 2009

SNL

The fact is Palin did make a statement about how close Alaska was to Russia when qualifying her foreign policy expertise. Tina Fey simply exaggerated it, much the same way GOP politicians exaggerated "increased opportunity for all Americans" into "I love Karl Marx" with respect to Obama. The difference is Fey is a comedian, while the GOP is a political party.

And torture is only ONE of the policies of the Bush administration. To say McCain was nothing like Bush because he would have been a departure in this one particular area is to ignore the myriad of policy issues that characterized the Bush administration and its contribution to our decreased world standing. He never distinguished himself effectively from the policies of our unpopular incumbent. If anything, he offered to continue them, from the occupation in Iraq to the Bush tax cuts for the upper brackets.

However, McCain is not nearly as similar to Bush in his views as his campaign made him out to be, but that is their fault, not the fault of SNL.

 

JERKPATROL

2:10 PM ET

October 12, 2009

zzzzzz

Hey Sailor! Congrats! Your efforts are the most boring, arrogant and insulting blogs on this site. I have an alternate activity for you besides thesaurus and spellcheck. You know what I am talking about. I assume with your handle, you enjoy water. Have you ever tried holding your breath underwater for 45 minutes? Give it a shot.

 

GERONIMO

4:04 PM ET

October 6, 2009

America's image

The excellent APSA report on this topic willynilly demonstrates a reason, which the report neglects to treat, why it is hard to repair our image. The passage in question runs like this.

>...The legacy of Iranian hostility towards the United States has roots in >America's 1953 overthrow of populist leader Mohammed Mosaddeq and >support for the shah despite the U.S.'s professed adherence to the >principles of self-determination and liberal democracy.....

It takes for granted a version of Mossadeq's removal that makes of the shah an anti-democratic villain and Mossadeq a liberal hero. Such was not the case.

The Pahlevi dynasty in 1923 installed itself by para-military means as a progressive nationalist force. At the time its nationalist fervor was directed against the Soviets . Shah Reza's young regime was quetly supported by the British and later financially tutored and aided by the United States. But both the British and the Americans then ran into trouble with the Iranians. As a consequence, by the time of the outbreak of WWII , theyhad come to favor a close relationship with the Germans. That caused the Soviets and the British. to jointly oust the shah., as wartime supply lines to the Soviet Union ran through Iran.

Reza Khan's son, Mohammed Reza, was permitted by the powers to follow his father on the throne--and into turbulent times. In these
a Shiite firebrand, Mullah Kashani, and an extreme nationalist, Mohammed Mossadeq, rose to prominence. Their rise was propelled by the Iranians' quarrle with the Britih over possision of their oil and disappointment at what they held to be too little American economic aid. That sent Mossadeq clamoring for an alternate source of money, namely the nationalization of the oil industry. This ploy eventually gained him ipower suffiicient to oust the shah who then went into exile. He was returned from it when British and American intelligence managed to inspirit and guide the Iranian armed froces to topple Mossadeq. Involved in all this was the Iranian parlianment which consisted of parties representing grandee Iranian landowners and the wealthy middle class. This set-up was in turn toppled by Mulla Kashani's ideological successor, Khomenei.

The AOSA report offers guidance on what may need to be done to keep America both at the top as well as popular. It might have recommended
a better job at explaining persuasivekly our policies.

 

DANA

7:52 PM ET

October 6, 2009

Only one kind of standing matters

You stand with your allies; you don't stand with your enemies. You let people know where you stand. You will be respected. But you must never expect love. The powerful are rarely loved. The powerless are never loved. The former can protect themselves.

when the US was firmly anti communist, it was respected, although during much of that time, the US was not living up to its values, in terms of civil rights in the US. But that did not stop people from being US allies. It was in their interest to stop communists and they understood that the US was on their side and would not abandon them.

Even as western europeans derided the US they relied on it. The US took on the responsibility of arming itself, thus freeing europeans to be lax with their own defense.

This article assumes that it is normal for nations to like each other and that the desire for power is unusual and that it is somehow the fault of the US that nations want power. What is normal is that nations follow their interest. They are not interested in human rights or torture or hypocrisy or values. These things become weapons when a nation dislikes the US for other reasons. China wants to expand its power. So does Russia. For this to happen the US must have less power. These nations do not care if the US is nice to the prisoners at guantanamo bay. It has always been like this between nations. The notion that the US must be loved and if it is not loved, it is because it is bad and deserves opprobrium is nonsense.

The US has a certain system. Many don't like it. It does not follow that they are superior to the US or that the US is bad.

If one's enemy gets a leader that appears to be weak and not have its national interest at heart, that naturally delights the enemy. The enemy then may have a feeling of warmth towards one.

The more people appear worried about US power and hypocrisy and values, the less they worry about what goes on in other nations. People are very worried about three people who were waterboarded. However, no one worries about China, Russia, North Korea, or Venezuela, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iran, Sudan and just about every non western nation. Some will insist that the US is worse than all these places. Others will say, in effect, since they don't have the same values, these other nations have no obligation re human rights. That is an argument for giving up the values that the US has, assuming that one admits the US has them to begin with. This article makes it seem as if the problem is the possession of values. Give up the values and then the world will expect nothing of you and like you, the authors are saying.

When has China shown the least desire for morality in its conduct or playing by rules? Yet we do not see people marching in the streets to show support for Tibet. What promises have the Russians lived up to? As we see plainly, their former satellites are terrified of Russia, with good reason. Russia has made it plain it would like nothing better than to recapture these nations. Yet, no one accuses Russia of arrogrance.

I could go on. The fact is this article is not realistic. No nation can have values that so pure than it cannot defend itself. One does not increase in other nation's estimation by abandoning allies, like the eastern europeans. That is the sort of thing that makes people feel the US can't be trusted.

 

UZBEKPOLICY

3:57 PM ET

October 7, 2009

Our values define who we are

Excellent article. Did anyone fax it to Obama? What makes me upset with U.S.' current standing is that human rights and democracy -- our fundamental values -- seem to be widely ignored and mild tone adopted on abuses by the Obama administration. And that's much worse than Iran hating us for double standards, it's the whole world (or particularly freedom-loving part of it) who will be deeply disappointed.