Today it is argued that there are
global problems such as war, terrorism, climate change, world hunger, inequalities of
condition, diseases such as HIV/AIDS and human rights violations that are beyond the
capacity of nation-states to ‘solve’. Therefore, some form of transnational
political authority above and beyond nation-states (including democratic ones) is
required to address these problems. This is proposed as a desirable alternative to
American global leadership.
Americais sometimes attacked for its lack of generosity in aid to the developing world.
The reality, when all forms of aid are considered, is of very high levels of
generosity.
Government aid In
2006, the United States government gave $23.53 billion in overseas development
assistance.[1] In
absolute terms, this is the highest figure, almost twice the $12.46 billion given by the
UK, the next highest. As a share of the American economy, it is, however, a low figure by
comparison with most wealthy nations (0.18% as opposed to an average 0.31%).[2] This latter figure is often used in
isolation, and presented as demonstrating America’s lack of generosity and lack of
engagement with the outside world, but is not a complete picture.
In all of our briefings, our authors aim to make a reasonable case and supply the facts and referencing to support the argument made. But some briefings make a more controversial case than others. We consider this one of our more controversial briefings.
Most surveys
of global opinion suggest that Barack Obama is the world’s preferred candidate
to replace George W Bush. This has led many observers to believe that a
victory for Barack Obama will largely end the anti-Americanism of recent
years. The reality is more complicated.
Any new
President has an opportunity to begin restoring America’s standing in the world Whoever is
elected on Tuesday 4th November 2008 most of the world – rightly or
wrongly - will be glad to see George W Bush’s presidency come to its
end. His international approval ratings are very poor. Any new President
will have an opportunity to give America a fresh start. John McCain’s
differences with the Bush administration on environmental policies, Guantanamo
Bay and aggressive interrogation techniques such as waterboarding make him
better placed than almost any other Republican to appeal to fairer-minded
international citizens.
One
of the most prevalent ideas about America is that it is a dangerous place to live. The
global stereotype remains that America is a largely lawless country, where death stalks
the streets of major cities and where casual visitors are vulnerable to being gunned down
by paranoid neighbours or policemen. But in fact the picture of America that emerges from
a careful review of the evidence is one of a relatively crime-free
society.
That America is a friend of Israel is well known. While this
is often explained as owing to an unrepresentative Israel lobby, the
underlying explanation is American public opinion. Pro-Israeli feeling
is very strong among ordinary Americans, who see in a fellow settler
nation a functioning democracy surrounded by hostile undemocratic
states. The record of American foreign policy is also clearly far from
slavishly pro-Israel and anti-Arab, with America often aiding other
nations in the region.
The myth of an all-powerful Israel Lobby If the notion of an all-powerful Israel
lobby dictating American foreign policy ignores the central fact
explaining why American policies have so often, though not always, been
pro-Israel.
When considering the alternatives to American global leadership, the United
Nations is often offered as a desirable alternative. Inevitably, however, the UN embodies
the flaws of the nations that make it up.
After
the attacks of 11th September 2001 on the United States, the government greatly enhanced
security measures at the borders, in an attempt to keep dangerous people out. For some
time it seemed that immigration and travelling to the United States was a casualty.
However, this did not last. Lately the US government has been making strides in
increasing immigration and travel to the United States without compromising on security.
While things are not perfect, the United States continues to accept more immigrants than
most countries and overall numbers are steadily increasing.
Americans are often attacked for being indifferent to environmental degradation.
This impression is sustained in part by a number of myths that do not survive proper
consideration.
Myth: Americans do not care about the environment Fact:
America has adopted numerous policies with a view to environmental protection, including
a host of uniquely stringent restrictions on domestic drilling. As of 2008, 23 laws aimed
at environmental protection have been passed at the federal level, including the Clean
Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Energy Policy Act, the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Ocean Dumping Act, the Pollution Prevention Act and the
Safe Drinking Water Act.[1] When
it came to the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, the US led
efforts to ban chlorofluorocarbons which were destroying the
stratospheric ozone. America disproportionately funds environmental activities
undertaken by the United Nations and other bodies.
It is received wisdom for many that Tony Blair’s desire to make
Britain a bridge between America and Europe, and to support the United States in the war
on terror, meant Britain was walked over. This was most commonly expressed as the idea of
Blair as President Bush’s ‘poodle’, who did as he was told and got
nothing in return. In reality, Blair requested and received much.
Myth: America did not support Britain during the Falklands War Fact:
To the frustration of Margaret Thatcher, the Reagan Administration was divided between
the ‘Atlanticists’ who favoured Britain and the ‘Latinistas’ who
opposed America coming out in support. But Thatcher succeeded in persuading President
Reagan that backing Britain had greater value than supporting the existential,
geographical pull of Argentina. US Defence Secretary Casper Weinberger led
America’s effort to support Britain and supplied the UK military with much needed
equipment such as submarine detectors, missiles and aircraft fuel.[1] That Britain was able to win this argument
when there were divisions within the US Government is evidence of British influence not
impotence.
In
all of our briefings, our authors aim to make a reasonable case and
supply the facts and referencing to support the argument made. But some
briefings make a more controversial case than others. We consider this
one of our more controversial briefings.
American foreign policy is widely recognised as the main explanation for current
levels of anti-Americanism but other factors can contribute to the problem and create an
environment which makes anti-Americanism easier to breed. One of those factors is the
output of Hollywood.
When considering the alternatives to American global leadership, China has
emerged as the most likely power to supplant the United States in the Asia Pacific
region. But Chinese policies consistently suggest a “Pax Sinica” will
countenance (and nurture) authoritarian regimes and neglect human rights and humanitarian
aid; ignore proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; support state sponsors of
terror; undermine global free trade principles; promote a state-mercantilist
“Beijing consensus” agenda, ignore environmental despoliation and damage to
biodiversity; and demand that Europe, the United States and Japan bear the full weight of
Climate Change sacrifices.
Myth: With the United States
preoccupied by the war on terror and Iraq, ties with Latin America have deteriorated
substantially in recent years Fact: The US preserves strong
relations with the majority of nations in the Hemisphere. It has negotiated free trade
agreements with eleven of Latin America’s 34 nations and provides extensive free
trade access to most others. Nine of the agreements have been ratified and
implemented and the other two (with Colombia and Panama) are currently pending before the
US Congress. Assistance and funding have substantially increased for a wide range
of assistance programs. Strong support for Colombia, where the security situation
has improved dramatically, has helped bring this nation back from the brink of
failure. Despite differences on trade, relations with Brazil are on a solid
footing.
In
all of our briefings, our authors aim to make a reasonable case and
supply the facts and referencing to support the argument made. But some
briefings make a more controversial case than others. We consider this
one of our more controversial briefings.
Ten questions and answers on
America’s involvement in Iraq.
Did the US go to war for
oil? No. In fact the United States
imports only a small portion of its oil from the Middle East. Most US oil imports come
from secure sources in Canada and Mexico. The primary reason for resuming hostilities
against the regime of Saddam Hussein (halted after the ceasefire at the end of Operation
Desert Storm in 1991) was that Iraq failed to meet its obligations under the ceasefire
agreement, particularly with regard to declaring the state of banned weapons programs.
Iraq’s December 7, 2002 “full and complete” weapons declaration was
particularly troubling, recycling past denials and containing little new information,
making it clear that Saddam Hussein was unwilling to abide by the agreements signed in
1991. In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington
DC, the administration was deeply concerned that Iraq possessed nuclear, biological, and
chemical and might share them with transnational terrorist groups.
