Posted on November 6, 2008 - by Frank

A Foreign Policy of Respect

I am not American, but yesterday I watched the U.S election with interest, with my chief concern as someone from outside of the U.S, being foreign policy. There were two very different approaches to international relations on offer.

American foreign policy interests me because it influences the world greatly. Over the last 8 years, under the Bush administration, the view of the U.S in the eyes of the world has greatly diminished. I don’t think that can purely be blamed on the Bush administration as I think a number of things that had been fermenting for some time simply boiled over under his watch and there are a number of other “hot patatoes” in the world ready to boil over as well. His administration’s approach to foreign policy exacerbated the problems. The Osama Bin Laden problem did not simply materialize on September 11, 2001, it was the result of a problem that began when Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and the U.S decided to fight back by funding, supporting and training rebel groups in the area that could repel the Russians due to the strategic nature of Afghanistan. Bin Laden was one of the leaders amongst those groups and the training camps used by those groups evolved into Al-Qaeda. Likewise, the Iraq problem was in place well before President George W. Bush entered the world stage.

The election of Senator Barack Hussein Obama to the office of President of the United States of America was met with jubilation in many parts of the world, with countless numbers of people expressing a hope in the change he has projected, a change that Senator John McCain could not embody. For many around the world, that hope rests in a possible change in the way the United States interacts with the rest of the world.

What was on offer in what we must cautiously view as campaign rhetoric were two different approaches to the rest of the world. We saw two different sets of language and since the Presidential office is largely one whose importance is seated in what they project and the vision they call forth, that rhetoric was/is all important, for that rhetoric can call forth an atmosphere that influences actions around the world.

Language has the power to divide, it also has the power to heal. Language has the power to create enemies, it also has the power to create friends. Language has the power to demean or demonstrate respect. It is in this area that the world has listened to the Bush administration and the rhetoric of power that has so often emanated from the U.S and it has largely become hostile to what it has heard – the results have been devastating.

The Bush administration divided the world into two camps – good and evil – and it used the rhetoric of evil to distance and demean its enemies. By labeling one group of countries as the “Axis of Evil” it sufficiently sidelined any legitimate dialogue they may have been able to bring to the table. By doing so, it provided no room to hear the grievances of its perceived enemies. It gave no room to hear disagreement, whether that disagreement be legitimate or not. It’s sole aim was what it perceived to be the interests of America, an aim that has been pursued in a very one-eyed fashion by almost every U.S administration, culminating in the Bush administration closing its ears to much of the world to pursue what it believed to be the right course.

The problem is, if you push people into a corner, demean them and leave them feeling like they haven’t been and cannot be heard, they will lash out. Global tension and the ever present problem of terrorism that have truly gripped the world since 2001 is such a fall-out in global terms.

John McCain offered much of the same – strong military rhetoric that saw no place to sit at a table and listen to disagreement. Hostile states were painted as an evil enemy that should not be listened to in case it “legitimized” them. American security was painted in terms of being able to squash any threat and hit out hard whenever anything got in the way of U.S interests. It was the continuation of a foreign policy and international relations rhetoric that lacks respect for the rest of the world. It was the words of a poker player sitting at a table trying to out-bet everyone so they would simply fold and cave to the might of he with the most power. The world no longer wanted to hear it and the majority hoped that American citizens would hear the differing voice on offer through Obama.

The language from Obama was different. Can he solve all the world’s ills? Not at all, but he can ease some tensions where the U.S has played a part in fermenting some of the world’s ills. Will he do it? That has yet to be seen, but there were some good signals in what he has had to say. The world waits with baited breath to see if the newly elected man in the most powerful position in the world actually changes anything.

So what was different? Essentially Obama, especially in his earlier campaign talking, was offering a foreign policy of respect. He seemed to recognize the U.S, not as a global power that needs protecting at all costs, but as a part of the world with great influence and responsibility, a part of the world that has the ability to project freedom to other parts of the globe. The rhetoric shifted slightly during the election campaign proper as it became necessary to adopt the “commander-in-chief” hat to look like a decisive man in charge, but the willingness to try something different was there.

He spoke of opening up talks with states that the Bush administration had deemed to be evil. He talked of sitting at the table with people the Bush administration was not willing to talk to. This was significant in a divided world and though it is only talk at this point, it offers some hope. It offers hope that the U.S might hear both its positive and negative effects on the rest of the world due to its courses of action throughout history and from this, react accordingly.

Obama’s talk has offered the hope that the U.S might finally have a leader that possibly understands that the best form of defense is not having the biggest weapons and the ability to wipe out anyone who acts in a hostile way, though the readiness to defend ones nation should exist, but lies in fostering positive relations. It is a commonsense awareness that says that those who respect each other and work to foster positive relations even though they may disagree on some things, don’t attack each other. This principle not only works on an individual level but at a state level.

I am not a man who thinks that President-Elect Obama is, or will be, the world’s saviour, nor do I think he can solve the world’s problems. I understand and sympathise with many of the disagreements others have with him. I understand why almost half of the U.S population voted for McCain. I understand the concern about President-Elect Obama’s inexperience, but I am cautiously optimistic that a positive change could occur in the way the U.S interacts with the rest of the world if it loses the language of good vs evil that divides the world into friend or foe according to their relations with them and I am cautiously optimistic about the easing of some global tensions if the next U.S Presidential administration, lead by Obama, truly engages a foreign policy of respect.

Related posts:

1. The Torture Swamp
2. New / Old Comment Policy
3. Friendship as Defence
4. My Hero
5. A Response to Comments from Murray McCully