Does America's popularity abroad really matter?

In "Lonely at the Top," Joseph S. Nye, Jr. discusses the importance of soft power -- the ability of a nation to influence potential allies through attraction rather than coercion. Has declining global public opinion of the United States underminded our foreign policy effectiveness? Or is the Bush administration right to emphasize military strength and other forms of "hard power" in pursuit of its goals, whatever the rest of the world thinks?
Read the story: Lonely at the top
Share your thoughts

Page 8

The post by Jim from Orlando is interesting. He spent half a page insulting, trivializing and lambasting Islam, then closes his commentary with a call to Muslims to learn religious tolerance. At first, I thought it might be a joke, but after my second reading, I'm not so sure. If it's not a joke, it is a very good example of why our popularity may be on the decline. Until we Americans can examine all of our actions outside of this country and take not only credit for the good things we do, but responsibility for the bad things we do, too, our popularity and respect will continue to decline, regardless of who is president. You can lump me in with the so-called "blame America first crowd" but this is really nothing more than a basic lesson of "taking responsibility" one hopefully learns as a child. If a person does something bad in life, in most cases they don't get away with it just because they've done good things, too. If a doctor kills someone on the operating table because of his or her own negligence, do we let it go because of all the other people he has saved on the same operating table? I would hope not. People and countries should have to take responsibility for their own actions. If our country's politicians and officials have acted in irresponsible or negligent ways that have hurt other people or countries, as citizens in a country whose government is for, of and by the people, we should want them to take responsibility for their actions and answer to justice. If we're not willing to call for this, we're no better than those officials and politicians are. Gandhi once said that everyone is responsible for the actions of their government. Nowhere is this more true than in a democratic country.

Chris, Melrose, MA

"When you are a leader you are usually alone at the top. Only the US under Bush's leadership can lead the way to a civilized world. " That's what i read here. Will you agree with this when China will be Number one? So sad...

Eric, England

There comes a time when "soft power" doesn't work. It was utilized in Clinton's tenure and look where it lead. Sometimes it is hard for people to understand that there are those who find "soft power" a very easy and pliable means to get their own way. "Hard power" was used to subdue, threaten and cripple millions of people, and "soft power" manipulation failed day after day, month after month, atrocity after atrocity. While we sit in easy chairs, there were families scrambling to find shelter and relief from relentless fear and intimidation on the opposite side of the world. Rather than being peacekeepers, we as a nation, were guilty of using soft power to let millions die while we scheduled talks, arranged meetings, made polite phone calls, and lobbied. So why care what others think? Did we worry about our image when we were dragged into WWII? How about WWI? and Viet Nam? and now the middle east. We have to worry about our own "patriots" kicking sand in our faces.

Paula, Boston, MA

We have to remember something very important. We were attacked on 9/11 and more people died in that attack than those who died during the attack on Pearl Harbor. Al-quaida had been responsilbe for multiple attacks on both US citizens and other nations, though not on USA soil. I think it is important that we hopefully have the assistance of other freedom-loving peoples of this world - and as a matter of fact, we do! France, Germany and Russia had their own agenda vis-a-vis Saddam Hussein and they were not going to support our going in there - because - it was going to cost them some money! They were dealing with this thug for years (and making money on it as well!!). There are times when it is important to do the right thing, not the popular thing. The United Nations dragged their feet when it came to Haiti - we had to go in there first to protect the citizenry and also former President Aristide. The problem is that by the time the UN can decide what to do, it appears that it is always too late! I have relatives who have lived and some who are still living in Europe and they have been amazed at the anti-Israel/anti-Semitic attitude they have re. the Jews and their homeland. And these are supposedly 'liberal' people. If anyone thinks that all our problems will be solved if Israel 'ceases to exist' as a nation, and the land is taken over by the Palestinians, well - they are most naive indeed! My question to Senator Kerry: - How do you plan on handling terrorist activities where human lives (and mostly non-military folks) are taken at will? Should we become an Isolationist country? That could work for awhile - as in "why should we worry about others"? But - for our own self interests, we canot become that - it is a recipe for disaster - if we allow thugs to run the world. No one will be free! Maybe we should start looking at the intent of these (few) nations that do not support us and ask them - what are their plans for promoting world peace? They all looked to us to solve the problem in Bosnia. It seems to me - there are many nations who are on the recieving end - all the time- and then - there is the US - always helping everyone out and getting whipped for it.

brenda, boston

When I first saw the headline about 'popularity', I had to chuckle: basing the security of the world on popularity is sort of silly. Silly, since popularity is often subjective and highly emotional. After reading some of the responses and the article by Mr. Nye, the discussion is more about the importance of views on the decision making process of our leaders (nationally and world wide). Views are important sources of information - no matter how subjective the views are. Bush tried to get Europe and the UN to work out a joint approach to Iraq, but grew impatient at the 'traffic-jam' mentality of an United Europe and an overwhelmed UN. Slow political process may be the norm to Europeans yet to many Americans their slow processes creates a bad view of Europe. France, Germany, & Russia still remain some what unPopular with Americans. Also, global public opinion can be very selective. American foreign policy is often pictured as historically evil and bad for world peace, yet the same polls, marches, & spoken words often leave out German historical ills; France's past/current involvement in SE Asia and Africa; Spain's past holocaust of the Mayans, Arabs, and non-Catholics world-wide; Japan's awful treatment of China and prisoners of war. For most this century, we have been trying to implement some degress of soft power. US has tried isolationism (WWI, raise Fascism, & WWII), only to have the world say "we are not doing enough." US has tried negotiations and diplomacy (pre-Korea War, post-Gulf I, & pre-Gulf II), only to have the other side say "we will ignore the treaties & the resolutions". US even tried to aide & use graft (N. Korea & Isreal-Palestine conflicts), only to have the aide recipients & the warring-sides remain hostile & angry. Our foreign policy effectiveness is a two-way street: our success depends on both sides working things peacefully out, and not just our elected leaders. In the end, if you prefer revisionist history or non-revisionist history, you will understand that the world opinion matters, but it is not the gospel or an honest measure since it changes almost as often as...

Model, S. Boston

American power and influence has a strong base in our involvement and affiliation with overseas nations. We would not be the #1 superpower if we didn't wake up from our isolationsism prevalent after (and before) WWI and get involved in the global conflicts that shaped our times. The same argument helped bring about America's involvement in NATO, the Marshall Plan, and the policy of containment. We would not be this world's greatest power if not for our involvement, which was greatly dependent upon our alliances with Europe, the Middle East, and the Far East. Therefore, our perception IS important. We NEED to be involved. Non-involvement in world affairs have led insular nations like China to be withdrawn from the world stage on many fronts. Yet, there is a major difference between building alliances and compromising our values. While we should maintain our alliances, we should not seek out permission to protect our national security. While we should avoid war at all costs, we should take the initiative when necessary to neutralize terrorists. We should not be afraid to use the carrot, and also not afraid to use the stick. That's the basis of a strong foreign policy.

Matt, Westford, MA

Bush et al really ascribes to the Roman motto, "Let them hate us so long as they fear us." As the Globe's Glen Johnson noted on March 18th, Cheney said: "...America's friends know they can trust, and America's enemies know they can fear, the decisive leadership of President George W. Bush." This is not the way to make friends and influence people. But this is foreign policy in this administration. Here is how we dismiss one of our longest standing allies: In an article in Melbourne's "The Age," Marian Wilkinson writes, "Cheney confronted ambassador Jean-David Levitte [just prior to the war] with a simple question. "Is France an ally or a foe?" The ambassador insisted France was an ally. Cheney disagreed. "We have many reasons," he said, "to conclude that you are not really a friend or an ally." Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Bush do not speak for me. What we have unleashed by rushing to war with Iraq, with a pitifully small coalition, is a wave of anti-Americanism that makes me feel not safer, but very much exposed.

Nancy, Hingham, MA

Rather than catagorize as right or wrong, I will discuss this in the same terms I believe our President approaches it --political terms. With this country split down the middle regarding political affiliation to the two party system, and with President Bush's simply horrible domestic policy record, it seems logical to view our President's foreign policy in small part what he believes is 'right'' and in large part what he believes will get him re-elected. For half of this country the war-mongering, shoot first--ask questions later, and generally speaking unilateralism of the Bush administration strikes a cord that may keep him in the White House until 2008. These people say all the same things. Some of which I can respect, but all of which I believe is extremely short-sghted. Global terrorism is a disease that America alone can not cure. More importantly, many of the steps we have taken in hopes of mitigating the danger terrorism poses, will undoubtedly (this is not opinion but fact) sow the seeds of a new generation of terrorists. I do not discredit our military, they are capable of protecting this nation and fighting terrorism, but the process could be made easier with foreign help. More importantly, I believe our foreign policies will hurt us less in terms of safety at home and more in tems of domestic economy. Remember after the dot.com bubble burst the entire world sunk into an economic depression, which had began in America. At the time it wouldnt have been odd to associate the fate of our economy with what would happen to the international economy. Today, not so. Europe, India, China....and the list goes on are reaping various benefits of domestic growth, while our economy has been virtually stagnant over the course of the Bush presidency. His tax cuts failed, his foreign policy has left countless nations doubting our intentions and looking elsewhere for trade....you may laugh, but trust me in ten years the European Union and the Far East will have a stronger trade community than they now have with America. The rest of the world is catching up, our glorified national pride will lead to our fall as the world super power and we only have ourselves to blame. I dont blame Bush, he is in the position to enact his awful policies because my fellow Americans put him there. You ask me who Im most scared of....not Osama, not North Korea, and not Hamas....Im scared of my neighbors, my countrymen, and people of influence like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh who spout out lies and propaganda to fuel a political agenda that will sink this country. My hope is not to catch Osama, I can care less, but to have Americans open there eyes and realize just how little Osama means, (you dont think he has a successor in place by now) COME ON PEOPLE. The Bush administration has made too many mistakes, too many obvious blunders, and too many calculated choices that have failed to serve the citizens of this country, so my fear above all other fears is that half of this nation will not see this and subject both themselves and myself to another four years of downward growth in terms of economy, social issues, and foreign policy....thats a scary scary possibility that I hope will not become reality.

Eric, Brookline

No matter what our policies are, there will never be a shortage of hatred for the United States. We should just do what we feel is right, because we'll be criticized in any case.

Greg, Boston

Unfortunately, times have changed! We were attacked on our own soil....and we know that there are many people plotting to do the same thing again! This is not the time to worry about what the rest of the world "thinks of us". I believe that history will show that this Administration has taken the appropriate actions. I am much more concerned with my family's safety than I am with anything else. Whether or not they "like" us, (which is debatable anyway), they most certainly "respect" us.

Todd, N. Chelmsford, MA