How important to you is it for Obama to rehabilitate America's reputation overseas
 

Its a pretty stark contrast - one of the least popular leaders in the world being replaced by probably the most popular.

The last time Bush was elected I remember 1 or 2 mainstream UK newspapers running the front page all in black (something normally reserved for occassions of state mourning) - a gimmick perhaps but evidence of how disliked Bush genuinely was in Europe.

I watched election night live on the bbc, and remember seeing hard bitten journalists like Jeremy Paxman (who I have never seen express anything but hostility to any politician) trying - not very well - to hide their obvious support for Obama.

The challenges Obama faces are huge - a desperate situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, a global economic collapse, crippling debt - but how much importance to American's attach to the task of recovering America's position in the world?

I care, and think it can be done.

It will be interesting to see how I am treated when I go to Europe this summer as a tourist. Will anything be changed by then? Will the fact that we have a different president change European and worldwide perception of what Americans are?

I care a ton. America only works if we're with our friends, and the more friends we have the better off we'll all be. Like you said, everyone seems to like Obama right now ('cept for some surly Republicans), and he's replacing one of the worst world leaders. The ball is in Obama's court now.

Waaaaay important... since, ya know, the US isn't an island.

It's nice to be liked. It is more important to do the right thing.

We're disliked by our allies for having done the wrong thing. Time to man up.

Yes, do we want to portray a pleasing image by emulating behavior or foster respect and trust through leadership? What should we do differently? Which reputations require rehabilitating overseas, which reputations should be rehabilitated with us? I see room for growth all around.

as they say, the proof's in the pudding.
what obama's been saying and (in the first 2 days) doing seems reasonable--that the united states is not in a position to simply impose itself on situations through force, that it requires co-operation to accomplish it's ends is reasonable--but it's also a wholesale repudiation of neo-con notions of what power is. there are already policy directions that he's taken that i think are short-sighted--on the israel/palestine question in particular--but there we are. it's been what, 72 hours?

i understand nation-states to be problematic, and nationalism a pathology. the notions of isolation or imperial power are nothing more than stupid boy wanking: they accomplish nothing, they have never accomplished anything, they never will accomplish anything.

but if we are going to operate within the idiot framework of nation-states, then there are better and worse ways to proceed. balancing power with good will is a whole lot smarter than attempting to use either term in isolation. the bush people seem to have been too arrogant to understand this very basic fact. in comparison, the return to a relatively banal relation between the two seems an achievement. this says more about the bush people than it does about obama.

on obama, while i'm cool with most of what he's done so far, the proof is in the pudding. we'll have to wait and see what this all translates into.

To answer your question, I don't really care what a lot of the objectors think. If we're trying to please the French, Germans and Russians, we can't do that while we're doing what is right. (Although, I am speaking in historic terms, not necessarily about the current administrations; Sarkozy and Merkel seem to be a bit more sensible than some that came before them). The question really is phrased wrong: We don't need to be as concerned about what others think of us as they need to be concerned about our opinion of them. Too often, we've let nations poke us in the eye and just smile in amusement. I fear Obama will invite others to criticize us, and then agree with them. That's not too bright, and I hope he doesn't.

However, we need to change our mindset from the world's policemen to the world's firemen. Go in, take care of the problem, let someone else clean up.

I think people are often shortsighted when it comes to international relations. International reputations are relevant for reasons that go far beyond "being nice," "friendly," or thumping one's chest as the tough guy on the block.

Good diplomatic relations means that it is politically more feasible for leaders of foreign nations to enter into agreements with the US without fear of domestic disturbances, it means that foreign treaties and so on are easier to achieve, and so on and so forth.

International relations go far beyond matters of war and torture.

When the US is unpopular, it means that even agreements that would be mutually beneficial do not get done because it is simply too politically costly to do so for foreign leaders.

TR once said "speak softly and carry a big stick." The Bush administration focused exclusively on the "carry a big stick," but the "speak softly" is just as important.

I don't think this is important because our reputation is secure with those who share our goals and values and insecure with those who don't. If the implication is that we compromise our values to win favor, I think that is a sign o weak leadership and I believe others would view it the same way. The reality is that after all the noise coming from Democrats regarding Bush's cowboy style diplomacy in the end our foreign policy will not be much different under Obama as compared to Bush.

Bush's 'war on terrorism" has not endeared us to the world and in fact, by many intel analyses, has created more enemies among Muslim civilian populations.

I cant picture Bush going on al arabya tv as a symbolic first step to make it clear that the US does not condemn an entire religion (with rhetoric like islamofacism) based on the actions of the extremist who abuse that religion....nor will we torture those, guilty or innocent, that we encounter and detain, often w/o cause.

It comes down to a personal ethos of whether you're "US VS THEM", "There's good guys and bad guys" and "My country above all others" or whether you believe in the common humanity regardless of nationality.

If you think that we're somehow The Superpower who can dictate and impose, decide and lead and countries who disagree can either sod off or learn to follow our lead, then you really wouldn't care. George Bush was this kind of man.

If you think that problems of the current era require global cooperation, recognize that we live in a global marketplace with varied culture and nationality, one in which people communicate globally in unforseeable ways, and one where a good portion of maintaining national security is maintaining global security, then 'rehabilitating' our reputation is tantamount.

I'm the latter, as you can likely tell from the inherent bias of my words. I can't help but feel anger for the arrogance of conservatives and nationalists who still believe the United States is THE right one, and we already have all the "good guys" on our side, and all the "bad guys" just need to learn to respect us or get bombed.

like most aspects of contemporary conservatism, the worst thing for it was for conservatives to actually have power. neo-con "realism" is done.

an indication is not only did obama do his first interview as president on al-arabiya and said what i would think any sane person would say, but he's also beginning the process of engaging with iran--which the iranians have been signalling they want via backchannels for a very long time. the position of the united states has been so undermined by the bush squad that there's no alternative--but even were that not the case, this combination of types of power is far more sensible than was neo-con dick-waving.

what i expect is if ahmenddijad remains in political tenuous domestically in iran, that this will go a long way toward undermining him. but i am not sure that he remains in that position as i haven't really been following the matter closely of late.

one thing is already obvious, though: the obama administration has a pretty clear sense not only of the fiasco that was the bush administration, but also of a path out of the mess he left behind. while i am dubious about his policy toward afghanistan, i can see how it fits together with the other moves---an acceleration of activity there prevents the rest of the actions from appearing as a simple backing-down. i don't like what he's doing, but at least it makes sense overall, which is a welcome change from the bush period.

seriously, ace--you sound like fred barnes.

IMO, more stone age like barney rubble.
-----Added 28/1/2009 at 05 : 57 : 02-----

Another small but welcomed change impacting foreign policy primarily through USAID:

Obama's EO rescinding the Mexico City Policy, also known as the "global gag rule"

There is often a "us vs them". For example we have a treaty with Israel and we believe they have a right to exist. There are some who don't want us to have a treaty with Israel and who don't want Israel to exist. How do you make that "us vs. them" issue go away? You can pretend that talking over coffee will make a difference but the reality is the "them", needs to understand that "us" is behind Israel - like it or not.


Or, how about when Russia invaded Georgia? At some point the "us" has to take a position. We are not Switzerland. So we can take a stand against Russia and support Georgia or the opposite. Either way, someone is going to not like us. If you say it is a false choice and we could straddle the fence, I would argue that we run the risk of being disliked by all. So my bottom line is that we need to do what we think is right, and not worry about who does and who does not like us.
-----Added 29/1/2009 at 11 : 50 : 34-----
I am curious. What is Obama's position on Iran obtaining nuclear weapons and how is it different than Bush's position?

I don't think there is a difference. So if you suggest that President Obama having softball interviews with ME media will make a difference and that is actually true, I hope it works. But I doubt the leaders in Iran care about softball media interviews.
-----Added 29/1/2009 at 11 : 57 : 44-----
Here is my bottom line. Our nation can have a foreign policy that I respect and others like me or we can have a foreign policy that people in say France respects. You can not have both. If President Obama goes to far in trying to make French people like us, that is his choice, and my choice is to vote and be politically active. No nation can be liked by all.

engagement with iran is the opposite of the bush "strategy."
i'm not sure how much more obvious it could be.

Is that President Obama position on Iran - to engage them? Does that mean he is going to talk to them as they develop a nuclear weapons arsenal? What is President Obama going to be saying in these "engagements"? I hope he has a firmer stance than what you describe and is willing to clearly communicate to Iran and the world what the consequences will be if Iran continues developing nuclear weapons.

Do you think the US owes Iran an apology as requested by Ahmadinejad from your link above:

I don't.
-----Added 29/1/2009 at 03 : 28 : 17-----
Oh, I came across this editoral in the WSJ today, here is an excerpt:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318955345726797.html

you wouldn't ace. in your world, that'd be an indication of weakness. but i expect you know nothing about the shah. and if you know nothing about his regime, you wouldn't understand the first thing about the revolution, or about how the united states came to be positioned because of that. so you wouldn't understand anything.

but that's all in the past--context---it's not the central point of the move. the central point is that modulating the american posture toward iran undercuts both the rationale for pursuing nuclear weapons--assuming the program exists--and weakens ahmandijan's administration by taking out one of the main rationales that he's exploited to remain in power. but the fact is that he doesn't run the show, he doesn't set nuclear policy--kahmeni and his circle does--and that circle has been consistently FAR more moderate than has the president. so there's every reason to modify the bush people's approach to iran.

but to see that, you'd have to have some idea of what you're talking about.

you've been fed a particularly simple-minded line of horseshit about this for a long time. and you seem kinda addicted to it. maybe it's the simplicity of excluding information---i dunno. but if i were you, i'd consider detox.

Make us care that you don't.

What differentiates Iranian Air 655 from KAL 007? KAL 007 flew over Kamchatka fer chrissake. KAL 902 was near Murmansk. Iranian Air 655 flew over - gasp! - Iran & Iranian waters. It's also more than a bit hypocritical to pay reparations and say you weren't responsible. No one stepped up and took responsibility for the 290 deaths, not even the captain of the boat. (And Bush I even gave that incompetent, weasally bastard a medal.) If Obama does issue an apology, he will have been the first to take responsibility. Good for him.

The overthrow of Mossadeq and support of the odious shah merit certainly apology -- unless you think that kind of stuff is OK. The Iranians don't, which is why they're angry about it.
-----Added 29/1/2009 at 04 : 11 : 29-----
Oooh, goody! -- a WSJ editorial from Mr. Torture Memo himself.

Let's just say that he has an interest in maintaining a sense of crisis. He should probably be looking for a rock to crawl under.

It is an indication of strength. I admit I have weaknesses, but I would not enter into "engagements" with an apology for things that occurred in a different era at a request. I would consider the request a "red herring", an attempt to gain leverage in negotiations. If I felt I was sincerely wrong for things in the present I would apologize without hesitation.

I know some of the history, I am far from an expert but based on what I do know I would not apologize if I were the current President.

So, are you suggesting that our President is attempting to affect the internal politics of Iran through more polite gestures as opposed to Bush's approach of somewhat rude gestures, i.e. the name calling of Iranian leaders. Or, is weakening Ahmandijan's administration, as you put it, a secondary benefit of talking nice?

My opinion is that "gestures" polite or rude don't make a difference. I think political leaders are more sophisticated than that and I don't think the average Iranian or American pays that close attention and if they are the information will be filtered in such a way that is favorable to the leader of each country. What matters is core beliefs and the price one is willing to pay.
-----Added 29/1/2009 at 04 : 46 : 31-----
I can not. But, ironically that is my central point in this thread. You hold firm to your core belief on this subject and don't care what I think. I respect that, even if I dis agree with you, even if I don't like you (I actually do like you for playing in this virtual "sand box" and helping me think about something other than work, but you get the point).

On the contrary, you could make us care -- if you would engage with the relevant contexts beyond yourself. I see a lot of words about you and your feelings.

I don't understand your statement.

You seemed to ask me to make you care that I don't think the US owes Iran an apology. I said that I can not make you care. In my view the things you care about are your choice. I can not force that. Nor can I, anyone, any nation force another to "like" me or them. If you are saying that if I were different, then you would like me - what is that? That simply means you don't like me, so why should I, anyone, any nation pretend to be something they are not?

uh...no ace. i think what guyy's asking you is to shift your argument away from making statements about your abstract conception of how american power should work--you know, restating a condensed apology for neo-con ideology---and instead make arguments that actually involve iran, the situation there, the political arrangement--something that refers to the putative object of this discussion--which is not just your general position restated.

so try that, if you like.

I stated why I would not apologize. There is no complicated reason other than what I posted:

I perceive Ahmadinejad as a shrewd and calculating person. I would not let him assume control. His request for an apology, in my view, is not a sincere request. And like I have been saying if the US makes errors militarily or in foreign policy an apology should be given when it is due with sincerity.

And, I can not make anyone care about my reason. If I gave a long list of reasons, that were not my reason what does that prove. Nothing. I still don't understand.

fact is, ace, that whatever you might think of ahmadinejad, the fact is that he has relatively little power in iran, first.
second, most of the rest of the planet will be perfectly content to see him loose power, and there are elections coming within the next month or so.
and there's a consensus which you might not know about because you haven't looked into it that he relied on the non-strategy of the bush people to maintain his position---he used it, relied on it---so changing that relationship, and doing it in a high profile way, puts him at a disadvantage.

proof is in the pudding, i suppose--what happens in the next election.
i wouldn't be surprised if he lost.
then what, ace?

If a different person is in place, a person interested in resolving conflict rather than inflaming them, I would be willing to work on a mutual agreement or statement concerning the past actions of both nations that may have caused problems and may still hinder progress.


Upon further thought of the past few posts. I think the real problem is that my reason simply was not perceived as good enough. And I was being asked to present a better reason. But rather than engaging in being phony I stuck with my real reason.

so we're basically agreed that such a gesture is a good idea, but we disagree as to when to do it.
that's fine.
at least we're having the same discussion.

I think Obama's job would be alot more difficult had another president other than Bush, done the same thing but with relatively more grey matter between the ears to work with. In other words, if Bush had a brain in his head and done the things he did, the next president wouldn't have a chance, he would be labelled as 'here's the new boss, same as the old boss.'

But I think because Bush was so stupid that world leaders singled him out as such, and bided their time until the next president came forth knowing this was temporary obstacle and in time the cowboy would be gone.

Not to take anything away from Obama though. He seems to have the momentum at the moment. But my feelings are that if Al Gore won the presidency rather than Bush and stayed the 8 years regardless as to what he may have achieved or not,...that most if not all the world wouldn't have a clue as to who Barrack Obama was. The planets lined up for Obama and for that, he should give W a big thank you for that.

Other than doing a softball interview and some assumption that Obama is going to engage in discussions with Iran in a manner the Bush's administration would not have, there has been no change in our national policy regarding Iran. Let's revisit this after President Obama and Sec. Clinton actually do something of merit and worthy of their superior intellect over Bush and Rice,

IMO, the appointment of George Mitchell as special envoy to the Middle East is significant......something that Bush resisted for most of his two terms, only appointing Tony Blair (wtf was that all about?) in 07.

We are all connected, hopefully someday we will act like. I didnt vote for Obama, but if he takes us in that direction- all the better.

Circumstance under Bush will be different than what Obama faces. The point is our national position on Iran will only change when Iran is willing to talk in good faith. Bush would have talked to Iran under the correct circumstances. From today's WSJ.

Senior Democrat Snubbed by Iran in Outreach Bid - WSJ.com

I certainly hope Obama is not really as polyannaish as it seems some Americans are regarding doing things like, interviews, "engagements", or responding to demands for apologies.
-----Added 2/2/2009 at 11 : 56 : 20-----
How about Iran discontinuing their nuclear program. Or, even if all they did was address technical questions regarding their program, "we" could be a lot more "connected" and would act like it.

gee ace, you act as though you have actual information about iran. so far, i've seen no evidence whatsoever that this is the case.
why should anyone take your positions seriously if information about the putative referent is secondary to you?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA240_.jpg

I see nothing wrong with this sentiment.

I'm still trying to get a grip on what I'm reading here. All of you, to the last, seem to believe that the president/government makes us what we are in the eyes of the world outside of our borders! This is nuts!

The people of this country make it what it is. The world view of this country is fairly accurate from a citizens standpoint and dead nuts on the money as far as the government is concerned.

Unlike the sheep in the U.S., the majority of the people on this planet understand that there's a difference between the populace and the governing body of a country. Our government is corrupt, self righteous and damnable to the very last member. The people of this country are lethargic, ignorant and too prideful to admit that their own lack of interest outside of themselves and their suburban boxes is the root cause of the situation that we face today. It is that simple.



Larry

???

So concern that people not be tortured in Guantanamo or blown up in Gaza or that a war with Iran be avoided is a sort of narcissism?

The gummint being beyond redemption, well, what's the point of talking about issues beyond my suburban box?

I have never been to Iran, all the information I have has come from secondary sources. Given your comment, perhaps you can share some of your first hand knowledge and set the record straight.