America Failing to Lead the World

Cheng YU

Perspectives, Vol. 3, No. 2

"Why do they hate us?" This is a question frequently asked by many American friends after the terrorist attacks on September 11. This is really a difficult question for Americans to answer, especially at a time when the entire nation is mourning the loss of innocent lives and trying to strike back and seek revenge. But this question must be answered, no matter how harsh and unpleasant the answer might be, for failing to respond properly may be no less deadly than failing to bring the terrorists to justice.

There is actually already a large volume of discussion in the press on this question. The answers vary greatly. All educated observers agree that terrorism is despicable, hideously criminal and seriously detrimental to human life, peace and order. Observers also all condemn terrorism in the strongest possible terms and ask terrorism be completely eradicated as soon as possible. There is, however, little agreement on the causes of terrorism and the ways to eradicate it. To me, the fact that numerous terrorist attacks in the last twenty years have been persistently targeted towards the U.S. suggests, among other things, that something might be wrong with the American foreign policy.

Before I start, I want to make a disclaimer. I am not condoning terrorism here. I too condemn terrorism in the strongest terms, and my deepest sympathies go with the victims and families that are suffering in one way or another from the terrorist attacks. My purpose in this short commentary, rather, is to propose one possible contributing factor to such hideous acts, and to suggest, in a constructive way, that America's responses to terrorism should include some informed adjustments to its foreign policy. Comments or criticisms are welcome.

Over the last decade since the end of the Cold War, the world has changed greatly to the advantage of the United States. USSR, the perennial foe, has disappeared and the new Russia has followed almost every piece of advice from America. Japan and Europe, America's chief economic competitors, have plunged into persistent stagnation and have become heavily dependant on the United States. East European countries have lined up and are vying with each other for a seat in NATO. The rest of the world in one way or another is eager to imitate the American model, from adopting its political system to introducing its economic structure to accepting its cultural values. With its booming economy, unrivaled military and global influence, therefore, the U.S. has become the world's sole superpower, assuming the role, both self-claimed and widely acknowledged, of the world leader.

But power alone is far from enough. Power is probably not even a major part of leadership characteristics. In the post-Cold War world, where there are many conflicting interests, values and cultures, a successful world leader needs much more than economic and military might to lead.

A world leader ought to be fair and just in handling international affairs, deciding each case on its own merits, treating every party with equity, and balancing interests of every side involved. In this regard, America has a number of instances to reflect on. When America sided with Israel in its conflicts with Palestine and with Kosovo Albanians in their war against the Serbs, when America labeled Serb's war against Albanian separatists in Kosovo as "ethnic cleansing" and called for "humanitarian intervention," when America supported Israeli repressions of Palestinians and time and again blocked the discussion of any international intervention in the Israel-Palestine conflict despite persistent efforts of a majority of countries, when America called the Kurds in Iraq "freedom fighters" while labeling the same Kurds in Turkey as "terrorists," the American double standards have not only discredited itself, but also angered many people around the world, including many sensible people.

A world leader should at least share international responsibilities proportional to its abilities, and in some cases it should also shoulder special responsibilities and obligations. But the U.S. is often too concerned with protecting or pursuing its own short term interests, often at the expenses of other countries, let alone taking special responsibilities for the world's common well-being. For example, when many countries are trying hard to fight poverty, the root cause of many international conflicts, the U.S. has dramatically reduced its foreign aid from 0.65% of GDP in the 1960s to the current level of 0.11%, despite its phenomenal, decade's long economic growth in the 1990s. When the United Nations is called upon to play a more active role in solving global issues and needs to increase its budget, the U.S. is seeking to lower its membership due ceiling from 25% to 22%, and it remains United Nations' largest debtor, even though its GDP accounts for 27% of the world's economy. In addition, in a number of areas including environmental protection, poverty and arms control, the U.S. often takes an evasive stand and tries to shift responsibilities onto other countries.

A world leader must respect other countries. The international community, though constantly being made smaller by the trend of globalization, remains colorful and diversified with different nations and civilizations. All nations, big or small, rich or poor, are equal and have a say in global governance. The United States, while claiming its leadership role in international affairs, sometimes seems unaware of the importance of diversity and the need for mutual respect. In its foreign policy, the U.S. sometimes preaches, pressures or even imposes its will and values upon dissident states, interfering in others' internal affairs, and even punishing oppositions by using or threatening to use force. Its arrogance, assertiveness and aggressiveness have angered many nations. Instead of being respected as a leader, therefore, the U.S. is often feared as a threat. It is regarded even by its allies as a "cowboy," "hyper-power" or "rogue superpower."

A world leader ought to unite the world and rally all countries behind causes that are beneficial to the world as a whole. Under the rapid process of globalization, the world is getting more and more interrelated and interdependent, facing more and more common challenges that any nation, no matter how powerful it might be, cannot address alone. As such, multilateralism, cooperation and collaboration become extremely important. The U.S., however, often goes against this trend, preferring to act unilaterally by sidelining the U.N. and many other international organizations, refusing to cooperate with major powers including its allies, scrapping or retreating from a series of international treaties, and speaking to the world often in an assertive and nonnegotiable tone. As a result, American unilateralism has soured international relations, distanced the U.S. from the international community, and weakened America's leadership role that is so important for America and the world to meet the common challenges.

The tragedy, as such, is that the U.S. claims to be the world leader, but does not know how to lead and has squandered its great power and many opportunities. This is at least one of the reasons why ten years after the end of the Cold War, the world remains turbulent, unstable and unsafe. This is probably also one answer to the American puzzle "why they hate us?"

I sincerely hope that the U.S. could reflect on what has happened and draw some lessons from the past. America might have a right to seek revenge, but what to do after the revenge? I believe the wisdom and rationality of mankind will eventually find a way out of this vicious cycle of violence. I especially place my trust and confidence in America, simply because it has one of the best political, economic and social systems in the world and it also has a great people, which together should be most conducive for America to become a genuine world leader. In this sense, September 11, 2001 may well become a new starting point for this great nation to achieve its noble and ambitious goals.

(The author is a diplomat based in New York)