Viewing America from Abroad; Viewing the Rest of the World from America

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Foreign news and transnational surveys cannot fully reveal how politicians and publics abroad view the United States, its politics and policies, especially, as the latter relate or are perceived to relate to particular countries and regions. Thus, reporting from abroad can never convey first-hand experiences and encounters abroad.

In this respect, there were a few things that struck me during my stay in Turkey and conversations with people from more than a dozen countries, predominantly, the Near and Far East, former Soviet republics, the Balkans, Western Europe, and, of course, Turkey:

Most of all, reports in Turkish and Western European media and my conversations with individuals or small groups reminded me (1) that foreign reporting is far more prevalent and comprehensive abroad than in the U.S. media and (2) that, probably as a consequence of different reporting patterns, people in other countries are much better informed about politics and policies in the U.S. and other countries than Americans are about politics and policies beyond their own borders. 

This may well explain why the view of America has not improved since President Obama moved into the White House. While not ignoring that Obama’s style is very different from that of his predecessor, the recurring theme I heard last week was that U.S. foreign and security policy did not change much, or not at all, in 2009 and 2010. Obviously, conciliatory messages can only work when meaningful policy changes come along with them.

Turkey is a foremost example for the waning influence of the U.S. in the world. The one-time reliant U.S. ally has not only moved away from marching to Washington’s drum beat but towards closer relations with Iran—not the least because the two countries are finding common ground in dealing with their own terrorist threats from Kurdish separatists of the PKK variety. Their is a perception that European and American decision makers are more sympathetic toward the Kurdish side and considerable determination to resist pressures from those circles to settle the Kurdish problem. It doesn't help that the once good relationship between Turkey and Israel is at a low point and may be beyond repair--another factor in the cooling of Ankara's attitudes vis-a-vis the U.S.

Inescapable is, too, that Iran’s influence is growing in the region. For example, there are growing economic and political interactions between Iran and countries in the region, for example, Georgia and Armenia.  

Add to this a European Union that pushes policies that differ from Washington's positions and a chorus of louder calls for Europe to act independent from the United States--especially in the wake of U.S. election results last week—and that not only on countering climate change.

All of this seems of little concern to the new powers to be in Washington. The in large part clueless tea party crowd and their establishment Republican brethren, who may have opted for a Faustian bargain, showed no interest in foreign affairs during the campaign. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq—and their costs--were all but absent from the divisive campaign discourse. Nothing in what they have said yesterday and say today reveals changes in this respect.

While candidates and voters were understandably focused on the economic and fiscal ills during the campaign, neither side tied those problems to foreign policy.

When a vice-presidential candidate cannot name a single media outlet as source of information, as happened during the infamous Couric—Palin interview, it may be indicative of many Americans’ disinterest in public affairs information, especially, if it deals with foreign countries and foreign policy. What we heard since then from Sarah Palin's clones is not encouraging in this respect. But disinterested politicians of the hour and disinterested citizens and voters are only part of the explanation.

For the interested public, those who want to know, there is regrettably far less foreign news and public affairs information from overseas available here than it is for publics and elites abroad. 

Note what New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a wonderful moment of post-election candor during his China trip: "If you look at the U.S., you look at who we are electing to Congress, to the Senate, they can't read...I'll bet you a bunch of these people don't have passports. We're about to start a trade war with China if we're not careful here - only because nobody knows where China is. Nobody knows what China is."

Comments

[Felix H. Thomann]

I am always reading your articles with great interest, and I could imagine that, in connection with your most recent one, the attached interview of the leading Swiss daily Neue Zuercher Zeitung with President Jimmy Carter may be of interest because he says that the U.S. can get better information about what happens to the Palestinians by reading the Israeli newspapers than by perusing the U.S. media!

We have of course followed the mid-term election news closely, and I share your concern about some of the candidates who have been successful. The problem seems to be that many of these people who appear to be good citizens are being (ab)used by big money interests to further their goals.

I have been thinking about these questions after having read Fareed Zakaria's book "The Future of Freedom", and I came up with the - admittedly heretical - idea that part of the problems could be solved if two things happened:

- Elections to the House of Representatives should be held not every second, but only every fourth year.

- Political advertising via TV and radio should be forbidden or at least severely restricted (as it is in most European countries).

If the first point were realized, Congress would not be in a perpetual election campaign, but could do more serious work.

Realization of the second point would put a stop to or at least limit the insane permanent fund-raising which has come to characterize U.S election campaigns over the years.

I am of course aware that my ideas are illusory: The first one would involve amending the U.S. Constitution which is much easier said than done; the second one would be met by the heaviest artillery we have ever seen - the holy cow of first amendment protection would be trotted out in order to hide the fact that too much media revenue and too many fat fees would be endangered.