Today the House Foreign Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight released the culmination of ten hearings all based on global views of the US. The report, titled "The Decline in America's Reputation: Why?” explores this important issue, thoroughly-documented with testimony from some of the country's brightest public opinion and regional experts.
The report identifies eight main findings about the levels, trends, and causes of international opinion of American policies, values, and people:
1. It's true: U.S. approval ratings have fallen to record lows in nearly every region of the world. Generally positive ratings from the 1950's to 2000 have moved to generally negative ratings since 2002. Approval ratings are highest in non-Muslim Africa and lowest in Latin America and in Muslim countries.
2. It's the policies: Opposition to specific U.S. policies, rather than to American values or people, has driven this decline. The key policies are: The invasion and occupation of Iraq; support for repressive governments worldwide; a perceived lack of evenhandedness in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute; and torture and abuse of prisoners in violation of treaty obligations.
3. It's the perception of hypocrisy: Disappointment and bitterness arise from the perception that the proclaimed American values of democracy, human rights, tolerance, and the rule of law have been selectively ignored by successive administrations when American security or economic considerations are in play.
4. It's the unilateralism: A recent pattern of ignoring international consensus, particularly in the application of military power, has led to a great deal of anger and fear of attack. This in turn is transforming disagreement with U.S. policies into a broadening and deepening anti-Americanism, a trend noted by the Government Accountability Office.
5. It's the historical memory: U.S. domination remains a potent image for long periods‚ and that image is used to discredit current U.S. policies.
6. It's the lack of contact: Contact with America and Americans reduces anti-Americanism, but not opposition to specific policies. Visitors to America‚ particularly students‚ and even their families and friends, have more positive views about America than non-visitors by 10 percentage points.
7. It's the visas: Interaction with the U.S. immigration and the visa process is a significant source of frustration with America. Particularly among Muslim applicants, the experience with customs and border officials creates a perception that they are not welcome. This perception spreads across their communities through their "horror stories" about travel to the United States.
8. It's the perceived war on Islam: The combination of all of the previous findings has created a growing belief in the Muslim world that the United States is using the "war on terror" as a cover for its attempts to destroy Islam.
I am so impressed with these findings, and the report overall. It is a breath of fresh air to hear Congress admit that a) the US has an image problem, and b) that this problem will negatively impact the pursuit of US interests. That is, American policies affect world public opinion, which in turn effects US foreign policies.
It may only be an eight-member subcommittee, but at least somebody on Capitol Hill “gets” it! These findings seem especially honest when compared to the current Presidential administration's aversion to publically admiting when things aren't going well for the US in the world… Sociologist Elisabeth Kubler-Ross might go so far as to say this report brings the US government out of the “denial” phase (although many of us have been stuck in the “angry” and “depressed” phases for some time now) and confronts it with the harsh realities of the US’ recent losses in political capital.
Full disclosure, I work for one of the pollsters whose testimony is heavily cited throughout the report. I have attended a few of the hearings where this committee discussed world opinion of the US and listened as some Members of the Committee expressed deep skepticism about whether foreign attitudes should matter to US foreign policymakers. By and large most committee members were deeply concerned about the negative impact of the US’ tarnished reputation on its political capital–which is evidenced by this report and the 10 hearings on the subject they held over the course of the last year.
But it appears that the battle between the skeptics and the concerned Members on the Subcommittee played out in the body of the report itself. After more than 30 pages of detailed findings discussing what exactly the US does to create a negative image for itself, and then after ten more pages of footnotes, the skeptics are given a chance to make what amounts to a large footnote in the “Comments” section of the report.
This section is lead off by a quote from the Subcommittee's Republican Ranking Member Dana Rohrabacher, which is again repeated in the final paragraph of the section. It pretty much sums up the skeptics’ assesement of the role foreign opinion should play in US foreign policy making:
"Regardless of the ratings, the right policy will always be the one that offers a better future for later generations. Ranking Member Dana Rohrabacher said, "While I respect the idea that public opinion is important, what is more important is to do what is right in building a future." (Statement at the House Foreign Affairs Committee on March 22, 2007.) The United States should not determine policy based on public opinion of what policy should be, especially not public opinion of other countries, but rather choose policy based on what is right, right for the people of the United States, and will serve the international community in the long run."
It seems shameful to allow this to be said–after 40 pages detailing how the US has acted in a way that builds resistance to its policies–that in the end it doesn't matter what any publics think–even our own? Furthermore, I think it is safe to assume that those on the Subcommittee who do “get it” would also agree with the skeptics that the best criteria for a foreign policy is whether it is “right” and “offers a better future for later generations.” There is room for world and American public opinion in this determination.
This contradiction between the skeptics and the concerned speaks to the bipartisan spirit of the report, a spirit that is recognized by the report's authors:
We hope that the administration will take our comments and suggestions in the spirit of partnership in which they are made, and that the media will remind foreign audiences that this sort of interaction is typical of the complex competition of views that creates our democratic foreign policy.”
I do hope that the administration thinks long and hard about the findings of this report, and that the media thoroughly cross-examines it. I also wish the Members of this Subcommittee–some more than others–would read it every night before they go to sleep.
