I’d like to make a modest proposal to banish the word “need” from U.S. policy statements about other countries. We have fallen into the habit of telling other countries what they need to do as if authoritatively defining their need makes it so. Take, for example, this recent statement by Secretary Rice (AFP – Russia must halt operations in Georgia):
“It is very important now that all parties cease fire. The Georgians have agreed to a cease-fire. The Russians need to stop their military operations, as they have apparently said that they will, but those military operations really do, now, need to stop because calm needs to be restored,” said Rice.
Of course, Russia has no real need to do this. No country has a need to do anything other than what they deem to be in their national interest. Our efforts to define their need only makes us look foolish if they don't happen to share the same view of their needs.
This assertive use of the word “need” by the U.S. first gained momentum in the heady days after the end of the Cold War when a sense of American triumphalism infused every facet of American foreign policy. I’m confident that a content analysis of official statement by the Secretary of State will find that this use of the word “need” in this context peaked under Secretary Albright, declined a bit under Secretary Powell and staged a remarkable comeback with Secretary Rice. As an expression of American hegemony and exceptionalism, I can find no better symbol than the consistent use of the word “need” to tell other countries what to do. It would be far more diplomatic for the U.S. to simply state what we would like to see other countries do, what international treaties and laws obligate them to do, or what we believe is in their best interests to do. Let's leave “need” out of it, especially if we lack the means to compel them to do what they “need” to do. This may help advance the goal of improving the image of the U.S. in the world.