This report is based on a series of 10 hearings held by the Congress. In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attack there was worldwide sympathy and support for the U.S. Since then, polls have revealed a precipitous decline in favorability toward the U.S. and its foreign policy. As the very first witness told the Subcommittee, ¿We have never seen numbers this low.¿ The reversal is unprecedented and widespread. Americans are grasping for the answer, and competing schools of thought have emerged. Contents of this report: (1) What Do They Think, and Why? Eight Findings from Polling Data on International Opinion about the U.S. and Its Foreign Policy; (2) Conclusion: America¿s Monolithic Image; (3) Comments. Charts and tables.
A reprint of the historic report of the Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World, this document was submitted to the US Congress in 2003 as a first step toward reforming America's dilapidated strategic communication infrastructure. The bipartisan Advisory Group, chaired by Ambassador Edward P. Djerejian, made a series of recommendations in this report that helped re-shape US public diplomacy.
Joseph Nye coined the term "soft power" in the late 1980s. It is now used frequently—and often incorrectly—by political leaders, editorial writers, and academics around the world. So what is soft power? Soft power lies in the ability to attract and persuade. Whereas hard power—the ability to coerce—grows out of a country's military or economic might, soft power arises from the attractiveness of a country's culture, political ideals, and policies. Hard power remains crucial in a world of states trying to guard their independence and of non-state groups willing to turn to violence. It forms the core of the Bush administration's new national security strategy. But according to Nye, the neo-conservatives who advise the president are making a major miscalculation: They focus too heavily on using America's military power to force other nations to do our will, and they pay too little heed to our soft power. It is soft power that will help prevent terrorists from recruiting supporters from among the moderate majority. And it is soft power that will help us deal with critical global issues that require multilateral cooperation among states. That is why it is so essential that America better understands and applies our soft power. This book is our guide.
The pattern of multilateral engagement and unilateral retrenchment in American foreign policy from the Cold War through the Clinton, Bush, and Obama years presents a puzzle. What accounts for the unilateralist turn? Is it a passing aberration attributable to the neoconservative ideology of the Bush administration? What then of the disengagement evident earlier during Clinton’s presidency, or its continuation under Obama? Was the U.S. investment in multilateral institutions following World War II an anomaly? Or is the more recent retreat from international institutions the irregularity? Skidmore traces U.S. unilateralism to the structural effects of the end of the Cold War, both domestically and abroad, to argue that the United States was more hegemonic than multilateralist—a rule-maker, not a rule-taker. An "institutional bargain" existed under the Cold War threat from the Soviets, but absent those imperatives the United States has been less willing to provide collective goods through strong international institutions and other states are less willing to defer to U.S. exemptions. On the home front, the post-Cold War political environment has made it more difficult for presidents to resist the appeals of powerful interests who are threatened by multilateral commitments. This book demonstrates that American unilateralism has deeper roots and more resilience than many expect. The unilateral temptation can only be overcome through new political bargains domestically and internationally that permit multilateral engagement, even the absence of great power rivalry.
This book sheds light on key issues in the Middle East. As the politics and society of the Middle East change, American foreign policy has become stagnant and stubborn. However, the changes occurring in the Middle East have brought into existence new, unfamiliar policies from regimes that reject old alliances and demand new solutions. Ongoing civil war in Syria, chaos in Yemen, and the recent conquests of ISIS have changed geopolitical calculations in the region for everyone concerned. However, American foreign policy lacks the vision to predict the consequences of such changes. The United States needs a major change in approach if it is to maintain both its leadership and credibility in the Muslim world. The political leadership in Washington naïvely and unrealistically assumes that it can impose its style of governance and way of thinking to make the Muslim world secular and democratic based on Western values. This work constructively criticizes and objectively analyzes the present American political strategy to make possible an honest national debate about American foreign policy toward the Muslim world. This book questions the judgment of American foreign policymakers and argues the United States has no coherent policy in place to address ongoing challenges. It highlights the need for creative thinking, flexibility, systematic understanding, cultural awareness, and effective strategy.
This book analyzes the response of the Indonesian press to American foreign policy during the administrations of Presidents Bush and Obama. Situated in Southeast Asia, Indonesia is the world’s fourth most populous country and the largest Muslim nation, and as such is a potentially vital economic and strategic partner to the US in the 21st century. Ever since Indonesian independence post World War II, relations to the US have been marked by ups and downs. The author argues that the way the Indonesian public perceives the world has an impact on the national self-image that again heavily influences national foreign affairs. For both the US and Indonesia, this is a crucial moment in bilateral relations. This study explores Indonesian media responses to American foreign policy by analyzing more than 400 press articles. In the context of President Obama’s declared “pivot to Asia”, both countries need to find a way to foster better relations.