Another Simple Solution: A Sane Foreign Policy |
I was so encouraged by the universal acceptance of my anti high-jacking solution
- stronger pilot cabin doors [letter to the Editor, MAAM October 2001] that
I thought my analysis of the greater problem might be instantly adopted too.
Unfortunately I don’t have a quick solution. It took many decades of
political incompetence to get us here. It may take as long to recover. In particular
it must begin with a reassessment of our self-image. We must see ourselves
from the “enemy’s” eyes and change our attitude accordingly.
WHY DO THEY HATE US?
Why are we, the peace loving, freedom loving, brave, heroic, God fearing philanthropists
being persecuted by evil, cowardly animals who have no regard for life? This
is the image I get daily from our leaders.
Viewed in these terms war is inevitable.
At the risk of being mislabeled Un-American, let me present another view.
This view is less self-aggrandizing, but self-criticism is essential for solving
problems in the nasty real world. I confess ignorance of the complex history
of the world so please correct me on any factual errors. Timeliness is my excuse
for relying on a very imperfect memory.
America is by far the most powerful economic power in the world. It provides
a life-style the envy of most everyone. But, while it may be a minor part of
the cause, the “hate due to envy” explanation is too simple.
So why? I think it’s due to lack of empathy for the downtrodden. Our
international dealings are, of course, between the heads of state and leaders
of industry. Picture these people. They are usually earning millions or tens
or hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Their egos are being constantly
massaged. Consider the typical head of state; Marcos, the Shah of Iran, Batista,
Pinochet, the list is long. These are people believed to have funneled off Billions
or tens of Billions of dollars for their own use. Isn’t it ironic that
President Bush can co-op the world’s banks to instantly clamp down on the
“terrorist’s funds”. Probably a smart move; but where was this
power when Marcos, the Shah and others were laundering the people’s funds
and buying up vast properties in the same, now devastated, New York.
After the September 11 tragedy I watched one of the Saudi Arabian Princes
being interviewed on a finance talk show. What was he going to do with the 20
BILLION DOLLARS he had invested in our markets? He must be a very hard worker.
Or did funneling of contracts through the royal family give him a bit of an
edge?
Is it a surprise that such people don’t identify with the needs of the
workers? Is it a surprise when we send our leaders to Timbuktu and they are
treated like kings? They are housed in luxury, fly first class, travel in limousines
and are fed at lavish banquets. Can these people identify with the poverty and
repression that are so widespread in the countries they solicit?
We agree to be hands off regarding our partners internal affairs. We even
glorify this as nonintervention. Rather like not asking the source when some
scuzzy character offers you an expensive used camera for $10. It’s not
our business? Worse still, if our partners have problems with the ungrateful
discontented peasants, we will supply arms to keep them down. Just label them
Communists (or religious fanatics) and anything goes. We will train their military
in terror techniques at OUR School of the Americas. We will send “advisors”.
What a disgusting solution.
WE COULD STILL GET IT RIGHT
What an opportunity. World trade is good. It does provide jobs for many. For
the desperate, a dollar a day is better than starving on nothing. But it won’t
make them love us. Wouldn’t it make sense to require our foreign partners
to meet at least a basic level of human rights and wealth distribution. Did
Marcos and the Shah really need 30 Billion dollars? Couldn’t we have insisted
that they settle for just 30 Million and develop their countries with the excess?
We don’t need to use force; simply offer them the enormous benefits of
doing business with America while meeting these humanitarian conditions - or
remain third world economies living in poverty with all the threats of civil
unrest. Sounds like an easy choice to me.
America has the greatest opportunity to SHARE its good fortune with the world
to EVERYONE'S’ MUTUAL BENEFIT. We think we do that - but we don’t.
But with a change of policy WE COULD. We do have a global economy where we deal
with other nations but we are missing one critical item. We don’t hold
our partners to any ethical standards within their countries. To many this sounds
reasonable. But it results in a world of discontent with despotic rulers living
in unbelievable affluence and power while the peasants may be starving and living
in abject poverty.
MikeJohnson@home.com
10/11/01
Tel. 602-956-0180