A Copernican Foreign Policy

By David Ignatius
Tuesday, September 7, 2004; Page A23

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Sep6.html

We Americans are sometimes like the ancient Greek astronomer Ptolemy. That is, we see the United States as the fixed center of the universe, with other nations and events revolving around us. I think it's one of our endearing qualities, this ebullient national self-centeredness -- except when it leads to errors in geopolitical navigation.

President Bush gave a moving evocation of this American Ptolemaism in his acceptance speech last week. "Like generations before us, we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom," he said. Like his mentor Ronald Reagan, Bush conveyed his conviction that God has bestowed great blessings on the United States -- made it a "shining city on a hill" -- with corresponding responsibilities to lead the world.

The problem for the United States is the disconnect between this self-image and the way the rest of the world feels about us. Increasingly, people in other countries don't see America as that beacon of idealism but as something menacing. We can think they're wrong and we can choose to ignore them, but unfortunately, that won't change the way they feel.

This disconnect is clear in recent poll findings. A study released in March by the Pew Research Center found "somewhat" or "very" unfavorable views about the United States among 63 percent of those surveyed in Turkey, 61 percent in Pakistan, 93 percent in Jordan and 68 percent in Morocco. And these are our allies in the Islamic world.

The Pew study found that images of the United States were almost as negative among America's allies in "old Europe," with sharp deterioration from two years before -- 62 percent were unfavorable in France, compared with 34 percent in 2002, and 59 percent were unfavorable in Germany, compared with 35 percent before.

The same bleak trend was evident in a 2003 study co-sponsored by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, a group for which I serve as a trustee. Less than half the Europeans surveyed said they wanted to see a strong U.S. presence in the world, down from 64 percent the previous year.

The Ptolemaist in me wants to tell the rest of the world to go to hell. In economic, military and political terms, the United States is the center of the universe -- and it does have a historic mission to spread its ideals of liberty and democracy. You could hear a roar of approval for this view when Bush told the Republicans last week: "I believe that America is called to lead the cause of freedom in a new century."

But we should consider the need for a Copernican revolution in the way we think about America and the world. As students of history recall, the 16th century Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus shattered conventional wisdom when he argued that Earth is not at the center of the solar system but is one of many planets revolving around the sun. This theory was a blow to the idea that God had set Earth at the center of his creation.

The importance of Copernicus was not simply that he got it right but that the truth he revealed allowed scientists to make accurate calculations at last about the Earth's orbit and the movement of other planets. Realizing that the Earth wasn't at the center of the universe didn't make earthlings any less important; it just allowed them to do their sums right.

One of John Kerry's strengths in this presidential campaign is that he's a Copernican. He understands that however powerful and important the United States may be, it isn't the fixed center of the world. There are other nations, traveling in their own orbits -- with their own cultures, traditions and values -- which must be taken into account. Kerry takes a lot of flak from Republicans for this view, but critics miss the point.

You can't wish away America's present unpopularity in the world. It's a fact, and a dangerous one. The task of leadership, especially in a time of war -- is to gather support among other nations for U.S. policies. That's a subtle process, but it begins with a recognition that however blessed America may be, it doesn't have a God-given right to tell everyone else what to do. When America tries this approach (and Bush is hardly the first president who's guilty of it), it tends to make enemies.

So in this political season, a little more Copernicus, please. Seeing America as a great nation in a system of nations, each spinning at its own speed, will help the United States navigate better in the long journey to create a stable world, where our terrorist enemies can be contained. Who knows, it could even win us more friends.

Kerry will follow not lead the world!

Based on their Senate voting records and not their campaign rhetoric,
maybe we should assume that Kerry will take the same position on Terrorism that the Clinton administration took, which was to talk big and do really nothing after the first attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and refusing to take Osama bin Laden into custody 3 times when the Sudanese offered him to us. Monica, Jennifer, Paula, Kathleen et al were obviously more important to this heroic leader of the left.

The Communist Chinese illegal campaign contributions to Clinton/Gore
certainly makes one wonder whose interests that team was looking out
for. Mr. Chen testified Kerry too was indeed on Red China's donation list.

Thank goodness Sandy Berger's underwear and socks could hold so
many classified documents from the archives. Afterall we wouldn't
want the mainstrem press to have to make an unfavorable report concerning a liberal administration regarding National Security .
So, count on big cuts in Defense and Intelligence budgets in a Kerry administration if these guys can finally settle on one position. I have no doubt Communist China will have a substantial influence with them.

Thats pretty much how it is right now.

Says who? What gives despots the right to exist?

They were our enemies anyway. This logic makes no sense.

If this is what you really think, then you are sadly mistaken. The world works as a unit. We are vital to how the world runs, but we all depend on one another. If you think about it, we are no more important than and countries in the middle east right now. There is no way our country could continue to live the way we are now without that oil. We need them - at least for now. In a sense, right now, you could even say that the middle east is the center of the world. Why all the attention? Why so much fighting? Why so much controversy? Wasn't it out there where the bible states is where man took his first steps? We may be the most powerful country right now, but I don't think that we are the center of the world as you believe.


Silly question - warrants no answer

And why do you think that is? Couldn't have anything to do with the attitudes of our elected officials that we are the center of the universe.

But we could exist without them. Thats the difference between a "need" and a "convenience". We dont need them.

And I am sure I dont need to explain to a liberal how oil is not the only energy alternative...

Because volitile despots are trying to gain weapons that could seriously damage us. That seems obvious to me.

Because the answer is obviously "yes" or obviously "no"? I can certainly understand why a liberal would be reluctant to answer it...

Because we value individual freedom and they (the oligarchies and despots in control) do not.

Yes, we could exist without them, if we could produce our own oil until we have a viable infrastructure to support alternate fuels to run our cars/homes/buisinesses. But then, Bush isn't looking into that now is he? Instead he abandoned his plan for switching to Fuel Cell technology as promised in 2000. FYI, most other countries could exist without us as well, people like Bush just don't want to admit that.

Oh you mean like N. Korea (Bush ignored the problem)??

.

Why don't you answer the question then, since you are the only one who sees its relevance.

From the mouth of Bush right into your supporting sponge. Its just not that simple...it goes much more deeper than that. Much deeper, and this is the type of attitude I was talking about, and until we have a leader who can address the real root of terrorism, it will continue.

I don't think that America is the center of the world (it would be a lot hotter and full of molten rock and metal....actually the very center of the earth is still solid), nor do I believe in god. However, I do care more about Americans than I do other people. However, there is a bit of the ol' double standard going on because often even if we didn't want it, we are forced into the center. People are always expecting America to do this or that. They have to fund this or that, they have to send people here or there. America can live on it's own, but there are some places that would be seriously hurt for awhile without America's help.

__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

From what I understand we have a 2 year resuerve plus whatever we can pump ourselves from Alaska or elsewhere. And even if we did not, we have other sources of oil...Iraq only counts for about 15% last I heard.

It would drive up prices...but thats it. We've weathered that before, and we have more alternatives now. Iraqi Oil is a convenience, not a necessity.

Um...that problem was created by Clinton, not Bush. Clinton made a deal with them to allow them to keep their reactors, and just took their word for it that they would not make weapons from them. They (predictably) lied and made them anyway. Now they already have nukes...whats your solution?

I have answered it many many times in this forum...it is obviously "no" to me.

Your turn to answer.

If you say so. I dont agree. I see no reason to legitimize oppressive governments. I was never that much a hypocrite even when I was a liberal.

I'm not talking about just Iraqi oil...I'm talking Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. Besides that's nice ideology for those who can afford such a hike in prices, guess that's why Bush wants the tax cuts for the wealthy made permanent. They'll be the only ones who will be able to come up with the cash to fill up their SUVs. What is the rest of the nation supposed to do? Ahhh, I smell more poverty coming soon. People won't be able to heat their homes or drive to work. Yes, but we can survive without the middle east oil until we come up with something else. Ok, why its only a convenience, not a necessity, right???

According to Bush Iraq already had WMD too, so now why did we risk attacking them...Fact is he thought they had them, and based on this assumption he attacked. Now we know that N. Korea has them, and Bush sits on his thumbs. Hmmmm, maybe Bush knew that Iraq didn't have WMD, thats why he wasn't affraid of retailiation of such proportions. Just a guess.

Obviously you think you know how I will answer this question, so I still see no point in answering. You claim you know my type so well.

Your implication was that we "need" them. I called buIIsh!t. Yes it would suck without it, as prices would jump. But no, it would not sink us. It's a convenience, not a "need". We could survive fine without it if we had to.

After a brief Google search, I found this site - http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/oil.html -

If this information is accurate, the US produces almost twice as much oil as Iraq and Kuwait combined. The following nations produce more oil than Iraq as well: Canada, Venezuela, the UK, Norway, Mexico, and Russia. So yes, we could survive without it, even without alternative energy sources. Oh...and I found this on that site as well:

Um...yeah, I think we would be able to get by without 15% of our oil.

The same thing liberals have been wanting them to do for years; buy hybrid cars, bike, or use public transportation. I've been poor before...I know it's possible.

So you are saying we should have repeated Clinton's mistake with north Korea?

Again. What is your solution? Should we try to invade a nation that we know has nukes or should we invade a nation that doesnt have them but is trying to get them? You are criticizing Bush's decision, but not offering any alternatives.

Why are you afraid to answer it? Is it that hard to type "yes" or "no"? heh heh

You do know your own opinion dont you?