Julian,
You always ask the best questions. Let me give this one a try.
You're quite correct. Many people don't know this, but when many of the nations of South America achieved independence in the 19th century, they modeled their constitutions after the US constitution, and went so far as to stipulate that all rulings made by the US Supreme Court would be valid law in THEIR lands as well.
At the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919, a young Vietnamese student named Ho Chi Mhin had a picture of President Woodrow Wilson in his room, believed the American Declaration of Independence the greatest document ever written, and desperately tried to see Wilson to help his land also achieve Mr. Wilson's ideals of "Self Determination." I could go on and on; but I think you get my point. At one time in history, America was seen (essentially -- even though the term was not used) as the first "third world" country. And other newly independent, struggling
nations looked at the US as a template for how they too could develope. America was respected, admired -- and for many others (like Simon Bolivar) practically worshipped as a state of near political perfection.
So -- if this is the case -- where did it all go wrong?
It can be seen to go wrong in three distinct phases: Imperialism, Communism, and Mulitinational Corporatism.
IMPERIALISM:
Up until the dawn of the 20th century, imperialism was essentially limited to European powers devouring and colonizing as much of the world as they could lay their greedy hands on. But with the presidencies of McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt, the Americans quickly got into the act as well. In the aftermath of the Spanish American War, America now had colonies in the Phillipines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and various other islands around the Pacific rim. Later, they instigated revolutions in Central America to separate Panama from Columbia to build the canal, and destabalized regimes who were opposed to the dominance of American business interests (particularly in Nicaragua). None of this set well with developing nations. But still, American prestige was not totally done in. This was about to change...
COMMUNISM.
The mindset that emerged in the United States after WW II was of a bi-polar world -- the "Free" west, and the "Communist" east. The idea of seeing the world as north and south, didn't make geopolitical sense. It was "us" against "them." This had tremendous implications for American foreign policy for the next fifty years.
Since the "death struggle" with communism was the determining factor, America judged other governments by how anti-communist they were. America, therefore, didn't care how third world dictators treated their own people so long as those dictators were sufficiently useful in America's battle with the Soviets. Thus America quickly found itself in bed with people like Marcos in the Phillipines,the Shah of Iran, Pinochet in Chile (and countless others I could mention).
These dictators often brutally suppressed their own populations. And of course, the people of these countries could see that aid to these repressive regimes was pouring in from the US. Imagine, your parents have been made to "disappear" by this regime; and on the news, there's a picture of the dictator meeting the President of the US who's offering new assistance, and praising this man to the hilt because of his tough stance against communism.
So what do you think? There's an old saying, "The friend of my enemy is my enemy." And THAT's precisely what these people said. Anti-US sentiment during this period rises dramtically because the US is seen by increasing numbers of people as being totally indifferent to domestic abuses of human rights. And all American rhetoric about freedom and democracy was viewed by them as shallow and hypocritical. And then it got worse...
MULTINATIONAL CORPORATISM:
During the aforementioned second phase, another factor emerged to increase foreign hostility -- the increasing American presence in the global marketplace. As American business interests became more global in the second half of the 20th century, the influence of business decisions as a guiding feature of American foreign policy increased as well. If there was no oil in Iraq, the US wouldn't be there now. Additionally, over the years, American corporations around the world often proved to be exploiters of local populations, and didn't always do the right thing by the environment (Bhopal, and Union Carbide, for example).
Moreover, the increased presence of American goods in foreign markets has destabalized local indiginous industries, and for many, this is perceived as "cultural imperialism" that the people detest. (Consider the attacks on McDonalds restaurants in France a few years ago).
Julian, if this sounds rabidly anti-American, I assure you it isn't. All nations pursue their own interests. And in that regard, America is no different. But the reason this sticks in the throats of so many other people is because, (Believe it or not) most people in the world STILL view the US as something special -- a nation with a higher calling -- a nation founded on a proposition of inalienable rights -- a nation of hope.
People expect the British and French and Russians, etc, to behave the way they do; but because America is the land of promise, America is held to a higher standard. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, fair or unfair -- I'm just telling you, THAT's the way it is.
Was Jefferson right? He was certainly right in formulating the proposition to which America was dedicated. But as to the rest?No way. He was not only wrong -- he was dead wrong. Jefferson was a firm believer in a non-interventionist foreign policy. What happens in your land is a matter of no concern to us. And if you think about it, that was exactly how American foreign policy was run during that second phase. This is the classical Jeffersonnian response -- "Your domestic problems are none of our concern." Big mistake.
Moreover, his idea that America should simply develope as a nation of small farmers living virtuous lives in their little townships, and leaving the development of business and manufacturing to others, is a romantic, deluded pipedream. for all its tragic consequences, what enabled America to provide so much hope to countless millions over the centuries was precisely because it followed Hamilton's course of becoming a manufacturing giant.
I Hope this answer helps. And oh, by the way, do me a favor. The next time you can, go down the street and eat some "Skyline Chili" for me. I can taste it now. Mmmm. Cheers, mate.
2006-11-21 22:13:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
At the moment, you could say that America doesn't want to "Save the World" just "Save the Oil".
But as one other person noted, it is not the will of the American people, just the image that our leaders have presented to the world. And we are embarrassed about it.
World over (other countries), it is widely held that the heart and will of the American PEOPLE is good but somehow the American politicians are nt on the same wavelength.
Jefferson WAS right in his unabiding faith in the PEOPLE but the phrase that is typically left off his famous line is very telling - "when given all of the facts"... the people will always make the right decision. Hmmmm... all the facts.... Don't believe me. Please, look it up.
What happened to the politicians? If you can answer that, please let me know.
2006-11-22 05:59:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by James H 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
The world in all the historic time as we know was full of saviors of humanity. Militars Alexander the great? politicians Hitler, Staline;, religious man : torquemada...
The only results is a lot of harms, blood shed.
Keep away all this criminals and make the good around you
2006-11-22 05:32:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by maussy 7
·
1⤊
1⤋