The clues are scattered, but they add up to a stark conclusion: Americans are tired of their contentious engagement with the rest of the world.
Americans are tired of carrying what they see as the burden of defending the peace; they are tired of seeing their sons and daughters, 120,000 of them, die in military action since World War II; they are tired of being taxed to pay for wars.
And they are tired of writhing faces on TV spewing hatred for the US. When those people shout: “Yankee, go home,” many Americans would like to reply: “Stop the world, we want to get off.”
US president-elect Barack Obama may be aware of this fatigue, having campaigned on a promise of hope. Whether he confronts this weariness in his inaugural address will reveal much about his administration. So will the testimony of secretary of state-designate Hillary Clinton in Senate confirmation hearings.
The signs of fatigue show up in poll after poll: One says only 13 percent of Americans are satisfied with the way things are going; in another, 64 percent say the US is on the wrong track. Of the looming conflict between India and Pakistan, 81 percent say the US should stay out. In the clash between Israelis and Arabs, 51 percent say hands off. Iraq, 64 percent say, is not worth fighting for.
Of the UN, 65 percent are saying it does a poor job. Free trade agreements, 61 percent say, cause Americans to lose jobs. Another 56 percent contend that the US spends too much on foreign aid. National defense spending, 44 percent assert, is too high.
The lack of US interest in foreign affairs is reflected in declining international news coverage except for eruptions. A survey showed extensive reporting on the financial crisis, Obama, the political shenanigans of the Illinois governor, and problems in the auto industry — but little from outside the US. US travel abroad has also leveled off.
Isolationism has deep roots in the US. Former presidents George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson warned against “entangling alliances.” The US kept much to itself until the Spanish-American War of 1898 and World War I in 1917-1918. Not until World War II did the US really come out of its isolationist shell. The fundamental security posture of the postwar period was set by a National Security Council document called NSC-68 drawn up in then US president Harry Truman’s administration. It set diplomatic, economic and military foundations for containing the Soviet Union until it collapsed in 1991.
After the Korean War ended in 1953, the high point of the US’ stance was set by then president John Kennedy in his inaugural address in 1961: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
That seemingly unlimited commitment, however, lasted only eight years. President Richard Nixon, seeing the US bogged down in Vietnam, declared the US would provide a nuclear shield over nations vital to US security. Beyond that, he said: “We shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense.”
President Jimmy Carter in 1980 was slightly more expansive on potential threats to oil resources near the Persian Gulf: “An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”
President Ronald Reagan focused on assisting anti-communist movements to “roll back” Soviet influence. After the fall of the Soviet Union, however, US leaders floundered. President George H.W. Bush sent troops to expel Iraq from Kuwait but had no overarching strategy.
President Bill Clinton said the US would remain “actively engaged” and emphasized: “Durable relationships with allies and friendly nations are vital.”
He added, however: “Our strategy is tempered by recognition that there are limits to America’s involvement in the world.”
After the terrorist assaults of Sept. 11, 2001, US President George W. Bush said the US had a choice: “The path of fear — isolationism and protectionism, retreat and retrenchment — appeals to those who find our challenges too great and fail to see our opportunities. Yet history teaches that every time American leaders have taken this path, the challenges have only increased and the missed opportunities have left future generations less secure.”
Now it’s Obama’s turn.
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Ursula K. le Guin in The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas proposed a thought experiment of a utopian city whose existence depended on one child held captive in a dungeon. When taken to extremes, Le Guin suggests, utilitarian logic violates some of our deepest moral intuitions. Even the greatest social goods — peace, harmony and prosperity — are not worth the sacrifice of an innocent person. Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), since leaving office, has lived an odyssey that has brought him to lows like Le Guin’s dungeon. From late 2008 to 2015 he was imprisoned, much of this