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.
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
RSS