U.S. Power Is Resented, but High Ideals May Win Some Respect

The headline from an ambitious survey of global attitudes released last week is that there are cars on the scrap heap with fewer dents than America’s image around the world.

But the poll also contained a promising hint of how America might restore its international standing while still advancing its interests. The answer could be to learn from the dominant power of the 19th century, Britain, which earned respect by marrying its preponderant power to a transcendent ideal.

The survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, conducted this spring in 16 countries (including the United States), captured the many bruises left by the controversy over the Iraq war. On a few measures, the poll found a slight warming toward America since the height of emotion over the war in 2003. But mostly the poll showed that the United States inspired more anxiety than admiration.

In only five of 15 foreign countries surveyed did a majority of citizens express a favorable view of the United States. In 12 of the countries -- including Britain -- more people said they viewed China favorably than the United States. Except for Russia and Pakistan, in every country for which comparisons were available, the percentage of people with a favorable view of America was lower in 2005 than in 2000.

It gets worse. Only in China, India and Indonesia did a majority say that U.S. foreign policy considers the interests of other nations. In every country except the United States and India, either a plurality or majority said the Iraq war had made the world more dangerous.

Most of those polled in Western European nations said they wanted Europe to loosen its ties to the United States. Large majorities in five Muslim countries -- Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Jordan and Indonesia -- said they were at least “somewhat worried” that the United States “could become a military threat someday” to their nation.

Only in the United States and India, which has enjoyed improved relations with America, did a majority express confidence in President Bush to “do the right thing regarding world affairs.” In countries as different as Pakistan, Turkey, Canada, Britain and France, at least 60% expressed little or no confidence in Bush’s judgment in international affairs.

One reaction to these numbers might be: Who cares? Vice President Dick Cheney approached that point of view when CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked him about the results. Cheney argued that the United States must be guided by its “principles” in pursuing its goals, and by implication couldn’t worry much about others’ reactions.

A more nuanced perspective might second Cheney about the importance of upholding U.S. principles, but also acknowledge that for roughly the last century, building alliances has been one of those principles, largely because successful coalitions make it easier for us to achieve our international aims.

From the poll numbers, it’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that a backlash against Bush’s foreign policy -- with its emphasis on preserving U.S. freedom of unilateral action -- has deepened antagonism toward the United States. But it’s naive to assume that even a president who consulted more would be welcomed with rose petals; Europe bridled plenty at President Clinton too. Nobody loves Goliath.

That means even a future president who spoke French at the United Nations might struggle to define a 21st century role for America that others didn’t begrudge and resist. That’s where the example of 19th century Britain, the dominant power of the age, might apply.

Pete Wehner, the White House director of strategic initiatives, has drawn the parallel. Though many feared and resented Britain’s overwhelming power, he argues, it earned respect when it applied that power, in the form of the Royal Navy, toward eradicating the international slave trade in the mid-19th century. Over time, he says, the United States might do the same by applying its power toward the global spread of democracy that Bush, building on many of his predecessors, urged in his second inaugural address.

The Pew poll offers important support for that theory. In each of the five Muslim countries polled, at least a plurality (and in some cases a large majority) said they believed democracy was not just a Western concept and could work in their nation. And by big margins in Indonesia and Lebanon, and by narrower numbers in Pakistan and Jordan, at least a plurality of those surveyed said they believed the U.S. supported democracy in their country -- a striking exception to a poll overflowing with negative assessments of America.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s visits to Egypt and Saudi Arabia showed how the United States might fan that ember. She met with opposition parties in Egypt, and publicly challenged both governments over political repression. Reading her words from afar, she was firm but never patronizing and refreshingly conscious of the imperfections of America’s own example in pressing both governments to provide more freedom.

Even a frequent Bush critic, Ivo Daalder, a former national security aide to Clinton, thought the tour “pretty remarkable” for Rice’s willingness to confront U.S. allies over democracy in a “direct and unapologetic way.”

“She enhanced the credibility of our argument not only in Egypt and Saudi Arabia but also in Pakistan and elsewhere,” Daalder said.

The Iraq war has so polarized attitudes that in many countries Bush may never be seen as a sincere advocate for freedom. It may even be true, as Daalder argues, that the world won’t accept America as a credible force for democracy until it demonstrates it does not intend to routinely promote freedom at the point of a gun.

But even if Bush’s successors rethink his means, they may find it indispensable to follow him in elevating the goal of spreading liberty. The new polls confirm what England knew nearly two centuries ago: Great power is always more palatable in the service of great ideals.