Report Finds Negative Image of U.S. Abroad

S O F I

Administrator
Staff member
#1
WASHINGTON - As Karen Hughes works to repair the United States' image in a trip overseas, her State Department colleagues have received a report underscoring how tough a task she faces.

ADVERTISEMENT

Based on their own travels to the Persian Gulf, Egypt and Britain, a nine-member advisory committee headed by former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff found widespread hostility toward the United States and its policies, especially the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

"For what can be heard around the world, in the wake of the invasion of Iraq, the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, and the controversy over the handling of detainees at Bagram and Guantanamo Bay, is that America is less a beacon of hope than a dangerous force to be countered," the report said.

"This assertion, repeated in newspaper columns, on radio and television broadcasts, and via the Internet, diminishes our ability to champion freedom, democracy and individual dignity," said the report by the Advisory Committee on Public Diplomacy.

Headed by Bill Smullen, the one-time top Powell aide who is now teaching at Syracuse University, the committee recommended boosting spending for public diplomacy and training foreign service officers in the use of research, polling and news media.

The report coincides with the mission of undersecretary of state Hughes to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The aim is to publicize American values in the Muslim world.

"We recognize the challenges we face in our public diplomacy effort," State Department spokesman Tom Casey said Wednesday. "We are using all the tools at our disposal to ensure that foreign publics have an accurate understanding of American policies and values."

What people around the world love about American culture, the report said, is a sense of freedom found in its writers, musicians, painters, choreographers and filmmakers.

But after the Cold War the U.S. Information Agency was abolished and the American cultural presence abroad was sharply reduced, the report said.

"The erosion of our trust and credibility within the international community must be reversed if we hope to use more than our military and economic might in the shaping of world opinion," the report said. "Culture matters."

The committee and other academic and official travelers found a "sense of crisis" abroad, the report said.

"Put simply, we have lost the goodwill of the world, without which it becomes ever more difficult to execute foreign policy," the report said.

And yet, it said, while committee members found "deep and abiding anger toward U.S. policies and actions," the criticism was not leveled across the board.

While U.S. policies in the Middle East were condemned, the American system of higher education, science and technology were praised, as were the values of freedom, democracy and individual dignity, the report said.

"America is still seen as a place where things can happen, where change is not feared; a land of diversity, openness, candor and generosity," the report said.

It also urged the streamlining of visa procedures for international students.
Do you seriously need a report or some kind of research to figure that out?
 
#2
"The erosion of our trust and credibility within the international community must be reversed if we hope to use more than our military and economic might in the shaping of world opinion."

I wonder if that meant shaping the world opinion back in favour of the United States or shaping it into adhering to the beliefs and values of the United States... sounds like the latter since they mention military and economic might as a coercive mechanism... in which case, under what authority, or with what legitimacy is this being proposed?

Side note, when I was in China in 2001, we made sure to point out we were Australian not American... this was after the spy plane incident... simply because we would get a better reception that way.
 

Jurhum

Well-Known Member
#3
Amara said:
"The erosion of our trust and credibility within the international community must be reversed if we hope to use more than our military and economic might in the shaping of world opinion."

I wonder if that meant shaping the world opinion back in favour of the United States or shaping it into adhering to the beliefs and values of the United States... sounds like the latter since they mention military and economic might as a coercive mechanism... in which case, under what authority, or with what legitimacy is this being proposed?
Exactly. Who or what is the US to dictate how other countries should be run. Plus, it's no big surprise to find the negative sentiment around the world towards the US. It has been going on for many years. But, it increased dramatically during the Bush's administration reign.

And like you said, sof, it doesn't take a genuis to figure that out.
 

The.Menace

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#4
LoL, funny, I hope noone is surprised or shocked about the way others feel about the US - andi t won't change anytime soon. As long as GW is in charge, there will be no change and eve nafterwards it will take years to repair the damage that is done, if it's even possible to repair it. I don't think so, cause the US would have to change their forgein politics and I don't see that happening.
 

AmerikazMost

Well-Known Member
#5
Jurhum said:
Exactly. Who or what is the US to dictate how other countries should be run.
Yeah, no other country forces their influence upon anyone else :rolleyes:


anyone, our rep is shit. ain't gonna change anytime soon. at least not as long as we keep making unprovoked attacks on sovereign nations.
 

FroDawgg

Well-Known Member
#6
as a born and bred american citizen, i've just got one thing to say to all who think negatively about us...you're right! we suck!
 
#8
The British have done it lot more extremely and with a longer period of time than America has ever done it.

Simply said, they created schools for Indian children in an effort to draw them into British culture and make them supporters of the imperial system.
 

Jurhum

Well-Known Member
#9
^ British did in the early 1900's when people were still too dumb to actually fathom what was going around them. now, it's much, much more different.
 
#10
Valeoz said:
The British have done it lot more extremely and with a longer period of time than America has ever done it.
Still doesnt make it right.

Jurhum said:
British did in the early 1900's when people were still too dumb to actually fathom what was going around them. now, it's much, much more different.
Well, perhaps not so different... people are still largely ignorant. lol.
 
#11
Jurhum said:
^ British did in the early 1900's when people were still too dumb to actually fathom what was going around them. now, it's much, much more different.
Different how? IMO it is not so different in a general sense. The concept remains the same, only the definition changed. The British people knew exactly what was going on around them because it was them who wanted it but what they did not know was that what they wanted cannot work. They infiltrated their system into these other socities 100%, so when that system collapsed so did the whole society. It was the post-imperialism, when major issues arose.

Here is one example that I can use to show both that the British knew and that it is not so different today. There is a poem called "The White Man's Burden" by the British poet Rudyard Kupling, Kupling spoke of the duty of the colonizers to lift up primitive peoples, to "fill full the mouth of famine and bid the sickness cease." From this you could see the general definition colonization. There was actually only about two definitions for colonization during the rise of imperalism but this is the general definition. Another way of showing this as an example, of why it is not so different from then is by simply keeping the concept but changing the context with today's definition. So look at that poem this way, "fill full the mouth of dictatorship and bid the terrorism cease." See how easily that fits in?:eek:

Also note that the definiton then, and even today but not much, was by popularity, the definiton of the powerholder was completely different, which is now obvious. This new powerholder definition is what like Amara said we're ignorant about.;)

Still doesnt make it right.
Of course it doesn't. Because U.S. is the superpower today, I see people jump to the conclusion that they got there by being the worst. Like Wal-Mart! There is some people who don't like Wal-Mart because its the best/giant. They didn't do anything wrong to get where they were, not saying the U.S. never did anything wrong, but there are people in America who know how to make its amends. And we should know Bush is not one of them, he's a causer not a solver.:(
 
#12
You realise that The White Man's Burden was written to persuade the United States to invade the Philippines? It's about how rich (which was synonymous with white in those days) nations were obliged to colonise and 'civilise' less-developed countries. Kipling wanted the U.S. to invade the Philippines before a less friendly nation did.

Like Wal-Mart! There is some people who don't like Wal-Mart because its the best/giant. They didn't do anything wrong to get where they were, not saying the U.S. never did anything wrong, but there are people in America who know how to make its amends.
Wal-Mart have done plenty wrong to get where they are today.
 

Jurhum

Well-Known Member
#13
Valeoz said:
Different how? IMO it is not so different in a general sense. The concept remains the same, only the definition changed. The British people knew exactly what was going on around them because it was them who wanted it but what they did not know was that what they wanted cannot work. They infiltrated their system into these other socities 100%, so when that system collapsed so did the whole society. It was the post-imperialism, when major issues arose.

Here is one example that I can use to show both that the British knew and that it is not so different today. There is a poem called "The White Man's Burden" by the British poet Rudyard Kupling, Kupling spoke of the duty of the colonizers to lift up primitive peoples, to "fill full the mouth of famine and bid the sickness cease." From this you could see the general definition colonization. There was actually only about two definitions for colonization during the rise of imperalism but this is the general definition. Another way of showing this as an example, of why it is not so different from then is by simply keeping the concept but changing the context with today's definition. So look at that poem this way, "fill full the mouth of dictatorship and bid the terrorism cease." See how easily that fits in?:eek:

Also note that the definiton then, and even today but not much, was by popularity, the definiton of the powerholder was completely different, which is now obvious. This new powerholder definition is what like Amara said we're ignorant about.;)


Of course it doesn't. Because U.S. is the superpower today, I see people jump to the conclusion that they got there by being the worst. Like Wal-Mart! There is some people who don't like Wal-Mart because its the best/giant. They didn't do anything wrong to get where they were, not saying the U.S. never did anything wrong, but there are people in America who know how to make its amends. And we should know Bush is not one of them, he's a causer not a solver.:(
I didn't mean the British themselves. I meant the people who were being colonized.
 
#14
Illuminattile said:
You realise that The White Man's Burden was written to persuade the United States to invade the Philippines? It's about how rich (which was synonymous with white in those days) nations were obliged to colonise and 'civilise' less-developed countries. Kipling wanted the U.S. to invade the Philippines before a less friendly nation did.
I wasn't writing about who he was persuading.;)
Wal-Mart have done plenty wrong to get where they are today.
Your right, I exagerated and used a bad example.
I didn't mean the British themselves. I meant the people who were being colonized.
I'm sure they had some sense of it, otherwise why would they have revolted when they did?
 

Latest posts

Donate

Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.

Members online

No members online now.
Top