Losing Hope and Losing Face
BY NAOMI DURU
America: land of the free and home of the brave. On the international stage, we used to stand for something much bigger than ourselves. Countries sought our help in times of need, and we were usually quick to come to their aid. However, in a post-WWII world, the perception of America as an international Samaritan has been on the decline. Our failure to intervene in the Rwandan genocides that began in 1994 and our self-interested policies in the Middle East have raised questions about the moral compass by which the United States decides intervention or passivity. It is time to question whether US foreign policy does more harm than good—for Americans, and for citizens of the world.
There was a time when US interventions consistently ushered in favorable results. In 1965, we invaded the Dominican Republic after the nation’s dictator was assassinated and replaced by Juan Bosch. Fearing communist control in the region, President Lyndon B. Johnson sent in over 20,000 troops to protect lives and property during a Dominican revolt that eventually lead to the breakout of a popular rebellion demanding reinstatement of country’s elected leader. The United States played a similar role in the 1960s when the Congo underwent a national crisis that killed 100,000 citizens. The United States didn’t intervene with full force, but it did send in 3 military transport aircraft to provide logistical support to the central government during their time of need. Though these interventions were all conducted within a Cold War framework, they are representative of a period of successful US interventions designed to safeguard democratic institutions abroad. Unfortunately, later efforts in this vein were less successful and more fraught with unforeseen complications and inconsistencies that have tarnished the image of the US abroad.
Abstention from action during the Rwandan genocide constituted a pivotal point in the history of US foreign policy. Unlike in the Holocaust, we knew the implications of violence in Rwanda before, during, and after the fact. However, the United States passed on an opportunity to mediate the situation as the genocide was just beginning, making a clear statement that the US would not intervene in issues we didn’t understand in countries peripheral to our national interests. Despite letters from Congress claiming support for American executive action, the US remained passive, and the killings continued. And yet, while we don’t fully understand the religious and regional complexities of the Middle East, we nonetheless invest tremendous national resources in the region.
Rwanda wasn’t the first time America failed to intervene in response to clear human rights violations. In 1975, over 2 million people died from starvation, forced labor, and political executions under the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Despite the magnitude of the slaughter, driven by the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia and the growing power of the Communist Party, the United States chose to forgo intervention. Some argue that the United States’ decision to abstain was colored by recent involvement in the Vietnam War. However, the US didn’t even use “soft power” to help address the atrocities. The United States could have spoken out, condemned such actions, and drawn attention on the international stage, but we didn’t even denounce the actions going on in Cambodia until 1978, three years later.
Today, the United States is stepping up its involvements overseas, but it’s doing so in all the wrong ways. While American politicians publicize our actions in the Middle East as being part of our larger duty as a world power, US interventions are motivated by US interests, not humanitarian concerns. But American politicians refuse to own up to this reality; the Arab Spring only heightened America’s efforts to save face overseas. The United States has been passive about issues of concern to the populations of Middle Eastern nations. These issues were overshadowed by our direct security interests, and the transparency of US motives has made America even more threatened and hated in the region than before. Unfortunately, the United States doesn’t seem to have learned its lesson in the Middle East, still preferring to secure oil flows and other security interests over engaging directly with the region’s people.
Unsurprisingly, United States’ lowest approval ratings come from the Middle East and South Asia. For instance, drones have recently been pitched as the “more humane way” to conduct warfare, as they allegedly target terrorists with greater precision and lower risk to US troops. This optimistic rhetoric is undercut by the true impact of drone warfare on perceptions of the United States in South Asia and the Gulf. Haykal Bafana, a Yemeni-Singaporean international lawyer, claims that US drones are perceived as “the boogeyman” in Yemen. Bafana questions the efficacy of drones in advancing US interests and security if the United States throws away its principles and morals along the way.
Yes, the United States is now compared to the scary monster that hides under children’s beds. Recent US efforts in Egypt and Syria have only increased international skepticism of the American motives in the region. Back in 2011, the ousting of President Mubarak caused Egyptians to perceive Americans as intrusive in their domestic affairs. In 2008, a Pew poll showed that only 22 percent of Egyptians had a favorable view of the United States, down from 30 percent in 2006. Today American interventions that are out of step with stated American purposes have fueled American unpopularity abroad. The United States’ global leadership in recent years has been less than exceptional. We must align our actions with our national rhetoric—otherwise, the image of America as a moral and effective superpower will continue to fade in international memory.