The unpopularity of George W. Bush
has led many to believe global America-
hating will ebb once he leaves office on
Jan. 20, 2009. That's a dangerous assump-
tion.
It's dangerous because the extent of
American power will continue to invite
resentment whoever is in the White
House, and because America's percep-
tion of the terrorist threat will still differ
from that of its Asian and European al-
lies. Asians are focused on growth, Euro-
peans on integration: different priorities
cause friction.
The Iraq-linked damage to U.S. credi-
bility is too severe to be quickly undone.
The net loss of Western influence over
the world means the ability of Bush's suc-
cessor to shape events is diminished.
Still, the next U.S. leader will enjoy a
honeymoon. To prolong it, several steps
are essential. The most critical is a
switch from the politics of anxiety to the
politics of confidence.
Bush and Cheney never emerged from
the 9/11 bunker. Their attack-dog snarl
alienated a globe asked to step in line or
step aside. The expectation of fealty must
give way to the entertainment of dissent.
The next leader has to be curious.
Presidential body language needs to say
''I'm one of you.'' Facebook engagement
must supplant fearful estrangement.
Even a bit of curiosity reveals that kids
from Toledo to Tokyo talk about the
weather. The consensus on global warm-
ing is such that America's refusal to lead
the green debate has been disastrous.
Bush's successor must confront one of
this century's central challenges: the
transition to a low-carbon global econ-
omy. Developing countries, especially
China, think we made the mess and
should clean it up. Only the United States
has the capacity to draw India and China
into a post-Kyoto push for cleaner air
with undiminished growth.
Climate is universal. So are many
problems, like growing inequality. The
world resembles a pool table: movement
of one ball propels others. Yet the institu-
tions to deal with it -- the U.N. Security
Council or G-8 -- are antiquated.
''International institutions are de-
signed for the world as it was rather than
as it is,'' says David Miliband, the British
foreign secretary.
The 44th president should push to
modernize them in ways that reflect the
weight of China, India and Brazil, and
economic progress in Africa. Proposing
Japan for permanent membership of the
U.N. Security Council is not enough.
The war on terror has been a divisive
phrase. It has brought some successes --
America has been kept safe -- but has
amalgamated jihadists bent on the West's
destruction with national movements like
the Palestinian whose goal is distinct. Is-
lam now sees America as enemy.
The next president can help move be-
yond polarization by speaking of counter-
terrorism rather than global wars, fo-
cusing on a viable Palestinian state
alongside a secure Israel, and coaxing
the European Union to admit Turkey.
A decent medium-term outcome in
Iraq demands regional diplomacy involv- |
ing Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
In the latter, nonproliferation must pre-
vail. It has prevailed in the past -- in
South Africa, Libya, South America. It
must be made to work in Iran. The al-
ternative is an unacceptable Middle
Eastern nuclear arms race.
Europe has influence in Tehran. There
are now three leaders -- Gordon Brown
in Britain, Nicolas Sarkozy in France and
Angela Merkel in Germany -- with a gen-
uine liking for America. None were in-
volved in the Iraq acrimony.
The next president must work with
them to squeeze the mullahs. Iran de-
mands unity. So does the propagation of
Western values: pluralism, rule of law,
independent media, market economies.
Liberal democracy has taken a batter-
ing. A countermodel now exists: the au-
thoritarian-capitalist, or Leninist-capital-
ist, systems of China and Russia. They
_____________
Can post-Bush America
inspire the world?
_____________
have benefited from Iraq's democracy-
as-mayhem.
China is pushing no-strings-attached
''harmony'' in its quiet quest for natural
resources and global influence. Petro-
power has upped Russian testosterone.
Both countries have a 19th-century
view of the 21st century: sovereign great
powers will dominate. To manage these
ambitions, the next president must culti-
vate rather than trample on America's
global alliances.
Monk-power in Myanmar suggests
that the magnetism of open societies is
undimmed. Africa knows enough of des-
potism to doubt a China model. The
American idea can still resonate. The
coming leader must embody rather than
impose it.
Pressure on the next administration to
turn inward will be strong. Protectionism
has appeal to a hard-pressed middle
class. Retreat attracts a nation scarred
by Bush's radical and bungled overreach.
But the world will be much more dan-
gerous without the responsible exercise
of U.S. power in the name of barrier-
breaking instead of barrier-building. The
next president must sell that conviction.
Multilateralism without a global arbi-
ter has been tried. It produced World
War I and World War II.
|