A question I have

I was reading my university's asinine student newspaper the other day, and there was an editorial about how bad the US embargo of Cuba was.  One of the reasons the author gave was that many nations around the world condemn the embargo.  I just don't understand why people like that think that international politics should be a gigantic popularity contest.  Logically, shouldn't the opinion of the international community be important only in so far as it helps or hinders the pursuit of a nation and its allies individual interests?  These people speak so often about being well liked that they consider it an end in and of itself and not a means to other assorted ends.

Regardless of whether the embargo against Cuba is good or bad, the international community is not going to do anything serious about it or try very hard to stop it, and so I can only conclude that their opinion about it is therefore irrelevant as it will not lead to any significant actions either way.

Can someone help my pragmatic brain decipher why international popularity should be a goal for its own sake?

Well, making allies feeling bad about your policies isn't the best way to keep their enthusiasm as allies.

And no matter how powerful the US is, it will need allies now and then.

US policy in Cuba used to be a bilateral US-Cuba issue. It damaged Cuban economy, it helped Fidel to have a pretext for whatever lack... but the rest of the world just ignored all that and made bussiness with both. Nowadays a company is obligued by the US to either do bussiness with Cuba or the US. This is blackmail on third parties and makes these third parties unease on US power. Obvioulsy they will try top undermine it as reaction.

International politics is, believe it or not, much of a popularity contest: almost as much as domestic politics is. In domestic politics there are other factors beyond public opinion (or rather that help to shape PO) but that lobbies exist and probably are the ones to define a government's policies, doesn't mean that PO is irrelevant - does it?

After all, the US wants probably to keep its hegemonic position. For that it needs to be strong but some of that strength comes from US allies, not directly from the US itself.

The USA controls just 20% of the global GDP, US allies control much more than that: EU alone is comparable to the USA, while Japan has a share of 6%.

US "rivals" as China (that may control about 14% of global GDP) are also "attacked" with authoritarian US policies towards Cuba. Russia, Brazil and India also have some influence and some difficulties with this issue. Europeans, China, Russia and Brazil all have relatively good relations with Castro's Cuba and all have their resentment about US policies, specially when imposed on to non-US companies.

Guantanamo ilegal concentration camp is not precisely a jewel that would imporve US image.

One question that you seem to ignore also is that, the same that domestic public opinion may affect a US government, foreign public opinion will affect foreign governments. Blair doesn't decide his policies depending on what they think in Missouri but rather with his eyes one the opinion polls inside Britain. Same for every other government. So when the US politicians launch a pathetic campaign against France, they put their French allies in a difficult position. French PO will have been placed against the USA and French politicians will have more difficulties in pleasing their transatlantic allies.

In an extreme case, a lack of consideration for this issue of foreign PO (for instance in the Arab/Muslim World) may cause an uprising against the rule of the Empire or its puppets.

So yes: nowadays international public opinion counts and it may be a more than delicate issue to manage for a neo-colonialist superpower, that must squeeze and make feel good to the same people.

Also, there's the Net: there's sort of a global PO.

Since Genghis's question is on "popularity" in general, I will just focus my thought on that instead of the Cuban situation.

Even though "popularity" may just be a perceived quality, it does not render a person or a country that strives for it "unpragmatic." In fact the opposite is true. Just ask a typical teenager what his or her goal is in high school? To be popular. When someone is popular, special privileges are accorded to him or her and special bonds are built. It is a prestige thing.

Of course one can argue that prestige, especially international prestige, ultimately does not depend on "popularity". It depends on wealth and power. So in most cases, as long as you are wealthy and powerful, you have the prestige, and almost automatically you become the most popular kid in neighbourhood. This is true especially when you are the only wealthy and powerful kid around. So even if you are the biggest a**hole on earth, you will still be "popular".

However, things can be very different when you are no longer the most wealthy and powerful kid around. You have competition. In other words, while wealth and power may still give you prestige, "popularity" does not follow automatically. All of a sudden, the wealthy and powerful a**hole in the neighbourhood is perceived more as a bully than anything else. The dynamics of the whole neighborhood begins to change. Alliances, both overtly and covertly formed against the bully, begin to emerge. The previous exclusive control of the wealthy a**hole kid over other neighborhood kids begins to erode. In a scenario like that, the "popularity factor" may just be "X factor" that those "challengers", who may still not have quite the same wealth and power, need to tilt the balance of power in the neighbourhood.

I think this is more or less the scenario now. While a lot of Americans, especially the Republicans, still don't give a damn what the rest of the world think of them and do things that are extremely unpopular in the eyes of the rest of the world, they don't realize that they are giving away this "X factor" to their challengers, the number of which is growing, as seen in Maju's post. In a world exclusively dominated by American political and economic interests, this "X factor" may not be that significant. But in a more competitive environment, the significance of this factor may be more crucial than one realizes as more options (political and economic) are now available to both countries and individuals.

It is almost inevitable that the United States's share of global political and economic influence will continue to decline. The last thing that the United States wants is to lose out to its challengers when it comes to this "X factor", i.e. popularity, as well.      

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 In international politics, popularity usually means you have no power.

I am not sure if I can agree with this statement. I think until quite recently, the United States had always been one of the most "popular" countries in the world. (I am not saying that it didn't have any critics or enemies. It had plenty. But no country is immune to that.) Its "popularity" has sunken to an all-time low ever since George W. Bush took over the presidency. Was the United States less "powerful" than it is now? Definitely not. So how do you explain this huge drop in "popularity"?

I think how Canadians feel about the United States is probably one of the best thermometers for its popularity abroad. Canadians have always rightly regarded the United States its closest ally, if not its "sister nation". But the popularity of the United States in the eyes of Canadians has sunken so low recently that there must be something "extra" going on.

I think a plausible explanation goes back to what I mentioned in an earlier post. The world that we are living in is quite different from that even just about one decade ago. We are living in a world where American hegemony is in its inevitable decline. Various other political and economic powers are starting to emerge. Countries that used to celebrate their close ties with the United States begin to see and seek alternatives. In other words, they now have more options. That, coupled with the series of serious strategic mistakes that the United States have made recently, has turned what was previously felt as "awe" into "anger". Hence the huge drop in popularity of the United States in the eyes of the rest of the world.  

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Maybe a poor choice of words.  the hegemon certainly has no popularity.

That's true to a certain extent. It's harder for very powerful countries to gain universal approval of what they do - probably because they are involved in so many different parts of the world which inevitably requires them to take side.

"Lesser" countries, such as Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, etc. are always viewed more favourably by others (i.e. more popular) simply because their degree of international involvement is limited by their size.

I am curious to know what's the current popularity of the United States compared to other more notable "powers" (e.g. Japan, Russia, China, France, U.K., Germany).   

Originally posted by Maju Originally posted by Genghis Originally posted by Maju So yes: nowadays international public opinion counts and it may be a more than delicate issue to manage for a neo-colonialist superpower, that must squeeze and make feel good to the same people. That is all true, but the benefits of better image must be weighed against the costs, and vice versa.  The thing I was saying is that global opinion is not an end in and of itself, but a means to an end, no better or worse than any other means. Which is the end then? One problem of modern international politics is that there doesn't seem to be any objective other than perpetuation of Capitalist explotation and maybe the protection of the local corporations, that constitute the olygarchy that actually runs the local pieces, like the USA and the others. So which is the end for you then? I think the end should be to build a stable system that is not likely to self-destroy via ecological catatrophe or nuclear war, while at the same time making sure that Human Rights apply universally.

The means of international politics, serve the means of increasing the economic, military, and political power of the state, which themselves are means to increasing the security and prosperity of the state and its citizens.

Genghis, im in agreement with the bulk of your initial post on this and would love to go to Cuba and back to the '50s one day. Isnt it time for the thing to end though?

Maju:

I doubt that China is popular with her neighbors.  Many of them may be looking at the growth of Chinese economic strength and military spending with trepidation.  How popular do you think China is in Tibet?

Historically, Eastern cultures tend to coalesce around a center.  Korea, northern Indo-China and others (even to a small degree Japan) have at times been under strong Chinese influence, at least culturally, and sometimes drawn into China's orbit due to her power.  Korea, and perhaps much later, Japan, may be so aligned at some time.

They will put up with it.  It does not mean the center is popular.

The more powerful China grows the less popular she will be.

 

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Originally posted by cattus Genghis, im in agreement with the bulk of your initial post on this and would love to go to Cuba and back to the '50s one day. Isnt it time for the thing to end though? It is time for it to end, but don't look for the US government to acknowledge a Western Hemisphere "communist" state. See the extensive discussion of Monroe Doctrine in Modern History. It has nothing to do with communism anymore, but it is the perception that unfavorable out-of-hemisphere influence might be accepted. When the Fidel cult of personality expires, Cuba will re-engage. Who will make the first move? Can't say.

There is a very concrete benefit of having an embargo on Cuba: American local politics. It serves two purposes:

a) It helps politicians to show how "strong" they stand against "Communism" or dictatorships

b) It keeps the Cuban voter block happy in Florida

Basically, it helps Republican politicians, even though it costs the U.S. a lot of money now and then when massive numbers of Cubans arrive in Florida and are given their sweat deal assistence.

I heard on the radio that in the 1980s, Cuban expatriates got an on a special U.S. paid welfare where they got more money a month than American citizens. They also got extensive help in finding jobs, housing, and with education, opportunities which American citizens in poverty didn't enjoy at the time.

So many of these immigrants got out of welfare in record time... the same time it would have taken American citizens had they been given the same opportunities that these political refugees got.

Add this to the loss of international support, and I truthfully don't believe that the embargo is worth it. In fact, I see Fidel falling fasting without an embargo, once his biggest excuse for the failures of Cuba is grabbed away from him.

But it helps get Republicans elected in Florida, and in the South, so that is well spent money.


But Cuba is not really a deal breaker for the international community. They may be annoyed by it, but they won't stop cooperating with the U.S. because of it.

A deal breaker was Bush's behavior in going into war in Iraq. His rush to start a fight, his and Blair's dubious grounds for war, and his public bullying of Germany and France in his attempt to join him really soured Europe towards U.S.

Even after the initial occupation was over, Germany and France were ready to participate in a limited extent in Iraq and its reconstructions. Bush's childish rejection of their economic and potential military involvement really closed the door for future help.

Things changed when things got very bad in Iraq. Suddenly Bush was willing to share reconstruction projects with Germany and France in exchange for military support. Guess who declined the offer now?

So, in concrete terms, the U.S. under Bush, by acting in ways that made it very unpopular in the rest of the world, is lacking logistical and military help that it now desperately needs.


So it is unpragmatic to consistently anger, ignore, and humilliate the international community.

If an act that will provoke anger and resentment is not absolutely necessary, it is wiser and more pragmatic not to do it is the loss of military and economic help outweighs the benefits from the act. In the case of Iraq, the loss was much greater than the gains, which at this point and for the next ten years are none.

The U.S. can gain back good will by making meaningless concessions such as lifting the embargo to Cuba, but our current administration lacks this kind of diplomatic imagination.

More so than international power?  All I'm saying is that popular image is a form of soft power, that should be judged no better or worse than any other form of power, after all the goal of a country should not be popularity but increasing it's power relative to others.  If there is the choice between being weak and popular and strong and disliked, one should choose strength.

Originally posted by cattus Genghis, im in agreement with the bulk of your initial post on this and would love to go to Cuba and back to the '50s one day. Isnt it time for the thing to end though?

I'm not a great fan of the embargo, and I don't think it isn't that tangibly useful now that Cuba is no longer an ally of the Soviet Union, and certainly not as useful as the embargo against North Korea.  However, I fear that if the embargo is lifted the world community or certain members their of will be tempted to think that they have succeeded in forcing a change of US policy and might be more emboldened to try to do so in the future.  Castro will also make as much use as he can out of any end of the embargo by saying that the imperialists are giving up their campaign against Cuba.  I also think the embargo serves, to an extent, to show to other states in the Americas and across the world that interfering with US interests will have severe consequences.  I'd also have to consider whether a more prosperous Cuba would use its new wealth to undermine US interests in the region.

I would definitely consider ending the embargo if I thought it was good politics.

I'll make another thread to discuss the Cuban Embargo in the Current Affairs and International Relations forum.

Edited by Genghis