America against the world? Why don't we listen anymore?

The United States often treats the Israeli-Palestinian dispute as a local conflict that can be contained, but it is spilling over. It is radicalizing attitudes in countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia. Strategically important and traditionally practitioners of a liberal Islam, neither nation has significant economic or political ties to the Middle East. Yet no conversation there can get past the Israeli-Palestinian situation that has caused many, including longtime friends of America, to conclude that the United States is attacking Islam itself. My objections - that the Israeli-Palestinian fight is about territory, not religion, and that it was the Palestinians who rejected what appeared to be a good peace offer from then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak two years ago - were discounted. People said the offer was not acceptable and was only seen as such by Americans because of a religious bias generated by the pro-Israel and Christian right lobbies in Washington. In Europe, the situation is not so emotional, but an official in Paris remarked that in view of France's large Muslim minority, "U.S. policy in the Middle East could be seen as a security risk by my government".

The perception abroad of a new American unilateralism is even more serious. A number of U.S. actions - our rejection of the Kyoto treaty on global warming; refusal of initial offers of NATO help in Afghanistan; rejection of agreements to create an International Criminal Court, ban land mines and restrict chemical and biological warfare; as well as the U.S. declaration of a "first strike" policy that might include an attack on Iraq - have convinced foreign observers that the United States no longer feels any need to consult its friends or, indeed, any need for friends at all.

A top European business leader and former EU commissioner who has long been counted among America's best friends said, "After World War II, America was all-powerful and created a new world by defining its national interest broadly in a way that made it attractive for other countries to define their interests in terms of embracing America's". In particular, the United States backed the creation of global institutions, due process and the rule of law. "Now," he said, "you are again all-powerful and the world is again in a period of restructuring but, without talking to anyone, you appear to be turning your back on things you have championed for half a century and defining your interest narrowly in terms of your own immediate military security."

Another former EU commissioner and current corporate chairman in London said, "You no longer want allies or institutions, but only volunteers for posses to chase various gangs of bandits". Citing the world order the United States helped create, he added, "If you now turn your back on it all, we can only feel a sense of disappointment and betrayal, and of deep foreboding".

Foreigners are also frustrated by their inability to influence American thinking. As one former European ambassador to the United States said: "Domestically . . . you have the wonderful system of checks and balances that gives all concerned [with a policy] an ability to influence the outcome. But in foreign policy . . . many of us who will be deeply affected [by American policy] have no opportunity even to make our voice heard, let alone to influence anything."

This lament suggests a partial remedy. While America can't make itself universally loved, a Mexican cabinet minister noted that it would be very costly to be universally disliked. "In an era of global interdependence, even a hyperpower needs friends," he emphasized. The United States needs to pay more than lip service to the views of others. When the White House finds it necessary, as it sometimes will, to swim against the stream of international opinion, it should take pains to explain why and offer alternatives. Often the form matters as much as the substance. As an editor in Tokyo noted, "Imagine how different the reaction to U.S. rejection of the Kyoto treaty would have been if the U.S. had explained the treaty's flaws publicly and made a counterproposal, rather than just saying the treaty wasn't good for the American economy".

Congress could play an important role. It has extensive powers to advise and consent on foreign policy, as well as to direct funding. In exercising these powers, it holds extensive hearings. Yet it rarely calls foreign witnesses. Imagine having the U.S. trade representative and the European trade commissioner square off in front of a congressional committee. It would be a memorable event: Congress and the American people would be better informed, while our friends overseas might feel less frustrated by dint of telling us publicly what they now only confide in private. Most importantly, by paying more attention to its friends America would avoid squandering precious goodwill and ensure that the global lineup will never be "America against the world".