Is John Pilger’s negative view of US leadership justified?

It does not seem to matter that US policy debates are never as clear as Pilger suggests. For instance, recent Rasmussen Reports (August 13, 2009) noted that voters now favour Republicans over Democrats on health care, and that public support for Obama’s health care reform plan had fallen to just 42 per cent. Republicans also led Democrats on education and social security. Further, recent polling showed that 54 per cent of US voters supported tax cuts for the middle class rather than higher taxes to pay for health care. And with polling indicating that Americans were still sceptical of most countries in the Middle East, Republicans were preferred on national security.

And contrary to what Pilger wants, Obama will long make harsh policy decisions in response to difficult and complex issues as what is morally right can never be explained by idealistic diatribe by the knights of the left, although they indeed play a crucial role in our struggle for a better world.

For example, debate rages over the degree to which civil liberties should be protected despite the need to address terrorism. But in July 2009 the Obama administration urged a federal judge (Walker) to dismiss a lawsuit claiming Americans’ electronic communications are being siphoned to the National Security Agency without warrants. With the case beginning in 2006 after President Bush publicly acknowledged that government was eavesdropping on Americans’ electronic communications without warrants or congressional authorisation, Congress (including Senator Barack Obama) adopted the immunity legislation after Walker ruled that the case against the telecommunication companies could proceed.

The US may even support its own perceived national interest at the expense of the wishes of other nations. In May 2003, President Bush challenged the EU over genetically modified imports, a bid which led the WTO to rule in 2006 that the 1998-2004 EU ban on GM products was illegal given that such food had been deemed safe for humans. And when Angola and Sudan introduced restrictions on GM food aid in March 2004, the US Agency for International Development and the World Food Programme ultimately placed pressure on their governments to accept GM food.

Can international leadership be much better? Probably, but any alternative to US leadership will also struggle to balance national and international aspirations. What Pilger views as wasted years under US leadership in time may prove to be better than what lies ahead given current economic and environmental problems. Or it may well be that US hegemony, which built upon Britain’s promotion of liberalism during the 19th century, may help humanity make the next crucial step to a fairer world.

We do live in a competitive world where many complex and difficult policy issues will long be evident. Indeed, how we deal with global warming, environmental degradation, poverty, terrorism (in a nuclear age), the rise of China, and even freer trade, will ultimately test the sophistication of humanity, whether led by the US, the EU or any other political entity.

But while Pilger is critical of recent US efforts, that nation can be proud of its efforts to support a fairer world in economic terms, although its record has indeed been far from perfect.