Description

Walter Laqueur, a veteran terrorism expert, writes in his book No End to War: Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century: “Nations are seldom loved, great powers even less so. Neither Russia nor China, neither Great Britain nor the Spanish nor the Ottoman empires, neither India nor Germany nor France at the height of their power were loved; at most respected, very often feared... To be hated is a consequence of being great and powerful. It can be remedied not by becoming gentler, only by becoming weaker”. Certainly this thesis would be an outright celebration of absolute power, and downright Caligula-like statecraft [“let them hate us as long as they fear us”]. How can one achieve “respect” by inducing fear or with sole motto of overpowering others or focusing only on staying in power? The two are antonymous with each other. Contrast this with the fine-balanced Joseph Nye Jr., a veteran foreign policy dean, who writes in his book The Powers to Lead: “Power is the ability to affect others the outcome one wants, but we can also distinguish between simply wanting power over others and wanting power with others. Getting what you want and enabling others to do what they want can be reconciled or linked by soft power skills of listening, mutual persuasion, communicating, and education. Power in a relationship need not be a zero-sum situation...”. Anti-Americanism should be an issue of concern to U.S. True, apart from the fundamentalists, there are also other individuals who “hate” America simply because: To these reason-less maddening crowds, anti-Americanism is an alleged fashion-statement, plus for some it is also an alleged intellectual engagement. Still, barring such individuals, it would be wrong [for America] to overlook anti-Americanism among commoners and continue “simply wanting power”. In a globalized world, any country, no matter how poor or strong, has to attach/associate itself with others and move along, together. As I understand, the only big “tragic flaw” with neocons – an extraordinary deep fallacy – was overlooking the “togetherness” of globalized world. Most importantly, they alienated both governments and corresponding peoples. In this context, President-elect Obama, to the contrary, has been pursuing right thinking.

On foreign policy front Obama's forte, throughout his campaign, has been: “Connecting [with] people” (abroad). And he has been emphasizing people-centered policy approach. He has admirably said in an interview with Chicago Tribune: “I think we've got a unique opportunity to reboot America's image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular,” to “unrelenting[ly] ... create a relationship of mutual respect and partnership in countries and with peoples of good will who want their citizens and ours to prosper together.” Lastly, he has said: “ [He] is ready for that message.”

Another important aspect of globalization is, it has triggered ambitions, aspirations among billions across the globe. Rightfully, a lot has been (is being) discussed on American dream; but, it is also equally true that aspirations to achieve and to create wealth hold good outside America. Harvard economist Robert Barro statistically, empirically and brilliantly has proved that poor countries [with “steady state position”] can also catch up with high-growth countries – this sums up statistically proven “hope” for any country. In terror research, many argue that global jihad rides on globalization, true. But they also blatantly overlook the positives of globalization. A prudent leader can put the positives of mutual overall globalization (not just economic) to the fore [i.e. promoting/facilitating steady state to achieve higher growth: literacy, health, education, rule of law, trade policy, tolerant culture etc.], which by itself would be one of the effective counterterrorism measures – this would also strengthen the shaky moderates too. It would be safe to say, this is what everyone (form any country, barring the acutel