The U.S. Is Not Us

Int

ernational relations should be based on reciprocity. Dealings with the U.S., however, have become a one-way street. In his first days as President, George W. Bush threatened to unilaterally nullify both the Antiballistic Missile Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. And even as he pushed through a $1.35 trillion tax cut at home, he balked at paying the $1.5 billion the U.S. owes the United Nations in membership dues.

Uncle Sam is creating the impression that he will not hesitate to sacrifice others' interests in the name of protecting his own. After the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush pressed the nations of the world to take sides in what he hailed as a crusade. "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists," he said in his address to the U.S. Congress. In other words, there can be no neutral ground. That has presented the world with a difficult choice, because the nature of the U.S. military campaign against Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and other yet-to-be-named culprits is still largely undefined.

The fact is, many East Asians, particularly Chinese, aren't comfortable with America's rhetoric. We don't want to be dragged into a retaliatory war. We condemn terrorism, of course, but we are also wary of Washington, particularly after America's bombing of a Chinese embassy and its role in the spy-plane incident. Most of us want a measured response that doesn't throw the world into further chaos. That means not giving the U.S. a blank check to do whatever it wants in the name of "international solidarity."

China's Mao Zedong once vowed, "We should support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports." This served as a guiding strategy for the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution, when millions of innocents were tortured. It was a mistaken principle then and remains so now.

Bush said he wants bin Laden "dead or alive." While such words may be music to American ears, to others' they are tantamount to a war cry and smack of vengeance. Just after the attack, there was worldwide sympathy for the U.S. With the recent rhetoric, however, it is morphing into a sense of concern that an American-led all-out war could inflict further, heavy, unnecessary civilian casualties. We strongly oppose terror, but we aren't ready to support such a response.