When Clinton was confronted with the responsibility of leading the international community in its intervention in Bosnia, he was not the first president that had to persuade the public and Congress to overcome their perennial tendency toward isolationism in order to defend democracy and human rights in the world. Even former President George Bush had to face the same obstacles to approve American military intervention in the Persian Gulf War.
American isolationism is a phenomenon which has strong roots in our country’s past. However, the role of the United States has drastically changed, particularly since its involvement in World War II. It is truly anachronistic for America to go on with its initial spirit of inertia in matters that regard nations that seem too far away to be of any direct concern to the interests of the United States.
Perhaps the real responsibility for this sense of detachment felt by most Americans vis-à-vis events that occur abroad lies in the perpetuation of incognizance promoted indirectly by the American media.
Having lived abroad for most of the last two decades, when I return to the United States, I am appalled at the lack of information available in most American daily newspapers concerning international issues. In almost any European paper there are at least two full pages without advertisements dedicated to world affairs, not to mention the issues of foreign interest that are to be found in the economic pages. The one American newspaper available nationwide and which has an extremely capillary distribution, USA Today, all but ignores topics which concern matters beyond America’s borders. It dedicates one page to what it entitles "Washington and the World," which usually means one article which interests Washington and only relatively concerns the world, and maybe another concerning a truly foreign matter. A quarter of the page is dedicated to advertising, and what space is left, to four or five blurbs called "World Briefs." Sometimes this publication breaks its parsimonious tradition, as when it once dedicated more than a half a page to the issue of the foreign aid budget. According to a survey conducted by a House and Senate budget committee, 75% of Americans feel that too much of the federal budget goes to foreign aid. Those Americans estimated that 18% of the federal budget went to foreign aid. The amount they considered appropriate was 5%. The truth is that foreign aid represents only 1% of the federal budget, one fifth of the amount considered appropriate by the average American!
In an op-ed piece printed in the same publication former Defense Secretary William Perry and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman John Shalikashvili went to great lengths to explain to their readers the importance of foreign aid to America’s own interests. The money is used to finance projects whose scope is to help the transition from communism to democracy and to promote the creation of free markets in Russia and Eastern Europe. Other funds are used to prevent the former Soviet states from re-emerging as possible nuclear threats. They also pointed out that despite the high cost of foreign aid, it is always cheaper than military intervention. Moreover, when military deployment proves necessary, it is infinitely more economical when one has partners and foreign support.
However positive these occasional guest editorials from experts in the field may be, it takes much more than an intermittent elaboration on international themes to awaken and develop the interest and knowledge of the American public. World news briefs from the wire services are an efficient way to provide the public with the essential names, dates, and basic facts concerning world issues. However, they are a redundant echo of the information the public can more easily learn from television network news programs.
Many American newspapers have forgotten the role of commentary in interpreting those facts for the reader by putting them into historical perspective and indicating their potential future consequences. Instead of trying to compete with television, the American press should consider the benefits that the written word offers them, both in terms of space and in the time that reading allows for reflection, by dedicating more space to analysis. Not only would the country benefit from having better informed citizens, but the newspaper industry might discover that they may begin selling more papers if they stop underestimating the American public’s desire to be more than superficially informed.
Return to home page Return to list
Editors interested in subscribing to this syndicated column may request information by sending an e-mail to: giogia@ipsnet.it Return to editors' page