SCOLD WAR BUILDUP

The Perils of Foreign Policy by Report Card

Attempts to explain the vehemence of anti-U.S. feeling abroad
correctly home in on Iraq and other unpopular policies of the current
administration. But over the past three decades the kudzu-like growth
of another U.S. practice, used by Congress and by Democratic and
Republican administrations alike, has nurtured seething resentment
abroad.

This is what might be called "foreign policy by report card," the
issuing of public assessments of the performance of other countries,
with the threat of economic or political sanctions for those whose
performance, in our view, doesn't make the grade. The overuse of these
mandated reports makes us seem judgmental, moralistic and bullying.

The degree to which public reports accompanied by the threat of
sanctions have been institutionalized in U.S. policy is stunning. A
partial list:

Each year we issue detailed human rights reports on every country in
the world, including those whose performance appears superior to our
own. We judge whether other countries have provided sufficient
cooperation in fighting illegal drugs. We place countries whose
protection of intellectual property has been insufficient on "watch
lists," threatening trade sanctions against those that do not improve.
We judge respect for labor rights abroad through a public petition
process set up under the System of Generalized (trade) Preferences. We
publish annual reports on other countries' respect for religious freedom.

And more: We seek to ensure the adequacy of civil aviation oversight
and the security of foreign airports through special inspections and
categorizing of government performance. We ban shrimp imports from
countries whose fishing fleets do not employ sea turtle extruder
devices and yellowfin tuna imports where the protection of dolphins is
in our view inadequate. We report on trafficking in persons and
categorize the performance of every country where such trafficking is
a problem, which is just about everywhere. And we withhold military
education, training and materiel assistance from countries that do not
enter into agreements with us to protect our nationals from the
jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

The point is not that these goals are illegitimate. The large majority
of Americans would probably support most if not all of them and would
be reassured to know that the government is working assiduously to
promote them. It is also true that foreign governments do sometimes
improve their performance to avoid sanctions or the embarrassment of a
critical public report.

But in the aggregate, our public reports have reinforced the view
abroad that we set ourselves up unilaterally as police officer, judge
and jury of other countries' conduct. Often, governments in developing
countries in particular are committed to the objectives we are
promoting, but they are overwhelmed by poverty, political instability
and other existential problems that, in their view, dwarf the issues
on which we would have them concentrate. Even so, they struggle to
improve, say, performance on human trafficking, only to be found
lacking with respect to drugs or labor rights. They may well conclude
that, however much they try, their best is never good enough for us.
The result is demoralization, anger and sullen resistance where we
otherwise might have made common cause.

We could adjust this approach, especially where the objectives enjoy
broad support in the international community, to advance them through
multilateral organizations. We have effectively promoted more vigorous
action against money laundering through the broadly based Financial
Action Task Force. Several years ago, and as resentment over our
annual narcotics certification process threatened to spin out of
control, Congress softened the approach and, with modest success, we
sought to make the Western Hemisphere portion of it multilateral
through the Organization of American States.

Scaling back in other areas would help. It is critical, though, that
we refrain from using this tool as we seek to promote new objectives
- -- however worthy -- in the future. The tolerance of other societies
for being publicly judged by the United States has reached its limits.