A New American Policy
A member of the U.S. House of Representatives [Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania] once asked U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about her opinion regarding the role of the movie “Valley of the Wolves Iraq” in the U.S.’ “winning hearts” policy.
This tells us that the Americans are now aware of the fact that their image is tarnished around the world and that their standing has suffered great damage, especially in Muslim countries. To address this issue, the U.S. is developing a new policy to improve their standing.
Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s statement after the earthquake in Pakistan in 2005 was the first sign of their intention to design this policy. Rice had said that “the influx of U.S. aid … could have an important side benefit: improving the battered U.S. image in a critical Muslim country.” This statement meant to say that the U.S. should be generous in its financial aid to Pakistan and show the entire world how merciful America is. The same statement also demonstrated the American understanding of “winning hearts.” The United States would provide financial assistance to developing countries to boost their economies further. However, while the Americans expected the public in these countries to be grateful to the U.S. for the aid, the anti-Americanism unexpectedly increased in these countries day by day. The Americans, who thought that these aid packages were met through the taxes they paid, would not understand the reasons for this bitter outcome.
In order to tackle this serious problem, the United States formed a new policy and named it the “winning hearts” policy. But how would these hearts be won?
Capitalism and Materialism
American has a capitalist economy. The capitalist ideology was an offspring of materialist thinking, which stipulates that money can buy everything including people’s hearts. This is why the U.S. Secretary of State thought that the larger financial aid was, the more Pakistani hearts would be won.
Contrary to popular belief, the reason for the U.S.’ loss of standing even in those countries where the United States provided the most economic assistance was not the ungratefulness of these countries. The Americans were not aware that by establishing the required conditions for the economic assistance, they were actually affronting the national pride of these countries. The countries receiving the economic assistance were left with two choices: They would either pick their interests or their pride.
Turkish Example
Turkey is a quintessential example. Turkey wanted to develop friendly relations with the United States and enjoyed its economic assistance for many years. Yet, there was also a reason for the growth of anti-American feelings among the Turks, despite that material assistance.
Americans were not aware that the constant comparisons made between the amounts of aid Turkey and Greece received, the reductions always made in the amounts of financial assistance by the U.S. Senate and the eligibility and usage conditions for the aid put Turkey in a position to sacrifice either their pride or their interests. Less aid with no conditions, or a U.S. Senate trying to increase, not reduce, the amount of aid would create more sympathy for the United States.
When I hear “winning hearts,” I immediately remember the lyrics of a song by composer Saadettin Kaynak* and “I have come to make hearts” by the great Turkish Sufi poet Yunus Emre. But the U.S.’ conception of “winning hearts” is different. With its capitalist economy, underpinned by the materialist philosophy, the United States can hardly succeed in its “winning hearts” policy. The U.S. believes that money can buy everything. They can purchase or hire “pens” to carry out a propaganda campaign and believe that this policy will succeed.
In a nutshell, delivering money and privileges are how the U.S. thinks it can win people’s hearts. If only they were aware that money does not buy hearts. American society, with its prevalent materialist philosophy, cannot win hearts because it does not know what heart is in the first place. The U.S. has money, the latest technology and the most powerful army and weapons in the world. But it has no composer like Saadettin Kaynak or no “Great” Yunus Emre to show them the way to conquer the most humane thing we call the heart.
* “He who knows what a heart is,
I would like to give him my heart.
He who is not aware of it
I would like to call ‘callous.’”
Perhaps the most pretentious and ethnocentric article I’ve ever read. It is preposterous to argue that Americans, all 300 Million of them, are incapable of commiseration or empathy and that the US, in an attempt to (over)compensate for this emotional failing, tries to buy the support of states like as Turkey. Americans are some of the most generous people in the world, but its writers like this Turkish schmuck that turn them off to humanitarian aid. After reading his article they think: why bother with foreign aid if foreign media outlets are just going to keep telling their readers to begrudge the US and their so-called heartless humanitarian assistance.
I see the point made here; the US hurt Turkey’s national pride. I also understand that the world’s view of America is what Holywood and Washington DC project. But I would ask that people consider that there are about 2,700 miles between these two cities. There is much more to America than meets the eye. To say that an entire nation is without heart is a gross generalization. Holywood and DC may be without heart, but they do not reflect the feelings, beliefs and practices of the average American citizen.