A recent Boston Globe article has highlighted the same thing (h/t EconomistMom).  More and more studies are now confirming that once a person ‘believes’ something, even facts that prove them wrong do not change their belief.

In case you missed that, even when we are conclusively proved to be wrong, we very often don’t change our belief.  We dismiss the facts rather than change our minds.

Which goes a long way towards explaining things like the Birthers, or why so many intelligent people believe Bush’s tax cuts increased revenue, or (not to pick too much on the right wing) the overwhelming belief among Democrats that George W Bush is stupid.

It also goes a long way towards explaining the influence of entertaining (but factually challenged) political commentators (cough, Glen Beck, cough), and the fervor of their followers.

Unfortunately, it means that one of the goals of this blog – to encourage people to think beyond the sound bite – is ultimately doomed.

But I’m an optimist, and ultimately believe (perhaps despite the facts) that there are those who are willing to at least entertain the idea that if the data doesn’t support their belief, they may need to adjust their belief.

Here’s hoping…

No one puts this better than Thomas Friedman.  In a recent article, Friedman suggests that health care reform may be Obama’s “single most important foreign policy achievement”.

According to an American negotiator, all throughout the arms talks, which paralleled the health care debate, the Russians kept asking: “Can you actually get this ratified by the Senate” if an arms deal is cut? Winning passage of the health care bill demonstrated to the Russians that Obama could get something hard passed.

The rest of the world was watching the health care debate closely, even in Australia.  The passage of the bill put a spring in Obama’s step, but also sent a message to the world that he was a President that could tackle the tough issues.

The view from down under is that a strong American president is a prerequisite for effective foreign (and domestic) policy.  It’s not only Rush Limbaugh that hopes Obama fails, it’s also Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Osama bin Laden.

“The point is made, ‘We don’t waterboard anymore or use extreme interrogation techniques.’ Most of those extreme interrogation techniques and waterboarding were done away with in the Bush administration. They’ve been made officially done away with in this current administration.”

“The Transportation Security Administration created by George Bush is still in action working in our airports; they take care of me every day that I go to an airport.  The Office of the Director of National Intelligence was also created under President Bush, and it is still under President Obama working hard. Our counterterrorism authorities and forces are hard at work. Our law enforcement officials are hard at work. We have gone after the enemy in Afghanistan with 50,000 more troops, more predators are striking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders in Pakistan. We have continued the policies that President Bush put in place with respect to Iraq.

“The bottom line answer is the nation is still at risk. Terrorists are out there. They’re trying to get through. But to suggest that somehow we have become much less safer because of the actions of the administration, I don’t think that’s borne out by the facts.”

Despite Mr Cheney’s rhetoric, Colin Powell recognizes that the US is actually much closer to being safe from Al-Qaeda than it was during Mr Cheney’s administration.

First, the facts.  The Obama administration has reached out to other countries, particularly Muslim countries, in a way that previous administrations have not.  He has already visited Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.  He will be visiting the world’s largest Muslim country, Indonesia, in March.

These trips are part of a concerted effort to change America’s image abroad, and Obama has been extremely successful at this.  He has restored America’s soft power (for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize).  Perceptions of the US around the world have been enormously improved, particularly in Islamic countries.

The policy of the United States living up to its own values by stopping torture and closing Guantanamo, strongly supported by General Petraeus and other high ranking officers, has been instrumental in this change in perceptions.

Iraq is starting to stabilize, largely due to the surge and other strategies implemented by Robert Gates.  The December 09 quarter saw the lowest US casualty rate of any quarter since the war began in 2003.

Pakistan has been aggressive in pursuing the Taliban within its tribal areas.  With Pakistanis viewing the US more favorably, the Pakistani government is able to take these kinds of initiatives.

In 2009, more Al Qaeda fighters and senior leaders have been killed than in 2008. 

Largely as a result of these efforts, Al Qaeda and fellow organizations have increasingly turned to attacking Muslim civilians.  As these attacks continue, and the perception of the US improves, the number of Muslims supporting Al Qaeda continues to plummet.

As Peter Beinart put it recently:  In countries like Pakistan and Jordan, where al Qaeda keeps slaughtering innocent Muslims, its public support has fallen off a cliff. During the Bush years, the only thing that kept al Qaeda from complete ideological collapse was Muslim hatred of America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, our unblinking support for Muslim dictatorships and for Israel, and our use of torture at places like Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. Now Obama, by pledging to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and close Gitmo, and by eschewing torture … is cutting al Qaeda’s throat.

In short, the US is much closer to winning the war against Al Qaeda now than when Obama took office. 

But apparently, the Republicans would rather have tough talk and less progress.

According to the poll, in 2006 Japan was the country trusted by most Australians (73%) to act responsibly in the world, followed by India (68%).   China and the US tied for third – only 60% of Australians trusted the US to act responsibly in the world.  More tellingly, in 2006 39% of Australians did not trust the US to act responsibly in the world.  More Australians felt that way about the US than about China, India, or Japan.

The latest poll shows a remarkable change.  The US now leads the list of trusted countries, with 83%.  The percentage that did not trust the US dropped to 18% – the lowest of any country and less than half the number of three years ago.

In large part, this reflects the repair to the damage to US prestige caused over the last 10 years.  There was a clear perception that the US was not interested in dialog, not interested in engagement and consensus, and not particularly concerned with what any other country thought.  Whether this is an accurate reflection of US foreign policy is irrelevant – it was undeniably the perception.

That perception has now changed, and changed dramatically.

Although President Obama has shifted US foreign policy, there has been little time for that policy to work.  It is also true that many of Obama’s policies will be substantially the same as Bush’s – pursuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, sanctions against Iran until they shelve their nuclear arms intentions, and etc.

But words have power.  Using phrases like “we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist”, instead of “axis of evil”, Obama has managed to shift global perception of the United States in a powerful way.

This is important for a number of reasons, but I’ll leave you with just one.  If the US wants to convince the leader of a democratic country to act in concert on an issue, how that country’s citizens view the US has a huge impact on how receptive the leader is to the US approach, and thus has a major impact on the ability of the President to gather international support.

In 2005, the Treasurer of Australia, Peter Costello, said:  “If you can’t agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country which practices it, perhaps, then, that’s a better option.”

“I’d be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that that is false.  There’s only one law in Australia – it’s the law that’s made by the parliament of Australia and enforced by our courts. There is no second law.”

A Pakistani newspaper ran an article after Costello’s comments that said:  “Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks”.

Costello’s party lost the next election in 2007, and Kevin Rudd (leader of the Labour Party) was elected as Prime Minister.  Kevin Rudd speaks Mandarin Chinese.

Later, in January 2008, a former policeman and manager at the state rail’s security division allegedly sent an email that said, inter alia, “Immigrants not Australians must adapt. Take it or leave it. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture … We speak English, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian or any other language.” and “This is our country, our land, our lifestyle and we will allow every opportunity to enjoy all this.  But once you are done complaining, whining and griping about our flag, our pledge, our national motto, our way of life, I highly encourage you to take advantage of one other great Australian freedom. If you are not happy here then move.”

The manager denied he had sent the email, but was still sacked.  (Incidentally, the email clearly originated in the US.  Australians typically say ‘whinging’ instead of ‘whining’, very few people in Australia speak Spanish, and there is no Australian pledge or official national motto).

Why do I bring up this old news?  From time to time I receive the email below – although every year it sprouts an extra paragraph or two – and it came along again last  week.

America, Canada, all Europe ……. needs a President like this.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd – Australia

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

Separately, Howard [refers to former Prime Minister John Howard, Kevin Rudd’s predecessor] angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation’s mosques…

Quote: ‘IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.’

‘This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom. We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, Learn the Language!’

‘Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.’

‘We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.’

‘This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this.. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.’

If you agree, please SEND THIS ON…

Or you could hit “Reply All” with a link to this post.

But the most important outcome of the meeting was the agreement to replace the G8 with the G20. The G8 (or G7, or before that, G6) has been meeting periodically since 1975 to discuss coordinated response to global issues.

Why is this important? The G8 excludes China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, and other large, fast growing economies. Replacing the G8 with the G20 is seen in these countries as a major recognition of their place on the world stage, and is likely to have a significant impact on the willingness of these countries to cooperate on things like protectionism, climate change, and tax evasion.

The exclusion from these talks has been a major point of contention as these countries (particularly China) have felt left out of the world stage. Every time the G8 meet to decide the future of the world, it is seen as a snub, and in most of these countries face is important. Continued loss of face (or perceived loss of face) would likely have eventually manifested itself in non-cooperation or worse. Replacing the G8 with the G20 removes this pressure and increases the likelihood of real progress on things like protectionism, clean growth, and financial regulation.

Not surprisingly, this does not seem to have been picked up much in the US press, who focused more on the goal of increased bank regulation and then moved quickly on to Iran and the Pope’s spider. However in the press of the 12 new member countries, this is definitely front page stuff.

And yes, even Australia now has a seat at the expanded table.