Among the many criticisms made of the Bush administration is that its policies have left America isolated and given it a bad image in the world that needs radical repair. What is not being said is that there are many issues which explain the reality of global anti-Americanism. While huge numbers of words have been expended “explaining” anti-Americanism in the current presidential campaign, these have shed little light. A reality check is needed.
It is true that anti-Americanism has become the only serious competitor to soccer as a global sport; that in many places it has reached a level of stridency rarely seen before; and that it has roots much older than the presidency of George W. Bush. Beyond that, however, to look at the causes and manifestations of the phenomenon one has to make certain key distinctions, often missed, more often than not on purpose.
The most immediately evident is the relationship between the end of the Cold War and the growth of negative attitudes toward the United States. Prior to the Soviet collapse, national interest for those on the anticommunist side in what used to be called the third world demanded a muting of ill feelings toward the only available protector–Washington. Today, what could be described as nationalist or leftist parties in Europe, from Spain to Greece to France, and Islamist regimes elsewhere can both afford to be openly anti-American as well; hence the growth of that sentiment in increasingly nationalistic Turkey, the Philippines, and Korea, and its persistence in Paris, London and Berlin. In the latter case, the present global financial crisis only adds another (false) argument against “American” capitalism, never mind that Europe is in worse financial shape. In Latin America, which is now going through one of its cyclical love affairs with leftism and populism, the story is simpler still. For a Chavez, Correa or Morales to be anti-American goes naturally with being statist, incompetent, and strident.
(Western) Europe is the most oft-mentioned case of our allies turning against us because of our wrong-headed policies and arrogant behavior. But, as in Latin America, among elites, hostility to the United States is old hat –over a century old in the case of France, the intellectual leader of Europe. It is hostility against the uncivilized big upstart from across the ocean (hence the derision of “cowboys” Reagan and Bush); envy and, yes, resentment toward the liberators of an impotent Europe in 1945. For many on the European Right America is a threat to national identity (see Jean-Marie Le Pen in France), its free-wheeling capitalism a competitor to statism, and more generally a symbol of a globalization feared by nationalists everywhere.
In Russia the growing and very popular anti-Americanism is part and parcel of the resurgence of Moscow’s imperial ambitions, with Washington being seen as the principal obstacle to the fulfillment of those ambitions.
In the Islamic world the very same civilizational decline and frustration that made Al Qaeda possible and still helps its appeal grow in places like Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh makes the United States–the most present and thus painful symbol of Muslim economic, political and cultural backwardness–a natural scapegoat, at both elite and mass levels. In some ways this is the same game as in Latin America: encourage hatred for the big foreigner to distract attention from the local abusive ruler who, at least, is one of your own. It is also less than surprising that some Arab elites are hopeful for a new Cold War, which would allow their regimes to play the ugly American against the admittedly infidel but friendly (and full of promises and cheap guns) Russians.
One of the causes of the spreading of anti-Americanism in Europe and the Islamic world is its association with anti-Semitism. The two are joined at the hip by the same glue of impotence and envy. Unable to destroy Israel, Islamists blame America for supporting it because that is easier than admitting their own disunity and backwardness. Many among the European elites, and some populists, also blame “Zionism” (often a code word for Israel) for both the problems of the Middle East and, more recently, for their own countries’ problems with the masses of Muslim immigrants. Of course, as everyone “knows,” Israel is still around only because Jews control Washington’s policies–on this there is a meeting of the minds between jihadis and the ultra-secular “progressives.”
In many places, Latin America and some European countries among them, there is a distinct difference between elite anti-Americanism and popular indifference or even friendship toward the Americans and even their government. That is the only logical explanation why elected leaders Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, Silvio Berlusconi or Gordon Brown–none of whom are anti-Americanare leaders of their important countries. As for Eastern Europe and Africa, the two areas where anti-Americanism does not thrive (yet?), there are good reasons for this. When countries were treated as Russian/Soviet colonies and denied national identity in the name of a “proletarian internationalism”enforced by tanks, neither socialism nor hostility to the values represented by the United States can easily take root. And when the United States has never been present as a colonial power and is the main aid donor, Africans have little incentive to hate Americans.
Many conservatives, President Bush among them, complain that anti-Americanism is due to ignorance and America’s ineffectiveness in making its case. They are wrong on all counts. America is known throughout the world, but it is the wrong America, that of its native critics and enemies, that is known: Hollywood movies obsessed with hatred for capitalism, the military and the CIA; Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore’s obsessive hatred of ordinary Americans and their elected representatives; idiotic rappers; and guilt-ridden academics.
And then there is the old schizophrenia of America’s views of the world. The world is or it should be like us, but we do not particularly like to interfere, to be “ global policemen,” especially when it costs too much. In their own differently misguided and arrogant ways, both President Bush and the militant “human rights” activists pursue the same kind of moral imperialism: the former with his dangerous understanding of democracy as a vital and universal commodity for export–whether there is a market for it or not, and the latter by promoting the thinking of Vermont or California “progressive” judges as “international standards.” This moral imperialism is as inappropriate as it is resented elsewhere There is also the naive but so American belief that being the biggest donors of foreign aid–public and private–should result in the foreigners being grateful. Unsurprisingly, that does not happen–not in Sumatra, Egypt, Jordan or Pakistan–because American aid is taken as natural or, more often than not, is seen as a form of ”reparations” for past, mostly imaginary, sins.
None of those complaining about America’s bad image in the world or its (occasional) lack of allied support ever ask an important question: is it possible, just possible, that in at least some issues (think Iran) America may be right and the mythical “international community” wrong? When President Bush stated that on the issue of terrorism there are only two possible positions–for or against–he was accused of unilateralism and arrogance. But we are never told what would be a third position!
For many years the sophisticated Europeans have engaged in negotiations with Iran, with U.S. support. The result is that Iran is now closer than ever to becoming a nuclear power. Could it be that the Europeans have replaced real diplomacy–one based on real power–with talks intended to obscure their absolute lack of both will and capabilities? Could it be that our European allies’ clinging on United Nations’ blessings for any action are supported by a very fragile reed indeed–one that is dependent on the approval of Moscow and Beijing? That the UN, far from being the necessary source of international law, is the collective voice of a majority of countries who are neither democratic nor restrained by any law? Given these realities, is the United States’ occasionally taking action without UN approval wrong?
Anti-Americanism will continue to thrive unless the American public understands the problem–an unlikely prospect considering our educational establishment’s encouragement of national guilt. One of the most important, if not the most important, reasons for this is that it is largely cost-free. It is the Bush White House that is criticized at home for shunning Europe’s most vocal anti-American leader, Spain’s Jose Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, the critics implying that Washington should turn the other cheek.
Another question that is never posed is what if the U.S. invasion of Iraq had been successful and very brief, rather than mishandled, costly and protracted. Would anti-Americanism, at least that version using Iraq as a pretext, be stronger or much weaker, rooted in the ignorant masses or just a handful of isolated pseudo-intellectuals?
Anti-Americanism is both a real and a global phenomenon. It has to be dealt with, in the long term, by engaging in realistic policies and attracting allies, not by masochistic exercises, public relations gimmicks, or unilateral concessions. The Michael Moore/Sean Penn/Noam Chomskys in this country are just an irritation here and abroad; to actively seek an accommodation with various foreign anti-American forces in order to make the United States “loved” would be a disaster. The United States, like other countries, seeks good feelings abroad, but the promotion of our interests remains paramount, based on respect and even fear rather than “love.” It is time to become serious–even during a presidential campaign.
Michael Radu is Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Research Institute Co-Chair, Center on Terrorism and Counterterrorism, Philadelphia
It is , of course , better and easier to make love than war. However , sometimes is more useful to make firstly war and than love , in much better conditions and for a much longer time. I mean when we choose to make love firstly , one will be possible to manage a more painful war…It is another version of “si bi pacem, para bellum”.
After the end of the cold war (when the Soviets collapsed) , the so called “Evil’s Empire” – according to the ex – President Reagan – disappeared (at least in principle !) and people tried to find another one (sometimes only to cover their weaknesses and frustrations). Since the USA remained the only super – power….
As I know, many Latin American countries always deviated to leftism or populism for to hide their dictatorship or incompetence.
Arrogance and wrong – headed policy is not enough , in my view, to justify Western Europe turning against the USA. Let me remind you , for instance, the possibility to registrate any phone call of any American citizen, at least as I know from mass media . That is an extra reason which strengthen the anti – Americanism all over the world. People don’t like to be constrained too much…
“…the liberators of an impotent Europe in 1945? “. Why not in 1917, too, Mr. Michael Radu.
“America …it’s free wheeling capitalism a competitor to statism…”. Excepting the recent bailout plan, where the intervention of the State was decisive…
The tendency to distract attention from the local abusive ruler is valid whenever an “abusive ruler” exists. It works like a protection of own abuses.
“there is a distinct difference between elite anti – Americanism and popular indifference…”. I think it is just I remarked before : elites are more sensible to human rights and the sense of freedom – they pay more attention to private rights or free – mind, Hollywood included.
There is, of course, a nonzero probability that America is right in the, for example, Iran issue. Nobody gave solid arguments that America is wrong, at least as I know. To say that the White House is wrong simply because it looks for a decisive way to solve the Iran problem is not enough. May be that is the only way to cut “the Gordian Knot”.
Did the UN solve international problems (for instance, to stop a civil war somewhere in the world) ? If yes, that means it is effective and, therefore, the United States need its approval to take action.
Is the Spanish leader J. L. R. Zapatero Europe’s most vocal anti – American ? I try an explanation : his closeness to Latin American countries (those of Spanish language, of course).
“…attracting allies…” is a neglected issue, I think. Perhaps the USA do not support enough the Eastern Europe countries …to whom they were not “the liberators” in 1945.
They don’t need “unilateral concessions” but firm actions.
N.Red. Domnule Culetu, puteși scrie în limba română, domnul Radu o vorbește la fel de bine ca dumneavoastră.
Mai am cateva observatii: nu inteleg de ce puneti in ghilimele sintagma „drepturile omului”. Nu sunteti de acord ca ele exista? Alti Republicani sunt totusi de acord!
In respectarea drepturilor omului a constat maretia trecuta a Americii. Este un semnal de alarma faptul ca le considerati azi doar o bagatela.
Am totusi o intrebare: in trecut, Ceausescu a calificat orice critica a „stilului sau de conducere” un atac la adresa…Romaniei! De ce calificati si dvs orice critica a stilului de conducere al lui George Bush drept … antiamericanism?
Pentru ca a critica ultimii opt ani de conducere a Americii nu inseamna a fi anti-american. Aproape 80% din americani exprima direct aceasta critica. Faptul ca dvs ii puneti si pe multi intelectuali americani adevarati in categoria „antiamericanistilor” spune multe.
Si Pat Robertson critica zi de zi „marxistii, comunistii si liberalii de la Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley etc”.
Pentru el toti care nu iau in serios religia lui sunt dracul impielitzat in persoana.
Nu domnule Radu, eu nu cred ca exista antiamericanism in lume. In Romania, cum stiti, americanii sunt oricand bine primiti. Si restul europenilor ii admira atunci cand nu pretind sa fie tratati ca niste regi. Cand omori un om cu masina si nu primesti nici o pedeapsa, (ca incidentul cu seful pazei Ambasadei Americane in Bucuresti) starnesti totusi resentimente. La fel, cand dl Bush a exprimat vederi antediluviene, s-a expus singur criticilor.
AMERICA are destule calitati care trebuie subliniate si intretinute. Nu-si poate permite sa dea cu piciorul in drepturile omului, pentru ca provoaca o dezamagire imensa. Nu-si poate permite sa fie aroganta cu restul lumii. Iar cand are de a face cu Orientul Mijlociu, un presedinte care nu a citit nici macar „o mie si una de nopti” nu cunoaste nimic despre mentalitatea de acolo si nu poate lua decizii corecte.
Adevarul este ca dl Bush ar fi obtinut cu mult mai multe daca ar fi cunoscut macar aproximativ mentalitatea din Orientul Mijlociu.
Trebuie oameni culti si in conducerea americana. Stiu ce veti spune, ca numai un stat puternic si stabil ca SUA isi poate permite sa aiba un presedinte neinformat. Da, dar sunt si consecinte.
Am discutat si cu arabi, si cu iranieni, care mi-au marturisit parerea lor buna despre America. Daca sustinerea drepturilor omului (pe care dvs le puneti intre ghilimele) ar fi fost o politica constanta a SUA, acest stat ar fi avut cu mult mai multi prieteni.
Stiti ce reproseaza multi arabi Americii? Ca guvernul american sustine dictaturi corupte in Arabia Saudita, in Egipt si in alte state musulmane. Si au perfecta dreptate. Prin acest lucru evolutia spre democratie este subminata, creind o tensiune care ajuta fundamentalistii musulmani, carora le face jocul.
Si v-as ruga sa nu neglijati drepturile omului in discutia dvs: sa nu uitati ca ultimul terorist musulma judecat in SUA a spus ca „ura lui pentru America e determinata de faptul ca aici se indragostesc barbati de alti barbati”. Tineti minte?
Ca dl Bush, nu?
O politica cu fundul in doua luntri cum a dus dl Bush nu poate aduce nimic bun. O pozitie politica clara, principiala, i-ar marginaliza pe teroristii musulmani, si ar face sa fie vazuti drept ceea ce sunt: niste fanatici aterizati pe pamant din comuna primitiva.
Spunand toate acestea, vreau sa va spun ca si eu, pe langa ca sunt roman, sunt si american. Deci doresc Americii numai bine, pentru ca cred intr-adevar ca este un factor moderator in lume. Cu totii datoram mult Americii, cu toate defectele ei. Faptul ca nu ma situez ca dvs la dreapta, nu ma face mai putin american.
Si nici pe cei 80% californieni care nu voteaza cu Republicanii extremisti. Sau pe tot corpul intelectualilor de la toate universitatile americane adevarate (nu de la „universitatea” Liberty…)
Stimate domnule Radu,
Cred ca aveti dreptate numai in proportie de …50-60%. Punctul dvs de vedere este cel al americanilor Republicani si el contine si niste inexactitati si treceri cu vederea (as zice niste „aproximatii”) destul de suparatoare.
Stiu ca in SUA exista tendinta de a pune blamul numai pe „ultra-stangisti” pentru anti-semitism. Este total incorect. In definitiv Pat Buchanan nu este in nici un caz nici liberal nici comunist si nici ultra-progresiv, ci face parte din dreapta spectrului politic (as zice dreapta neinterventionista, pentru care SUA trebuie sa nu se amestece in nici o problema internationala si chiar sa iasa din ONU).
Tocmai el a formulat teoria cea mai virulent anti-semita, dupa care „Congresul American este un teritoriu ocupat de statul Israel”. Nu ma indoiesc ca dvs stiti asta.
In al doilea rand a da vina exclusiv pe straini (europeni, arabi, etc) pentru situatia jalnica a imaginii Americii de azi este incorect. Trebuie sa va amintesc ca SUA avea un prestigiu mare in lume chiar si sub alti presedinti republicani, ca Reagan, care erau si mai „de dreapta” decat G. Bush. Gafele mari pe care le-a facut acest ultim presedinte sunt de vina in mare parte de imaginea de azi a Americii.
Conducerea falimentara din toate punctele de vedere a ultimului presedinte trebuie neaparat luata in considerare cand analizam problema.
Nici macar calaii secolului al 20-lea, Hitler si Stalin, nu au pretins ca nu respecta conventiile de la Geneva privind prizonierii de razboi, indiferent de faptul ca nu le-au respectat deloc. De acum incolo SUA au creat un precedent oficial pentru nerespectarea lor.
Stiu, argumentul opus este ca nu se putea altfel. Problema este spinoasa, dar rezolvarea ei in acest mod a creat un val de iritare in lume. Nu putem compara metodele musulmane (decapitarea) cu politica americana, mult mai umana. Dar acum au ajuns in opinia publica mondiala la fel. Apoi scandalurile de la Abu Ghraib si altele nu au avut nici ele efecte pozitive; lipsa totala de control si-a spus cuvantul.
Faptul ca G.Bush a pus paza la Ministerul Petrolului in Irak, dar nu si la exceptionalul muzeu de arheologie a dus la pierderea oricarei stime din partea oamenilor de stiinta. De atunci incolo va pot spune ca opinia multora despre America s-a deteriorat considerabil. Sintagma „America Inculta” a ajuns sa simbolizeze si absenta respectului pentru cultura.
Sfortarea fara precedent a presedintelui sa mai adauge la Constitutia americana si un amendament care in loc sa extinda, limiteaza drepturile unor americani nu a produs nici ea un munte de admiratie in Europa (si a intarit in restul lumii homofobia, la care vad ca nu v-ati referit deloc, spre deosebire de antisemitism).
Dar mai ales faptul ca presedintele Americii a considerat ca actioneaza in numele dumnezeului religiei sale, care, evident este de partea Americii, a starnit dezgust. Cqre mai este atunci diferenta dintre el si conducatorii musulmani, care fac la fel?
Dar poate partea cea mai negativa a administratiei Bush a reprezentat-o ipocrizia manifesta a ei. Fostul sau strateg, Karl Rove, de exemplu, este agnostic, dar s-a jucat cu sentimentele religioase ale extremei drepte si chiar ale dreptei in general, ca sa-i aduca pe toti la urne. El are copiii intr-o scoala frecventata si de copii ai unor homosexuali, cu care ete prietenos, dar a afisat pareri homofobe „pentru uzul prostimii”.
Toate acestea sunt adevaruri pe care lumea le percepe, le vede. Sper ca urmatorul presedinte va reusi sa analizeze mai bine situatia si sa traga concluziile corecte.