Well, duh.
The last seven and a half years have seen the world in turmoil. Growth pains due to globalization, the rising challenge of China and India, a newly autocratic Russia, an EU increasingly going its own way economically, and related to that, the slow collapse of NATO as a viable coalition, dying a slow death in the mountains and valleys of Afghanistan.
Oh…did I mention 9/11 and the American invasion and occupation of Iraq?
Those looking for a common thread may be tempted to lump all of these civilization altering changes under the rubric of “Bush’s incompetence” or “Bush’s stupidity.” But seriously now, are you really that shallow and stupid? All of those challenges have been developing for at least a decade or more. The growth and rapid advancement of globalization has resulted in unparalleled economic growth as well as massive economic dislocation. Bush policies have accelerated some of the local effects of globalization – some good some bad. China and India would be on the verge of economic superpower status regardless of anything America could do.
The EU is still trying to emerge from infancy, still unsure of itself politically. It’s economic performance is improving but nowhere near what was promised. Nevertheless, the EU seems willing to strike out on its own and become a separate entity from the US. Europe had always defined itself through its relations with America through NATO. No longer.
And NATO itself is dying. Unable to face the growing challenges in Afghanistan as most of its members refuse to commit combat forces to the fight, NATO’s reason for being is being challenged with no good answers emerging to give justification for its continued existence. It was thought adding former Eastern bloc countries to the organization would reinvigorate it. Instead, it has simply delayed the inevitable.
And then, there is Iraq.
To say that the Iraq War has made America unpopular in the world is something of a misnomer. It would be more accurate to say the war has made us more unpopular. In truth, it is a myth – one generated for obvious political reasons by the left – that post 9/11, the world was on “our side” and that we were an object of affection and that the world was with us.
Poppycock. I’ve been trying to debunk this myth almost since I started blogging. Much more of the planet celebrated the collapse of the WTC than wept. Those that laid flowers at memorial sites or wrote heartfelt missives to America were showing their solidarity with the American people, not our government.
This was made evident less than 48 hours after the attacks when audience members attending the BBC TV show “Question Time” brought the former ambassador Philip Laden to the verge of tears as they blamed America for the attacks:
Mr Lader had been attempting to express his sadness over the attacks when a number of audience members had shouted him down to voice their anti-US opinions. Mr Lader had looked close to tears.At times, David Dimbleby struggled to control the discussion as voices and tempers became raised.
Some audience members said the US was ultimately responsible for the attacks because of its foreign policy.
William Shawcross, stuck in London following 9/11, reported what happened on the TV program “Question Time” and gave voice to the predominant view on the continent and most of the rest of the world regarding America:
But the response of some of the Question Time audience reveals a darker side and shows the awful truth that these days there is just one racism that is tolerated – anti-Americanism. Not just tolerated, but often applauded. Like any other nation, the US makes mistakes at home and abroad. (I wrote about some of those in Indochina.)But the disdain with which its failures and its efforts are greeted by some in Britain and elsewhere in Europe is shocking. Anti-Americanism often goes much further than criticism of Washington. Too often the misfortunes of America are met with glee, a schadenfreude that is quite horrifying.
On Tuesday, I sat watching television numbed by the grief, wondering if anyone I knew had been murdered. Since then, I have been devouring newspapers, attempting to learn more and more of the details. Every day, the agony gets worse. The more details we read of the last phone calls, the emails, the relatives watching those they loved as they died on television, the more personal and intimate this catastrophe becomes – and the more the victims, their families and their society deserve our sympathy.
But I have an awful fear that the solidarity with the US expressed at the United Nations and in Europe this week will not last long. Fundamentalist anti-Americanism will again rear its head, as it did on Question Time. Philip Lader behaved with extraordinary dignity on saying, with tears in his eyes: “I have to share with you that I find it hurtful that you can suggest that a majority of the world despises the US.”
And the Wall Street Journal (“The Myth of Squandered Sympathy“) ices the case that the world was never “with us” after 9/11 with this scathing look at the French and the famous newspaper headline “We are all Americans” which was actually an anti-American editorial:
Thus are legends born. For the solidarity ostentatiously displayed in the title of Mr. Colombani’s editorial is in fact massively belied by the details of the text itself.By the fifth paragraph, Mr. Colombani is offering his general reflections on the geo-political conditions he supposes provoked the attacks:
“The reality is surely that of a world without a counterbalance, physically destabilized and thus dangerous in the absence of a multipolar equilibrium. And America, in the solitude of its power, of its hyperpower, . . . has ceased to draw the peoples of the globe to it; or, more exactly, in certain parts of the globe, it seems no longer to attract anything but hatred. . . . And perhaps even we ourselves in Europe, from the Gulf War to the use of F16s against Palestinians by the Israeli Army, have underestimated the hatred which, from the outskirts of Jakarta to those of Durban, by way of the rejoicing crowds of Nablus and of Cairo, is focused on the United States.”
In the following paragraph, Mr. Colombani went on to add that perhaps too “the reality” was that America had been “trapped by its own cynicism,” noting that Osama bin Laden himself had, after all, been “trained by the CIA”—a never substantiated charge that has, of course, in the meanwhile become chapter and verse for the blame-America-firsters. “Couldn’t it be, then,” Mr. Colombani concluded, “that America gave birth to this devil?”
So much for “solidarity.” The world may have pitied our people. But the record is crystal clear that anti-American feelings were hardly dampened by the attacks on 9/11.
The fact is, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has replaced Russia as the superpower foreigners love to hate. Given all of this, it should come as absolutely no surprise that Barack Obama, according to a massive study by Pew, is favored overwhelmingly by the peoples of the world.
Unfortunately for Barack Obama, citizens of Australia, Japan, Spain and Tanzania won’t have a vote in the November election.A new survey of 47,000 people in 60 languages by the Pew Global Attitudes Project shows that around the world, people who follow the US election view Obama more favourably than Republican nominee John McCain.
The survey in 24 countries confirms Obama as the candidate of choice among those not entitled to vote in the November election.
From gleeful villagers in his father’s native Kenya to a troupe of hula dancers in Obama, Japan, the international community has embraced the Illinois senator in a way unseen in past presidential elections.
While the US electorate is divided about evenly between the two candidates, with Obama currently enjoying a slight lead over McCain in recent polling, 84% of Tanzanians who have been following election news say they have confidence in Obama, while 50% say they have confidence in McCain. Seventy-four percent of Britons expressed confidence in Obama, while only 44% do in McCain, according to the survey.
Those results are reflected in every other country surveyed save Jordan, where 23% surveyed have confidence in McCain, compared to 22% for Obama.
There are many reason why Obama is more popular than McCain. His race gives hope to many. Then there’s 8 years of Bush and Republicans that have soured the GOP brand even overseas.
But the major reason given for preferring Obama is that he will “change American foreign policy.” In fact, Obama is the perfect candidate if you hate America. Not that Obama hates America, just that his policy proposals will enable the America haters around the globe.
It’s no accident that the Iranians, Hamas, Syrians and others who hate the United States prefer an Obama presidency. Obama promises a more compliant America, a less bellicose America, a more deferential America, and a more cooperative America. Some of these changes would be welcome. Others, not. But what has Iran and Syria salivating at the prospect of an Obama presidency is a lot less pressure placed on them by the US to act like responsible international citizens and not the brigands and thugs they wish to be.
Obama – a good and honest liberal – would work within the confines of the United Nations to resolve the various crisis at large in the world today. Bush, in his second term, has tried this and has a spotty record. The biggest failure for the UN in the last few years has been Lebanon where UN forces – UNIFIL - were supposed to stop the resupply of Hizbullah and enforce Security Council resolutions which included the disarming of the terrorist militia.
The result? Utter, total, complete, and embarrassing failure. Same goes for Darfur. The same goes for any and every problem the UN insists it must address with the US in a subservient role.
The world can hate us all they want. Only little children and liberals believe that to be important. What matters is are threats to the peace dealt with or swept under the UN rug? Obama would give it the old college try at the UN but run into the same anti-Americanism, the same bureaucratic inertia that has made problems like Darfur, Lebanon, and the Congo unsolvable. So the choice is America standing in the way of the designs of Syria and Iran (and North Korea) virtually alone or as a “partner” with the UN. Since Obama has been making all the right noises about “multi-lateralism” – not as a policy but almost as religion – the world breathes easier. They can all go back to doing nothing and letting problems like Darfur fester and genocide occur.
Obama would be the perfect post-Bush president – for a large segment of the Anti-American world. Not that it matters. Americans don’t vote for a candidate because of how he is perceived overseas. But perhaps we would do well to ask why our enemies are so anxious to see Obama as president?
9:30 am
At this point in time, pre-convention, we don’t even know for sure who the nominees will be. I have a lot of faith in Hillary’s talent for duplicity, chicanery, stealth and theft!
Nobody knows anything for real right now and in the fullness of time, Senator Obama will be more fully revealed as the unqualified dope he really is!
I’m no real McCain fan BUT after yesterday’s ruling, I want someone nominating justices to SCOTUS who won’t attempt to write legislation as was done in this case!
10:06 am
Well the treaty aka EU constitution bites the dust yet another time today.
Since the numbers CNN is touting from their international polls are even more lop sided for Obama than Kerry had hopefully it will be a wake up call for many to see just how far left Obama really is.
Then again that takes an informed electorate.
11:07 am
Great post. Every dominant power that has ever existed has been on a track of rise, rule, then decline as other powers begin their rise. This will also be true for the United States as the world’s dominant power. This undeniable fact does NOT, however, mean that we have to play along with those who wish to fast forward the process.
America has lead the world in most of the things that allow modern societies to exist and flourish – inventions to enhance productivity and to communicate quickly, ideas to build wealth and share the process with everyone willing to work for it, charitable and governmental systems for sharing our great success with the world, protection for the weak from those who would take advantage of them, and and an environment that allows capitalism to flourish (and regulated suffeciently to curb potential abuses) to fuel payment for all of the good we have created and shared.
Any right thinking person will admit that America has made mistakes, sometimes some real doozies. But the same right thinking people will also readily acknowledge that America has done much more good than bad; in fact, many times over. I am not prone toward isolationism, but we cannot allow the U.N. and other organizations to promote the demise of American strength and leadership.
As flawed as he may be, John McCain seems to understand this basic premise and he will have my albeit somewhat reluctant vote as the best team to work for the betterment of America and the world through our sustained leadership in a very unfriendly and unappreciative world.
12:11 pm
I’ve traveled quite a bit since 9/11, and for the most part I’ve found the following to be true: – The American government, especially with regard to foreign policy, has always been somewhat unpopular, but overall people like Americans and America as a country. – People in other countries were overwhelmingly sympathetic to Americans when 9/11 happened. They became much less sympathetic when we re-elected GWB in 2004. The torture issue and the way we went about the Iraq war seem to be at the top of everyone’s list, and electing him again was a reflection on the American people, not just the government.
I think Republicans should take a critical look at the ‘go it alone’ approach. President Bush is simply an ineffective leader who was not able to rally the kind of coalition necessary to make Iraq a true international effort. Bush Sr. obviously saw the benefit of building a real international coalition for the first Iraq war, and he had the leadership skills to make that happen. The ‘go it alone’ approach is the only option available to Bush because he’s not good at his job, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good policy across the board.
America definitely needs to be able to act in its best interest, and part of that involves making other countries want what we want. I’m not sure if Obama or McCain will be able to do this effectively, but they’ll have a tough time doing it worse than Bush.
12:11 pm
Great article!
Some of the anti-America sentiment is due to jealousy and a victimization complex that sees our success as some inexplicable reason for the failure of others. Many point to the fact that America consumes a disproportionate amount of the world’s oil while generating an excessive amount of carbon emissions and other pollutants.
For them, it’s not enough that America is being penalized in paying a high price for an inefficient society that can no longer sustain its ravenous appetite for energy. This is damaging our economy (huge trade deficit) and national security (compromising relationship with the obnoxious Saudi Arabia). A good deal of our national defense budget can be attributed to the international need to maintain a safe route to market for oil. Instead of being thanked, we are ostracized for our military presence.
At once, we are resented but held responsible in our role as the world-police and the world-emergency responders. We are blamed for allowing genocide to take place in Africa and criticized when we do intervene as being imperialists.
No doubt, Bush’s stated commitment to democratizing the middle-east was naïve, arrogant and counter-productive. We crossed the line when we asserted that preemptive war and regime change were justified in achieving this noble goal. Surely, we thought, given the choice, people will embrace democracy as the vehicle to individual liberty and national prosperity.
Americans are often seen as having an unabashed national egotism and self-righteous attitude that breeds contempt. Many see the US as “gaming the system” because we chose when to comply and operate within the auspices of the UN, IMF, etc.
America should never apologize for having a strong national identity, patriotic pride and a commitment to sovereignty. But, we need to understand that many in the world see this as being in conflict with their vision of internationalism.
Look at what’s happening in Canada and much of Europe. They seem content to give up their freedom of speech in order to eliminate hate speech. We forget that the basic right and demand for free speech is a unique American value.
Your article should remind us that while we should try to be sensitive to world opinion, it must not guide our decisions. You mentioned Lebanon and indeed that is a tragic example of what happens when we rely on world opinion to dictate our policy. Lebanon, a multi-cultural democracy, was handed over to the tyranny of Hezbollah by the UN. In addition to suppressing the Lebanese people they will create havoc along Israel’s border to destabilize any peace initiative.
Obama gives many in the world hope that America may yield to international popularism.
2:11 pm
The possibility of Barack Obama being elected frightens me.
I think we’d be looking back on the Carter Administration with nostalgia.
2:41 pm
An excellent post!
Three comments:
1) Socialist/Communist teachers in Europe have poisoned the minds of generations of students against the US since 1947 or so. These students have gravitated to positions of power and influence now, and are being confirmed in their views by US missteps.
2) Socialism and Communism are still very much alive in many quarters around the world, and Mr. Obama fits their mold very well indeed. So it is not sutrprising that Obama is preferred over McCain there.
3) the Islamic world is obviously delighted with Obama, vice McCain.
All in all, that the US is not all that favored around the world is not very surprising, and that individual US citizens have a better rapport with some foreigners is not surprising either. I am tempted to say “so what?” It goes with the role.
3:55 pm
I agree with the posters on this thread that most people are able to differentiate between the American people and the American government; that certainly has been my experience in my travels. That being said, it should be pretty obvious that most of the world supports Obama because they are sick of Bush and his party. I agree that these feelings should have little influence in deciding whom to vote for, but unless one lives in a bubble, its impossible to say its not a factor. Were I a businessman dependent on exporting American goods, it may even be the deciding factor.
In case you were wondering, 90% of negative comments I hear about America and Bush while I am traveling come from Europeans… and I only travel in Asia!
4:38 pm
I’m living in Italy this year. (Or for as long as I can stand the lack of air conditioning.) I occasionally wear an Obama button into Florence. It gets strange looks, not expressions of support. But then it may be that it looks so much like the artwork for some of Berlusconi’s buttons.
5:14 pm
I think George Bush is a pretty decent man who doesn’t have the historical background to fathom long range concepts of world politics.
Nixon for all his faults probably had this talent more than any president we ever had.
Europe doesn’t have a clue what is happening in the world.
Bankrupt of real leadership Europe is rapidly sliding into a bottomless pit destined for oblivion.
Like so many Americans the people of other western world countries are looking for a savior who will free them
from fear and allow them to remain brain-dead, happily running through the meadows of self delusion without a care in the world.
We are in deep trouble as a nation because the heart and soul of Americanism is being starved by gutless politicians void of true character,and a spineless electorate who want bread and circuses more than freedom.
6:34 pm
America certainly shouldn’t base their decision on who is more popular in the world. That said, i always amazes me what some people call communism or socialism (manning you need a history lesson here). Do you want to tell me that Germany is socialist?
I certainly believe people all around the world still look for American leadership just not in the ‘old Europe’ in your face style. We conservatives have to realize that, like it or not, Europe still is our closest ally. In that sense it is important to mend fences and improve our relations.
10:37 pm
Really, funny man! I did not cite Germany in particular, nor any other nation. I was talking about people in Europe and how they think about the US, and the political leanings of many that I have encountered personally.
After living over there for 13 years, I do have some direct appreciation of Europeans, and how they regard America and Americans.
It is the side comments that are often telling, and they are most likely to be in a native language, so clueless Americans with no language facility are really the fools when they try to comment on Europeans and their attitudes.
Try reading a selection of newspapers from each nation for some years, and you will perhaps become educated. Or are you unable to read German, Dutch, French, Spanish, or anything but English?
Do you really think that the EU is anything but a Socialist Experiment?
12:41 am
This is just a quick follow up and clarification. Manning I hope you didn’t include me in the ‘clueless Americans’ category. The 13 years you spend in Europe hopefully were times well spend. In my case, I am actually German but came to the US because I liked certain things better in the States. Part of my family left Potsdam in 51 to West Germany. So I know ‘socialism’ firsthand and West Germany or now the unified Germany is not socialist. Since you have lived there I don’t have to explain that to you. Sure certain things are different e.g. no Nazi propaganda allowed and perhaps some people would see that as infringement of free speech. However, Germany has their history and as a democratic country they can put in whatever rules they seem fit. You can’t judge a country only through the American lens and that is all what I wanted to point out.
Maybe I hit out on the wrong target and then I apologize (so what I’m adding is not addressed to you). However, it just makes me mad when the Dale Gribble lunatics of the far out fringes make baseless statements regarding in this case Europe. What I didn’t like there was all the bureaucracy, red tape and inflexibility (and that’s why I consider myself a conservative and moved here). However, I do admire Germany for rebuilding the country after WWII and sure, people want security after two world wars and were not open to what Americans call conservatism (although looking through this forum-there doesn’t seem that much consensus here either) but to call the system in Europe … (well it’s getting late and I’m starting to repeat myself). Manning as you then know, Germans love to complain and argue and with a bottle of wine that can go all night long. Ever since the American Revolution there have been people in Europe that looked down on ‘uncultured’ America and people here looked down on ‘decadent’ Europe. Big Deal, I’d still say that Europeans are much closer to the Us culturally and politically than other places in the world.
6:45 pm
Funny man, I can agree with all you said in this last post. As a German by birth, I suspect you have not only a good command of English, but also French, if not more languages. This sets you aside from just about 75 or more percent of Americans that study some language in school, but never master it. For years there was little opportunity to use a foreign language except for those that traveled and dwelled overseas.
We went to Germany many times, and stayed there for months at a time, and my business afforded me extensive contacts there. For reasons of security, I was not permitted to go to Berlin for many years, but the rest of Germany I did visit and enjoy. I consulted with the Ministry of Defense several times when it was in Bonn.
Of late, I spent time in Stuttgart, but my favorite city is Munich. I recall playing open air chess in Schwabbing, and getting my tail beaten as many looked on.
Once you become friendly with Europeans, whether they are German, Dutch, French or Italian (to mention a few) you can have some very fine “discussions” on philosophy, politics, religion, world affairs, and just ordinary living. Lots of hand waving and shouting as the beer or wine takes hold, but all in all a wonderful time. It seems less possible to do that here in America to any real depth—in the circles we go with now at least. Must be an age thing!
AW
12:51 am
Manning,
thanks for the nice reply and kind words. Munich is a nice city but me as a Northerner have other designs (smile)..Don’t let me get started on Bayern Munich. Yes I do miss these long all out discussions, here everything is a bit too PC for my taste. You are right about the other languages but not before enduring years of torture at the hands of sadistic teachers of Latin. At least you can at times sound smart as in “Per aspera ad astra” (through toil to the stars).
However, what I miss most in a lot of conservative blogs is intellectual rigor. Sometimes its ok to have fun but my conservatism is neither based on pathological hatred of democrats nor on some crazy conspiracy theory of the madrassa schooling of Obama etc. Honestly, as some posters have also pointed out there is a big difference between paleoconservatives (as in The American Conservative) and neocon imperialists. You can probably guess that I’m against the Iraq war so I don’t see Obama’s candidacy as only negative. Iraq as a state will never be viable and was really only artificially created by colonial design (by Britain). I just don’t see why America should waste valuable resources to prevent what is going to happen anyway (the partition of the country). To believe that a tribal, arab society can be converted into a democracy is really only a pipedream. I just don’t understand why so many conservatives fall for this nonsense. Anyway, enough of my ramblings. See you in other posts Manning, Tschuess
11:55 am
Funny Man:
There is no argument that our Iraqi endeavors are rather ambitious in a land of tribal allegiences. I happen to believe that we did the right thing in taking down Saddam, despite the lack of finding verifiable large quantities of WMD. The next step, however, that of installing a democracy of some sort, is perhaps a step into the unknown that will hopefully work itself out favorably over time.
Rebuilding the country on the US taxpayer is yet another step which I believe is much too far and too expensive.
But the main alternative is to abandon the people to their fate, so humanitarian considerations come heavily into play. The British tried for 40 years to manage this crowd, and withdrew in the end. We did not want the role of governor or dictator, so we have found ourselves with a nation needing our resources to survive, but not our rule.
The other alternative, that of leaving Saddam in charge would have been equally bad for the people, the region, and the US, but with far more unknowns to contend with, such as Saddam’s vaulting ambitions for the region, as clearly shown by his invasion of Kuwait, and his well-known capability to produce WMD of several types. plus his demonstrated willingness to use them. Old arguments now, but still in force!
Ultimately, there is the question of preemptive strikes as we executed. I happen to believe that they can be justified, though I understand the reluctance of many, who want to wait for the first blow on us. In these times, with the threat of WMD, taking the first blow and losing perhaps millions of citizens is simply not acceptable.
GG
7:32 pm
I come up with a different conclusion on Iraq but that is ok because I don’t claim to know it all and I’m sure you gave this some thought. I agree we can’t just leave now, however, I’d like to know what our goal is in Iraq. Tribal and clan allegiances are usually strong in places that never had a government you could rely on e.g. Iraq. So this is the survival mode they know and looking at present day Iraq it is hard to imagine that people will all of a sudden say “Geez, let’s try a modern democratic state from now on”. Given that, I’m not sure what ‘winning’ is. A stable, half-way benign state would be enough for me (or states)
Anyway, be that as it may. Afghanistan, on the other hand was justified because the government there (indirectly) attacked us.
Now how to deal with preemtive strikes and the likes is a difficult question. Sure, I also wouldn’t want to wait for the first blow but as a minimum, intelligence data must be carefully analyzed. That wasn’t done here. I mean Ahmed Chalaby was (and is) a con-man (Petra bank in Jordan, remember). However, I do think that the US has learned it’s lesson after this disaster and now has much more competent people running the show. More of the realist and less of the neocon type which IMHO is much better.